HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 11/01/2007 (3)PROP' OF
FORT L'S UTMUTM5
Addendum to the
Final Drainage and
Erosion Control Study
--
Front Range Village
Fort Collins, Colorado
October 24, 2007
PREPARED FOR:
Paragon Properties
7202 E. Carefree Drive
S-200
Carefree, AZ 85377
PREPARED BY:
Stantec Consulting Inc.
209 South Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
'
Stantec Consulting Inc
209 South Meldrum Street
'
Fort Collins CO 80521-2603
Tel: (970) 482-5922 Fax: (970) 482-6368
stantec.com
Stantec
1
October 24, 2007
1
Mr. Basil Hamden
City of Fort Collins
'
Water Utilities— Stormwater
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: Addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Front Range Village
Dear Mr. Hamden:
We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Addendum to the Drainage and
Erosion Control Study for the Front Range Village. This addendum is necessary for building and
parking lot expansion within the Harmony Corporate Center. Changes to the existing drainage study
are summarized within the text of this study. All computations within this study 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,
Stantec
Prepared by:
/�n
Senior
r
'illkomm, P.E.
ect Engineer
Harmony Corporate Center Addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
City of Fort Collins For Front Range Village
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'
DESCRIPTION PAGE
't
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION................................................................
1
A. Location.............................................................................................................................
I'
'
B. Description of Property ....................................................................................................1
C. Drainage Concept...............................................................................................................1
'
II. DRAINAGE BASINS.......................................................................................................
2
A. Major Basin Description..................................................................................................
2
B. Sub -basin Description........................................................................................................
2
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA.................................................................................
2
'
A. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints.........................................................
2
B. Hydrologic Criteria...........................................................................................................
2
C. Hydraulic Criteria............................................................................................................
2
D. Variance.............................................................................................................................3
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN..................................................................................
3
A. General Concept................................................................................................................
3
'
B. Specific Details...................................................................................................................
B.1 Modified City Master Drainage Plan..........................................................................
3
3
B.2 Storm Water Quality...................................................................................................
4
'
13.3 Storm Sewer Design...................................................................................................
BA Subbasin Description
4
4
..................................................................................................
V. EROSION CONTROL.........................................................................................................
5
'
VI. CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................
6
A. Compliance with Standards..............................................................................................
6
'
B. Drainage Concept..............................................................................................................
6
C. Storniwater Quality Concept...........................................................
'
VII. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................7.
' Stantec Consulting, Inc. - i August 2007
Harmony Corporate Center
City of Fort Collins
Addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
For Front Range Village
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A — EPA SWMM 5.0 HYDROLOGY
APPENDIX B — RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY
DEVELOPED 10-YEAR STORM EVENT
DEVELOPED 100-YEAR STORM EVENT
APPENDIX C — INLET SIZING
INLET SIZING — UDINLET
APPENDIX D — STORM SEWER DESIGN & RIP RAP SIZING
PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN MAP
Stantec Consulting, Inc. - ii -
i ltw, 116T14WI
August 2007
G
Harmony Corporate Center Addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
City of Fort Collins For Front Range Village
' I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
' The Harmony Corporate Center site is situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 32,
' Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6`h Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County
of Larimer, State of Colorado and comprises approximately 14 acres. Harmony Corporate
Center is located to the North and east of the intersection of Ziegler Road and Harmony
' Road. The project site is bounded on the South by Harmony Road, to the north and west by
Front Range Village.
' For the purposes of this study, the Harmony Corporate Center will be referred to as the
"site". This project includes improvements to the existing parking lot for additional parking
stalls and expansion for a new building to the south of the existing building. Shared access
' improvements off Harmony Road will be constructed with Front Range Village.
B. Description of Property
' The Harmony Corporate Center consists of, approximately 13.94 acres and currently
developed as a commercial office building. The site will be expanded to include a new three
' story office space. The project site is paved with asphalt and concrete and generally slopes to
the southeast and east at slopes of 1 % to 2% to an existing detention pond.
' C. Drainage Concept
' Runoff from the Harmony Corporate Center will be conveyed to the on -site pond via
overland flow, curb and gutter, cross -pans, inlets and storm sewer systems. A new storm
' sewer is proposed to intercept runoff and direct flow to the existing pond. See the proposed
drainage basin map located in a pocket in the Appendix. The existing pond on the site
provides 5.3 acre-feet of detention for the site as well as some areas of the Front Range
Village development.
The on -site pond, Pond E and Pond F will also function in series. The discharge from the
' Paragon pond will pass through Ponds E & F prior to being discharged into the existing 18"
culvert under Ziegler Road. The existing 18" culvert discharges into the drainage channel on
the HP Harmony Campus site.
Stantec Consulting, Inc. - 1 - AuguSt 2007
Harmony Corporate Center Addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
City of Fort Collins For Front Range Village
' II. DRAINAGE BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
' The Harmony Corporate Center is located within the Fox Meadows Drainage Basin. The
' Fox Meadows Drainage Basin generally flows south to north.
B. Sub -basin Description
The overall design of the parking was reviewed to adjust basin boundaries established with
by the Symbios Logic Site Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and to recalculate the change
in basin areas. In general most of the basins remain similar to the original design.
' The site was also divided into 2 SWMM sub -basins 057 and 506 in order to determine the
volume of required on -site detention. Runoff from these basins is routed to the onsite Pond
' and Pond F in Front Range Village. These boundaries remain the same as in the Final Front
Range Village Drainage Study. The sub -basin map is located in a pocket within the
Appendix.
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
' The design criteria, constraints, and recommendations utilized for this Drainage Study were
obtained from the City of FortCollins Master Plan and the Fox Meadows Basin Drainage
Master Plan Update.
B. Hydrologic Criteria
Since the site is less than 160-acres, the Rational Method was used to calculate developed
stormwater runoff. The 10-year and 100-year storm events were used in calculating rational
runoff values and the City of Fort Collins intensity duration frequency curves were used to
obtain rainfall data for each storm specified. Rational Method computations are provided in
' the Appendix. Only the 100-year storm event was used in calculating ModSWMM and EPA
SWMM 5.0 runoff values.
C. Hydraulic Criteria
All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the City
of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are included in the Appendix. The:detention pond
sizing was computed using ModSWMM and EPA SWMM 5.0.
Stantec Consulting, Inc. - 2 - August 2007
Harmony Corporate Center Addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
City of Fort Collins For Front Range Village
D. Variance
' The City of Fort Collins Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual requires 1.0 ft of freeboard
for all detention ponds. The existing Paragon pond provides 0.80 ft of freeboard as originally
' designed with Front Range Village.
' IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
' A. General Concept
The majority of the runoff produced by the Harmony Corporate Center flows via curb and
' gutter, cross -pans, 'inlets, and storm pipe to the pond on site and Pond F in Front Range
Village. The Rational Method has been used to size the new on -site storm sewer system.
There are no site changes proposed which would significantly change any of the offsite flow
' conditions which enter the site from the northern half of Harmony Road. Runoff is reduced
to existing inlets and therefore not analyzed for existing inlet conditions.
' B. Specific Details
B.1 Modified City Master Drainage Plan
' The City of Fort Collins Master Drainage Plan ModSWMM model was modified to reflect
changes necessary with the expansion of the parking lot.
' For Basin 205 and Basin 250 the total area remains the same but the impervious changed. In
' basin 205 impervious decreased to 78.4%. Basin 250 the impervious increased to 81.6%.
The calculated water surface did not have as significant change.
' The pond release rate and operation will remain the same. Detention pond F still receives
inflows from the existing Harmony Corporate Center detention pond (205). Detention pond
F drains to detention Pond E. Detention pond E will discharge through the existing 18"
' storm sewer pipe under Ziegler Road to the existing channel on the East side of Ziegler
Road.
u
Copies of the SWMM5.0 results can be found in the Appendix of this report.
Stantec Consulting, Inc. - 3 -
August 2007
Harmony Corporate Center Addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
City of Fort Collins For Front Range Village
' B.2 Storm Water Quality
' The State of Colorado requires Stormwater Management Plans as part of their permit
process. The final drainage report will seek to find various Best Management Practices for
the treatment of storm water runoff that could be implemented in the construction phase of
the project as well as after the completion of the project. The Front Range Village will be
providing six grass lined detention ponds (on -site), four of which will be equipped with a
water quality discharge control structure with a 40-hour release time. These water quality
' ponds will provide a mechanism for pollutants to settle out of the stormwater runoff before
flows are directed to the drainage channel on the HP Harmony Campus.
' B.3 Storm Sewer Design
The storm drain design for the Harmony Corporate Center will meet the 10-year storm
' .drainage inlet and pipe design criteria set forth by the. City of Fort Collins. NeoUDSewer
was utilized for computing the hydraulic grade lines for the proposed storm sewer systems.
The minimum velocity in the proposed storm sewer systems was set at 2 feet/second (fps) to
prevent silting. Based on the results of NeoUDSewer, the hydraulic grade line along the
length of the pipe, and energy grade line at the inlets, is below the ground surface or less than
0.50 feet above the ground in the parking lot. Inflows to the storm sewer were calculated
' using the rational method. Flow was evaluated using the tailwater condition with pond water
surface corresponding to the routed peak time of concentration. The resulting pond depth is
at elevation 4925.15 at the peak flow time of concentration.
' CDOT Type R inlets were sized based on flows computed using the rational method and
using UDInlet, a spreadsheet created by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District.
' Gutter flows during the 10-year storm event are maintained within the curb and gutter
section. If overtopping were to occur during a 100-year event, the building pad elevations
were set so that they will not be inundated. Clogging factors of 0.2, 0.15, and 0.1 were
' applied to 5', 10' and 15' Type R inlets, respectively.
B.4 . Sub basin Description
The site has been subdivided into sub -basins in order to determine runoff at the concentration
' points for the new storm sewer inlets. The attributed runoffs from the majority of the basins
are routed to the on -site detention pond within the property boundary. A sub -basin map
illustrating the subbasin characteristics is located in the pocket pockets in the Appendix of
' this report. The following is a summary of basin changes.
' Stantec Consulting, Inc. - 4 - August 2007
t
Harmony Corporate Center
City of Fort Collins
Addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
For Front Range Village
J
Basin 1
The total area of Basin 1 remains the same. The impervious area increased by 0.03 acres
with the addition of two parking spaces on the west and parking within the formerly
landscaped, central island.
Basin 2
The total area of basin 2 decreased by 0.14 acres and an additional 0.20 acres of impervious
area was created with parking in the landscaped island.
Basin 3
There is no significant change to basin 3. New building area replaces paved parking lot.
Basin 4
There is no significant change to basin 4. Additional impervious area increased 0.07 acres
with.addition of the bay of parking on the north.
Basin 5
The total area of basin 5 increased by 0.15 acres taken from basin 2. An additional 0.38 acres
impervious area resulted from addition of parking lot to the west. Basin 5 was split to
calculate runoff for a new inlet.
Basin 7
Basin 7 was split to calculate runoff for a new inlet.
Basin 6. 8 and 9
There is no significant change to these basins.
■ Basin 9 and IO
These basins are split from original Basin 5 and Basin 7 draining to an existing inlet.
' V. EROSION CONTROL
This development lies within the Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the Moderate Wind
Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. There should be minimal erosion
problems after completion of the Harmony Corporate Center. Silt fence will be installed
along the North and East sides of the site to prevent sediment from leaving the site. A
vehicle -tracking pad will also be placed at entrance to the east shared access drive. A straw
' bale barrier will be placed at the outfall to the pond and at the pond outlet. Wattle inlet filters
will be placed at the opening of the existing and proposed Type R inlets. During the
construction all disturbed areas will be permanently landscaped or temporarily seeded and
' mulched within 30 days of initial disturbance.
All disturbed areas not in a roadway or greenbelt area shall have temporary vegetation seed
' applied within 30 days of initial disturbance. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be
applied over the seed at a rate of 1.5-tons/acre minimum, and the mulch shall be adequately
anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. Those roads that are to be paved as part of the
' project must have a 1-inch layer of gravel mulch applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre
immediately after overlot grading is completed. The pavement structure shall be applied
within 30 days after the utilities have been installed.
Stantec Consulting, Inc. -5- August 2007
' Harmony Corporate Center Addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
City of Fort Collins For Front Range Village
If the disturbed areas will not be constructed upon within one growing season, a permanent
' seed shall be applied. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed at a
minimum rate of 1.5 tons/acre, and the mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked or
crimped into the soil. In the event a portion of the roadway pavement surface and utilities
will not be constructed for .an extended period of time after overlot grading, a temporary
vegetation seed and mulch shall also be applied to the roadway areas as previously discussed.
' All construction activities must also comply with the State of Colorado permitting process
for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. A Colorado Department
' of Health NPDES permit shall be obtained so that construction grading may commence
within this development.
' VI. CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with Standards
All assumptions, computations and design criteria utilized for the completion of this report
are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for
'
Construction Sites and the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. The site drainage design
corresponds with and adheres to the recommendations stipulated in the City of Fort Collins
Master Drainage Plan.
B. Drainage Concept
'
The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report will adequately provide for the
conveyance of developed on -site stormwater runoff as well as off -site flows to the proposed
drainage facilities of the proposed project site. The use of proposed curb and gutter, cross -
pans, inlets, and storm pipes will provide conveyance for the 10-year and the 100-year flows
to proposed detention ponds located on the site. The sizes, locations and release rates of
these ponds will be in compliance with the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for
Front Range Village and in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Master Drainage Plan
concepts and within the City criteria.
'
If, at the time of construction, groundwater is encountered, a Colorado Department of Health
Construction Dewatering Permit will be required.
'
C. Stormwater Quality Concept
The proposed design has addressed the water quality aspect of stormwater runoff. Water
Quality facilities will be provided in Ponds A, D, E and F in Front Range Village.
Stantec Consulting, Inc. - 6 - August 2007
Harmony Corporate Center Addendum to the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
City of Fort Collins For Front Range Village
VII. REFERENCES
1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, May 1984, interim revision January 1997.
2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, January 1991.
3. Fox Meadows Basin Drainage Master Plan Update Selected Plan Report by
ICON Engineering Inc, December 24, 2002, revised February 2003.
4. The Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (published by the Urban Drainage
and Flood Control District — Denver, Colorado — June 2001).
5. Overall Drainage Study and Phase I Final Drainage Study for the Symbios
Logic Site, by The Sear -Brown Group (now Stantec Consulting Inc.), July 1997.
6. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Front Range Village, by Stantec,
February 2007.
Stantec Consulting, Inc. - 7 -
August 2007
COPYRIGHT 020m
PROJECT No.a.nouicura
PROJECT
A
..
SYMBIOS LOGIC OFFICE BUILDING-
187700001
rt a • rwurax s u• rw �^
PF6Ol axon •rncuxaa n[
o�acm� a lavem uonm.
vimresmu. e•+m, wosruw
�
JAM
209 South M
HARMONY CORPORATE CENTER
own+c Ho.
.cvrta. wwwaxmam
i. RAY�'T600C�`
Ft.
FL Collins, CO.O.805 80521-2603
Tel:(970)482-5922
Fax:(970) 482-6368
x"m
ur�m&nMSM
�,� °m i°
StanteC w
Tme of DURING
wa�w�"Vkv
xanmxurawn m•raawmm
�c^'Ex $"'w�•m �w�
Paasm� or TIw LLTWiY6
.stantec.com
VICINITY MAP
SHEET I OFI
IF
(C�G,V
> rwm ea[wrt
1'=10wi
V:\528771\activs\187700001\civil\drawing\exhibits\VIC".DWD 7/31/2007 1:15:51 AM
s
APPENDIX - A
Y,
Y
�
1
.*kA5
4
a i
s
1 i51
1
Y,
August 2007
Starrtet
g _ s
I
EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
('Build 5.0.009)
Analysis Options
'
- Flow Units .. Method :...... CFS
Flow Routing Method DYNWAVE
Starting Date . NOV-06-2006 00:01:00
Ending Date .............. NOV-12-2006 00:00:00
'
Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0
'
Report Time Step ......... 00:05:00
Routing Time Step . 1.00 sec
Volume
Volume
'
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet
*4;}4}4+*443iii*4+i+++t+43
Mgallons
Dry Weather Inflow 0.000
0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.000
0.000
_
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000
0.000
RDII Inflow .............. 0.000
0.000
'
External Inflow .......... 8.307
2.707
External Outflow ......... 8.763
2.856
Surface Flooding ......... 0.000
0.000
Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000
Initial Stored Volume .. 0.462
0.000
0.151
Final Stored Volume 0.007
0.002
Continuity Error (%)...... -0.011
Node Depth Summary
------------------------------- --
------------------------------------------------------
Average Maximum
Maximum
Time
Of Max
Total
Total
Depth
Depth
HGL
Occurrence
Flooding
Minutes
Node Type Feet
Feet
Feet
days
hr:min
acre -in
Flooded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J3 - JUNCTION 0.23
3.08
4927.08
0
01:14
0
0-
'
J2 JUNCTION 0.49
2.53
4925.53
0
01:52
0
0
J1 JUNCTION 0.93
1.84
4924.24
0
01:56
0
0
02 OUTFALL 1.01
1.25
4923.55
0
01:57
0
0
POND -Paragon STORAGE 1.26
POND-E STORAGE 1.07
4.29
2.73
4928.29
4925.13
0
0
02:19
01:56
0
0
0
0
POND-F STORAGE 0.92
4.07
4927.07
0
01:15
0
0
Node Flow Summary
--------------------------------------------
Maximum
7--------------
Maximum
=-------------------------
Maximum
Lateral
Total
Time
of Max
Flooding
Time of Max
Inflow
Inflow
Occurrence
Overflow
Occurrence
Node
Type
CFS
CFS
days
hr:min
CFS
days hr:min
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J3
JUNCTION
0.00
1.19
0
02:19
0.00
J2
JUNCTION
0'.00
8.34
0
01:15
0.00
J1
JUNCTION
0.00
10.52
0
01:56
0.00
02
OUTFALL
0.00
10.52
0
01:57
0.00
POND -Paragon
STORAGE
140.72
140.72
0
00:35
0.00
POND-E
STORAGE
28.60
35.10
0
00:35
0.00
_
POND-F
STORAGE
69.87
70.56
0.
00:35
0.00
Storage Volume Summary
�.
SWMM5
Page 1
Average
Avg
Maximum
i
Max
Time
of Max
Maximum
Volume
Pcnt
Volume.
Pcnt
Occurrence
Outflow
Storage Unit
-------
1000 ft3
Full
1000
ft3
Full
days
hr:min
CFS
POND-Paragon
--------------------------------------------------------------
50.259
18
220.063
78
0
02:19
1.19
POND-E
0.777
1
33.811
42
0
01:56
10.52
POND-F
1.267
2
61.922
86
0
01:15
8.34
Outfall Loading Summary
----------------
------------------
Flow
Av-
Max._
Freq.
Flow
Flow
Outfall Node
-----------------------------------------------
Pcnt.
CFS
CFS
02
78.72
0.93
10.52
-----------------------------------------------
System
78.72
0.93
10.52
}x*}***###*}****#fff
Link Flow Summary
}#*}}f }fffffiff+ifff
------- ---- - --------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Time of Max
Maximum
Max/
Max/
Total
Flow
Occurrence
Velocity
Full
Full
Minutes
Link
-------------------------------
Type
CFS days
------
hr:min
ft/sec
Flow
Depth
Surcharged
PIPE3
CONDUIT
77--------------------------------------------------
1.22
0 03:45
2.56
0.08
1.00
144
PIPE2
CONDUIT
.8.39
0 01:15
2.66
0.73
1.00
146
PIPE1
CONDUIT
10.52
0 01:57.
'6.21
1.48
0.92
255
Paragon
DUMMY.
1.19
0 02:19
F
DUMMY
8.34
0 01:15
E
DUMMY
10.52
0 01:56
f+f+fff+*+.+*fffiifiii+++*:
Flow Classification Summary
###*r...rr+rrrf+rf f.*fi*fffr
-
____________________________________________
Adjusted
___
Fraction
of Time
-------_--_____________----
in Flow Class
----
Avg.
Avg.
/Actual
Up
Down Sub
Sup Up
Down
Froude
Flow
Conduit
Length
Dry Dry
Dry Crit
Crit Crit
Crit
Number
Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIPES
1.00
0.00 0.36
0.00 0.64
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.29
0.0000
PIPE2
1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.09
0.0000
PIPE1
1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.09
0.0002
Highest Continuity Errors
Node J1 (0.08%)
Node J2 (0.02%)
Node POND-E (-0.02%)
Node POND-F (0.018)
Node J3 (-0.008)
Time -Step Critical Elements
None
SWMM 5 Page 2
Routing Time Step Summary
Minimum Time Step
1.00 sec
Average Time Step
1.00 sec
Maximum Time Step
1.00 sec
Percent in Steady State
0.00,
Average Iterations per Step
2.00
Analysis begun on: Wed Jul 11
07:42:28 2007
Total elapsed time: 00:00:20
1
1
t
' SWMM5
u
0
Page 3
1
StantK
1
_
r
h
y
rM1
N
N
Lo
O
o
O
co
r-I
co
Lo
C'J u
co
N
Ln
cM
M
N
.N
o c
E =
0001
0
U
'r
co
U
�
00
N
ffl
C_
LOOti
UJ
lC
m
� C
0a
0
2 n
Q o
0
Ln N
'n
pj M
n
U
C
w
co
l
o -
Q U
0
U
v �l
G� O
a a
".
-
•
H
G O
a £
3
_
y
�a
O - '
E
w
m m -
M N U)
I- N (O
(NC) M LO
LO LO LO
N N N
666
(n LO LO
O) O) m
O O O
N (D h
:E^
0
O CAM
N
rn
z
O a�
o �
oU
H � o
W o lio
U a) 0 &Q)
O-0 or^.
co 00
O a) .
> o
O
W
cc
J
Z.
O a
N
ocn
U
Zc
W • m e O
V N o
Z -0o o
O �j
u. >,
O o
w o
r
0
U
N
c
9
|(
\
\
\
� �
!.
!`
}
[
!
Jw
j
i
\
/.
!`
[
.
[
$«
°
[
\«e§
28<
I!�,
°
«ƒ
®f/\
/§$
[
�
E
w;\
-
!
ar;
S
i
O
C
ti
1
0y
LL
ma
dLL y
�
U
L
n
6�0
m 3 "
LL
�
^
N
O
i
N
O
y
�
U
m
�
t'
m o m N N
p p p p p p p
O, O
Y�
OC OO OOO OO '
.Y
q nn
N q
O
�� L0m01�
ry:
6NN
pm
<OImY m�On Ylm
C
a�
� C � OO H n t•! 1
-�m�l�
Yfmmm
�zl�pd
Opdi
�"r
pF mO qO
q0
QOm 000m
U
c
nno rvmm
mr mmrn
c 000..
u•
m.om omrms
u c
$@
E
>
000 o�mry
-
LE6.00
coon
o
LL
O
s
N..
GCO
S
aan
000
a�'•
=
mz
V "
3
O��Y1
o mYl.
y
Emmn
yoj
'm^'
m m m m A
m
� a x
��mmr
'5mmrg�;
rc o'
I
Y
A
No Text
0
DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD
Harmony Corporate Center
DP 5
Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow
i I ❑vE2-non I s: e j I rVFRI A\;e I
EW `Y j,� SiREL�' i� `Y FLI'W y
fLW PLUS E^�'y.DVF2 FL f7Y.'F ��—_�� F—CL'?'fER f�Ll7 `.d E;
lit T LVL.E i
±ie nF STREEI
Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: - Minor Storm
Major Storm
(local peak Raw for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): 'Q =1 3.66
10.25 cfs
If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow
Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells):
Subcatchment Area =
Acres
Percent Imperviousness =
NRCS Soil Type =
�1 IA, A, B, C, or D
Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope ftlft
Length(it
Site is Urban: X Overland Flow =
-
Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = -
Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C, ` P1 / ( C2 + Tc) A C3 Minor Storm
Major Storm
Design Storm Return Period, T,=
years
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, Pr =
inches
C =
C2=
C3_
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), Cs =
. Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, q, =1 0.001
0.00
cfs
Analysis of Flow Tone (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Minor Storm
Major Storm
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C =
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 =
_ Overland Flow Velocity, Vo =
Gutter Flow Velocity, VG =
Overland Flow Time, to =
Gutter Flow Time, to =
Calculated Time of Concentration, To =
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, To =
Recommended T. =
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T. =
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
Calculated Local Peak Flow, QP =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q =
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.66
10.25
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
inch/hr
cfs
ds
DP5 UD-Inlet v2.14b.xls, Q-Peak
7/31/2007. 9:41 AM
r
11
C
0
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION
Project = Harmon Corporate Center -
InletlD = DP 5 "
�' --- - Lo (C) ----- .
f H-Curb___—
H-Vert
Wp
_ l
1
_ �`e LO (G)
Type of Net Type
Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression'a' from'Q-AIIoW) a,
Murnber of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No
Grate Monnation
Length of a Unit Grate I, (G):
Width of a Unit Grate W,:
Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A.m
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 050 -0.70) CI (G)
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) C. (G) :
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (G) :
Curb Opening Information
Length of a Unit Curb Opening L. (C):
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H,,,,1 :
Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H,,_,
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta:
Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 1 feet) Wr
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) CI (C)
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) C. (C)
Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C, (C):
ging Coefficient for Multiple Units
ging Factor for Multiple Units
e as a Weir
Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 3.66 cfs curb)
Row Used for Combination Inlets Only
Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 3.66 cfs curb)
Row Used for Combination Inlets Only
e as an Orifice
Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 3.66 cis curb)
Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 3.66 cfs curb)
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units
'
Clogging Factor for Multiple Units
Curb as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice
Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 3.66 ofs curb)
Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate. 3.66 cis curb)
Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice
Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate. 3.66 cfs curb)
Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate. 3.66 cfs curb)
'
Resulting Gutter Ftow Depth Outside of Local Depression
Resultant Street on i o n
otal Inlet Length
otal Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge fromQ-Peak)
Warning 5
Resultant Gutter Flgw Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry)
'
Warning 6
Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry)
Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown
Warning 5: Gutter Flow depth is greater than the DEPTH allowed for the MAJOR AND MINOR STORM
Warning 6: Flow spread is greater than that allowed for the MAJOR AND MINOR STORM
MINOR MAJOR
COOT Type R Curb Opening
nol 3.00 inches
i
I..IIMnP \IA InP
WA
WA
WA
NIA
WA
WA
N/A
WA
N/A
WA
WA
NIA
1.00 1.1
0.to 0.10
MINOR MAJOR
Coef= WA WA
Clog = WA WA
dM =
d4.eun =
d„=
d,,,ea =
WAg
eel
eel
ches
ches
fiches
fiches
MINOR MAJOR
eel
eel
ches
ches
fiches
fiches
MINOR MAJOR
dd=
WA
WA
inches
d.=l
WA
I WA
inches
d.a,.,, _
N/A
NIA
Inches
Coerf=1
MINOR MAJOR
1.001
1.00
Clog =1
0.101
0.10
MINOR MAJOR
d„ =
d—=
3.16
6.27
inches
I inches
3.351
6.65
MINOR MAJOR
de.=
2.89
4.43
inches
d,,, =
2.941
4.85
inches
d.... =
0.351
3 A51
Inches
L
T=
' DP5 UD-Inlet_v2A4b.xls, inlet In Sump
712912007. 3:02 PM
YV
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
U. 23
22
21
20
19
18
17
C3 16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
L L
--F--' T'
--X—X.-X—k-x k-X-k-x-*-x--X—x—Xl
—X--
f
x
x
—T-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 .20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Q for 112 Street (cfs)
6 C.rbWeir
Curb 06f.. B Not Used
O. Not Used 0 Reported Design
X— Reported Design
Row Depth (in.)
Flow Depth (in.)
Flow Depth (in.)
Flow Spread (fL)
DP5 UD-Inlet v2.14b.x1s, Inlet In Sump 7M/2007, 3:02 PM
0 Intercepted
(cfs)
Curb Weir [:Flow
Depth (in.)
Curb Odf. UFIow
Depth (in.)
Not Used
Not Used
Reported Design
LiFlow Depth (in.)
Reported
DesignDFlow
Spread (ft.)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
" " 0.00
1.00.
0.00
0.00
0.00-
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
- 0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.55
0.00
0.55
- 0.25
5.00
1.12
0.18
1.12
0.50
6.00
1.65
0.41
1.65
0.74
7.00
2.16
0.68
2.16
0.96
8.00
2.64
0.99
- -
2.64
2.67
9.00
3.10
1.35
3.10
4.58
10.00
3.54
1.74
3.54
6.42
11.00
3.97
2.18.
3.97
8.21
12.00
" 4.39
2.66
4.39
9.96
13.00
4.79
3.18
-
4.79
- 11.62
14.00
5.19
3.75
5.19
13.29
15.00
5.57
4.35
5.57
14.87
16.00
5.95
5.00
5.95
16.46
17.00
6.32
5.68
-
6.32
18.00
18.00
6.68 .
6.41
6.68
19.50
19.00"
7.04
7.19
7.19
21.62
20.00
7.39
8.00
8.00.
25.00
21.00
7.73.
8.85
8.85
28.54
22.00
8.07
9.75 .
9.75
30.00
23.00 .
8.40
10.69
-
10.69
30.00
24.00
8.73
11.67
11.67
. 30.00
25.00
9.05
12.69
12.69
30.00
26.00
9.37
13.75
-
13.75
30.00
27.00 -
9.69
14.86 -
- 14.86 -
30.00
28.00
10.00
16.00
16.00
30.00
29.00
10.30
17.19
17.19
30.00
30.00
10.61
18.42 .' -
-
18.42
30.00
31.00
10.91
19.69-
19.69
30.00
32.00
11.21
21.01
21.01
30.00
33.00
11.50
22.36
22.36
30.00
34.00
11.79
23.76
23.76
30.00
35.00
12.08
25.20
25.20
30.00
36.00 .
- 12.37
26.68
26.68
30.00
37.00
12.65
28.20.
28.20
30.00
38.00
12.93
29.76
29.76
30.00
39.00
13.21
31.37
31.37
30.00
40.00
13.49 -
33.01
33.01
30.00
_DP5 UD-Inlet_v2.14b.xls, Inlet In Sump
7/2912007, 3:02 PM
DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD
Harmony Corporate Center
DP 6
Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow
I ,
..IV' Rr-AND Stpr D V E R I AND
F ::LIt fER F:_JW rL!1S CFoRRV-LIVER F-l_1]W e —"�� F GLJ TER : Lnb1
�1—= —i
iNL_ f '•.NL_E r
1/2 ❑F STRFET
Design Flow., ONLY B already determined through other methods: Minor Storm Major Storm
(focal peak fbw for fit of street, plus Flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): 'Q =1 3.251 8.52 cfs
' ff you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow
Geogreptnc hdormation: (Enter data in the blue cells):
SntImp Imperviousness
Area =Acres
Percent Imperviousness =
NRCS Soil Type = A, B, C. or D
Site: (Check One Box Only) SIo a fUft Length ft
Site is Urban: X Overland Flow =
Site is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow.= -
Rainfall Information: IntensityI (inch/hr) = Cr ' P, / (C2 + T° ) A C3 Minor Storm Major Storm
Design Storm Return Period, T, _ years
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, Pr = - inches
Ci=
Cz=
C3=
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C5 =
Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, % =1 0.001 0.00 cfs
Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Minor Storm Major Storm
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C =
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 =
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo =
Gutter Flow Velocity, Vo =
Ovedand Flow Time, to =
Gutter Flow Time, to =
Calculated Time of Concentration, T° =
Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T° =
Recommended T. =
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T. =
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
- Calculated Local Peak Flow, Qo =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q =
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.25
8.52
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
inch/hr
cfs
cfs
DP6 UD-Inlet_v2.14b.xls, Q-Peak 7/3112007, 9:41 AM
ILJ�
I�
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION �I
' Project =
Harmony Corporate Center
Inlet ID =
DP 6 -
H-Curb �i H-Vert i
WP \\ \
W \\
Desi n information,(Input
'
Type of Inlet
Local Depression (addi6ural to continuous gutter depression'a' from'O-AIIoW )
Number of Unit tides (Grate or Curb Opening)
Grate,
Length of a Unit Grab
Width of a Unit Grate
Opening Ratio for a Grab (typical valuss 0.15-0.90)
Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 -0.70)
'
Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00)
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67)
Curb Opening Information
'
Length of a Unit Curb Opening
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches
Height of Curb Odfice Throat in Inches
Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5j
Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 1 feet).
'
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10)
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00)
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units
Clogging Factor for Multiple Units
_
Grate as a Weir
Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 3.25 cis curb)
Row Used for Combination Inlets Only
'This
Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 3.25 cis curb)
This Row Used for Combination Inlets Only
Grate as an Orifice -
Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 3.25 cfs curb)
'
Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 325 cis curb)
Resultlno Gutter Flow Depth Outside of lxal Denression
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Unfits
Clogging Factor for Multiple Units
Curb as a Web, Grate as an O fice
Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 its grate, 325 its curb)
' Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 its grate, 3.25 its curb)
Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice
Flow Depth at Local Depression without Gogging (0 cfs grate, 3.25 cis curb)
Flow Depth al Local Depression with Clogging (0 its grate. 3.25 cfs curb)
' esultlng Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression
R Ian n i n
otal Inlet Length
otal Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge fromO-Peak)
Waming 5 Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet O-Allow geometry)
Warning 6 Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet O-Allow geometry)
Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown
Warning 5: Gutter Row depth is greater than the DEPTH allowed for the MAJOR AND MINOR STORM
Warning 6: Flow spread is greater than that allowed for the MAJOR AND MINOR STORM
iuno n inp
CDOT Type R Curb Opening
2.00
2.00
i
1
Type =
a. =
inches
Nod
L,(G)=
W. =
MINOR MAJOR
feet
feet
A.=
Cr (G) _
C, (G) _
C. (G) _
L,(C)=
feet
MINOR MAJOR
10.00 10.00
H,,,,,=
He,,,u =
- 5.00
5.00
inches
inches
4.95
- 4.95
Theta =
Wr=
63.4
63.4
degree
feet
1.00
1.00
Ci(C)=
0.10
0.10
C„.(C) =
- 2.30
_ 2.30
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
Coef=
Clog =
MINOR
WA
MAJOR
N/A
N/A
WA
d =
inches
dc,,,e,,, =inches
d,„, =
inches
inches
der =
MINOR MAJOR
inches
WA
NIA
dw =
_N/A
_ _ N/A
inches
WA
MINOR MAJOR -
MINOR MAJOR -
Coef =
1.00
1.00
Clog =
0.10
0.10
MINOR MAJOR
d„=
dw =
2.92
5.54
inches
inches
3.09
5.88
MINOR MAJOR
d,; =
dm =
2A7
3.98
inches
inches
2.53
4.40
dc. =) 0.00
' DP6 UO-Inlet_v2.14b.xls, Inlet In Sump
7129/2007. 3:03 PM
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
J 26
25
23
22
CL 21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
-2
0
4.
F
--x X,
-X-X- X-X-X-X-X
x x -X X-X-X- X-X-X, -X�
x
X,
-A
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Q for 112 Street (cfs)
6 curb Weir 0 Curb Onf.- E3 —Not Used -0- NotUsed 0 ReportedDesign X— Reported Desigri
Fla. Depth (in.) Fla. Depth (in.) Flow Depth (in.) Flow Spread (fL)
- ----------
DP6 U D-Inlet v2.14b.xis. Inlet In Sump
712912007, 3:03 PM
0
1
0 Intercepted
(cfs)
Curb Weir 7Flow
Depth (in.)
Curb Orif. ';Flow
Depth (in.)
Not Used
Not Used
Reported Design
LIFlow Depth (in.)
Reported
Design: -.Flow
Spread (ft.)
0.00
0.00
0.21.
0.21
0.09
1.00 "
0.00
0.24
0.24
0.11
2.00
0.24
1 0.33
0.33
- 0.15
3.00
0.93
0.48
0.93
0.42
4.00
1.55
0.69
1.55
0.69
5.00
2.12 -
0.97
2.12
0.95
6.00
2.65
1.30
2.65
2.71
7.00
3.16
1.69
3.16
4.83
8.00
3.64
2.14
3.64
6.83
9.00
4.10
2.65
4.10
8.75
10.00
4.54
3.22
4.54
10.58 -
11.00
4.97
3.86
4.97
12.37
12.00
5.39
4.55
5.39
14.12 -
13.00
5.79
5.30
5.79
15.79.
14.00
6.19
6.12
6.19
17.46
. 15.00
6.57
.6.99
6.99
20.79
16.00
6.95 -
7.92
7.92
24.67
17.00
7.32
8.92
8.92
28.83
18.00
7.68
9.97
\ 9.97
30.00
19.00 -
8.04
11.08
- 11.08
30.00
20.00
8.39
12.26 -
12.26
30.00
21.00
8.73
13.49
13.49
30.00
22.00
9.07
14.79
14.79
30.00
23.00
9.40
16.14
16.14
30.00
24.00
9.73
- - 17.56
17.56
30.00 -
25.00
10.05
-19.04. "
19.04
30.00 -
26.00
10.37
20.57
20.57
30.00
27.00
10.69
22.17
22.17
30.00
28.00
11.00
23.82
23.82
30.00
29.00
11.30
25.54
-
25.54
30.00
30.00
11.61
27.32
27.32
30.00
31.00
11.91 -
29.15
29.15
30.00
32.00
12.21
31.05
31.05
30.00
33.00
12.50
33.01
-
33.01 1
30.00
34.00
12.79
35.03
-
35.03
30.00
35.00
13.08
37.11
37.11
30.00
36.00
13.37 _
39.24
39.24
30.00
37.00
13.65
41.44
41.44
30.00
38.00
13.93
43.70
43.70
30.00
39.00
14.21
46.02
46.02
-30.00
40.00
14.49
48.40
48.40
30.00
' DP6 UD-Inlet_v2.14b.zls, Inlet In Sump
7/29/2007. 3:03 PM
11
I
I
L'
DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD
Harmony Corporate Center
DP 7
Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow
j VER;-Fl Si DE: I uVERLA\D
I Stn _
�__.-------._-�__ f `n`J .� _ i- W r W I it✓ '
_W
G E El. if .✓ PLUS nK ❑VEn Ld F— �Giii :Lkr ❑W—
iNLET
i/_ OF STREET
Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: Minor Storm Major Storm
(local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): 'Q =1 2.541 7.06 cfs
' If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow
Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells):
Snt Imperent Areaviousness
=Acres
Percent Imperviousness =
NRCS Soil Type = A, B, C, or D
Site: (Check One Box Only) Slo a ft/ft Length ft
Site is Urban: X Overland Flow --
Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow =
Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = Cr ` Pr / ( CZ + T� A C3 Minor Storm Major Storm
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = - years
Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, Pr = - inches
C,=
Cz=
C3=
User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C =
User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), Cs = -
Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, % =1 0.001 0.00 cfs
Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Minor Storm Major Storm
Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C =
Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 =
Overland Flow Velocity, Vo =
Gutter Flow Velocity, Vo =
Overland Flow Time, to =
Gutter Flow Time, to =
Calculated Time of Concentration, T. =
Time of ConcentraUon by Regional Formula, Tc =
Recommended T. =
Time of Concentration Selected by User, T. =
Design Rainfall Intensity, I =
. Calculated Local Peak Flow, Qp =
Total Design Peak Flow, Q =
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.54
7.06
fps
fps
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
inch/hr
cfs
cfs
DP7 UD-Inlet_v2.14b.xls, Q-Peak 7/31/2007, 9:41 AM
INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION �I
' Project = Harmon Corporate Center /
Inlet ID = - DP 7
H-Curb
_ - H-Vert �wk'
NN
'Design Information fin
'
Type of Wet
Type ,
Local Depression (additional to contimwrrs gutter depression's' from'Q-Allow)
a.,
Number of lire billets (Grate or Curb Opening)
Nc =
Lengli of feral Grate
b (G)
.WrillholfatkiftQate
W.
Opeizin RatioforaGrate (typical values 0.15-0.90)
A-w
Clogging Factor Lora Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70)
Gram Weir Coeffa;ient (typical value 3.00)
CI (G)
C, (G)
Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67)
C. (G) _
Curb Opamrg bdormation
'
Leng0i of a UnilCurb Opening
Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches
L, (C) -
H,,,I =
Heightof Curb®nfice Throat in Inches
H., -
gle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5)
Them =
ide Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 1 feet)
Wp =
Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (lypicel value 0.10)
C, (C)
Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00)
C, (C)
Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units
'
0ogging Factor for Multiple Units
GFaftais a Weir
Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 2.54 cis curb)
This Rowllsed for Combination Inlets Only
Rmv Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 2.54 cis curb)
This Rowilsed 73rCombination tnlets Only
Dep'lb at Loral Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 2.54 cfs curb)
Depth at local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 2.54 cis curb)
esult m Gutter flow Death Outside of Local Deoression
Clogging Caeffawt for Multiple Units
Clogging Factor for Multiple Units
Quit, as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice
Row Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 2.54 cfs curb)
'Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 2.54 cfs curb)
Curb as an Orifice, Grate m an Odfice
Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 2.54 cfs curb)
Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 2.54 cfs curb)
Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression
MINOR MAJOR
CDOT Type R Curb Opening
2.00 2.00 inches
1 - 1
. \IIAIr1D /, I/lD
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
N/A
WA
WA
N/A
2.30
MINOR MAJOR
Coef = WA WA
Clog = WA WA
dw =
d—
d. _
dd =
cl\_
WA
N/A
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
N/A
eat
eat
riches
riches
nches
nches
MINOR MAJOR
Coat = - 1.00 1.00
Clog =1 0.101 0.10
MINOR MAJOR
dr = 2A71 4.89 inches
d,a = 2.62 5.19 inches
it. =1 2.37
it-=[ _ _ 2.41
Resultant Street Conditions
Total Inlet Length
.
L
Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge fromQ-Peak)
Q,
Warning 5
Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry)
it
'
Warning 6
Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry)
' T
Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown
deeovm
Warning 5: Gutter Flow depth is greater than ll1e DEPTH allowed for the MAJOR AND MINOR STORM
Warning 6: Flow spread is greater than that allowed for the MAJOR AND MINOR STORM
OP7 UD-Inlet_v2.141b.als, Inlet In Sump
7/2912007. 3:04 PM
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
1 15
14
13
12
11
In
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0,
Ili
II
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Q for 112 Street (ds)
6 CurbWeir —Curb 06f. 8 Not Used - 0- Not Used 0 Reported Design x Reported Design
Flaw Depth(in.) Flow Depth (in.) Flow Depth (in+) Flow Spread (ft.),
L
/ -
-- --IF-T
--Xr
-x -X.-.X.-.X-1'--X--X-X--,
-X-*-X4-x X-- -X-*-
-- ---- --- --- -- —1-
I t i
7:-
DP7 UD-Inlet—v2.14b.xIs, Inlet In Sump 7/29/2007, 3:04 PM
I
1
I
C
0
u
t
0 Intercepted
(cfs)
Curb Weir ;;Flow
Depth (in.)
Curb Orif. , IFlow
Depth (in.)
Not Used
Not Used
Reported Design
::Flow Depth (in.)
Reported
Design: 'Flow
Spread (R.)
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.21
0.09
1.00
0.00
0.24
0.24
0.11.
2.00
0.24
0.33 -
0.33
0.15,
3.00
0.93
0.48
0.93
0.42
4.00
1.55
0.69
1.55
0.69 '
5.00
2.12
0.97
2.12
0.95
6.00
2.65
1.30
2.65
2.71
7.00
3.16
1.69
3.16
-4.83
8.00
3.64
2.14
3.64
6.83
9.00
4.10
2.65
4.10
8.75
10.00
4.54
3.22.
- -
4.54
10.58
11.00
4.97
3.86
4.97
12.37
12.00
5.39
4.55
5.39
14.12
13.00
5.79
5.30
5.79 -
15.79'.
14.00
6.19
6.12
-
6.19
17.46
15.00
6.57
6.99
6.99
20.79
16.00
6.95
7.92
-
7.92
24.67
17.00
7.32
8.928.92
28.83
18.00 -
7.68
9.97
-
9.97
30.00
19.00
8.04
11.08
11.08
30.00
20.00
8.39
.12.26
12.26
30.00
21.00
8.73.
13.49
-
13.49
30.00"
22.00
9.07
14.79
14.79
30.00
23.00
9.40
16.14
16.14
30.00
24.00
9.73
17.56
-
17.56
30.00
25.00
10.05
19.04
19.04,
30.00
26.00
10.37
20.57
20.57
30.00
27.00 -
10.69 -
22.17
22.17
30.00
- 28.00
-11.00
- 23.82
23.82
- 30.00
29.00 -
. - 11.30
25.54
25.54 .
30.00
30.00
11.61
27.32
27.32
30.00
31.00
11.91
29.15
-
- 29.15
30.00
32.00
12.21
31.05
31.05
30.00
33.00 -
12.50
33.01
33.01
30.00
34.00
12.79
35.03
35.03
30.00
35.00
13.08
37.11
37.11-
30.00
36.00
13.37
39.24
39.24
30.00.
37.00
13.65
41.44
41.44,
30.00
38.00
13.93
43.70
-
43.70
30.00'
39.00
14.21
46.02
46.02
30.00
40.00
14.49
48.40
48.40
30.00
' DP7 UD-Inlet_v2.14b.xls, Inlet In Sump 7292007, 3:04 PM
l5
Y
'
t
J"
i
APPENDIX - D
y'
f
f
a.
W_
Eta
m' ct "
4yTI1J—A4ov-3
s to"+3a �«WeAkx t
35TS.�j-hk00-1
5T-Dr
A,Aoo - I
rS
N
NeoUDS Results Summary
Project Title: Harmony Corporate Center
Project Description: -STRM-A
Output Created On: 9/10/2007 at 8:01:37 AM
Using NeoLJDSewer Version 1.5.
Rainfall Intensity Formula Used.
Return Period of Flood is 100 Years.
Summary of Manhole Hydraulics
Manhole', Contributing;
ID # Area C
Rainfall Rainfall
Duration
(Minutes)
Designer
Rainfall !I ; Groundl
11 Peak
Intensity 11 'JElevationl
Flow i
(Inch/Hour) :1 i; (Feet) J
Water
Elevation!
(Feet) i
Cornmentsl
—
F-
—.D —.9]926.56
-1'F7
--
—49i5.15,ii
49�8.031
Fj_27.L
F �3,
16.51 4928.031
F 4927.94,"
F7777
4
8.5] . .4928.55A
.. .... ....... .. ... .. .......
49 8.2
.. ...... .....
U
0
Summary of Sewer Hydraulics
Note: The given depth to flow ratio is 0.9.
Manhole ID Number ? Calculated Suggested Existing
Diameter Diameter Diameter
Sewer i 1 Sewer! (Rise) (Rise) (Rise) !'Width—,
Upstream. Downstream'
ID # ;; { Shape' (Inches) j (Inches) ; (Inches) (FT) ;
1 i 1 Arch 29 8 30 191 3011
2
- -- --- if �C
27,
..- --19i 30'
—..4 _..3__=�Ar h 20.9i .. 21j1911 ._ ._.. 30
Round and arch sewers are measured in inches.
Box sewers are measured in feet.
Calculated diameter was determined by sewer hydraulic capacity.
Suggested diameter was rounded up to the nearest commercially available size
All hydraulics where calculated using the existing parameters.
If sewer was sized mathematically, the suggested diameter was used for hydraulic
calculations.
A Fronde number = 0 indicated that a pressured flow occurs.
1
1
1
i
1
Summary of Sewer Design Information
Summary of Hydraulic Grade Line
;► Invert Elevation ! Water Elevation 1 (.
Sewer ,;Surcharged
Sewer., ! Upstreaml Downstream 4U stream Downstream
ID # ,Length , Length (Feet) + (Feet) (Feet) ( (Feet) t Conditii
------
1 11.37 11.37I 4925.07'r _ 4925 02 i 4927 11 4925 151Pressur,
—_:_ .
2 65.14 65.141 4925 34 4925 08 4927.94E _ 44927 11 �Pressur
_._ - _
9.58 r 9 4925.39j 4925.35 i 4928 27' 4927 94; Pressur
Summary of Energy Grade Line
_...
Upstream i Downstream i
Juncture Losses
Manhole Manhole
_--- _-- - - __ - } -- -- _.. - - __- - -- . _
r ---
;Energy -Sewer ! Bend�Lateral Energy
Sewer lV[anhoie Elevatton cttonj Bend K Loss ; Lateral K Loss Manhole Elevations
ID # ID # Coefficient<'Coefficient� ID #
_ . (Feet) ,(Feet) , . _-- — (Feet) ,._.-... H (Feet) .) (Feet)
-1 2 4927 82 F 67 0 OSz 0 OOi, 0.00' 0.00, 4925 15j
�"-- .. _
-3 3 4928_33 0 41ir� 0 25� 0 101 0 00 0 - 2---- 4927 82%
— — — '� _ _�_021 - ..___0 25; 0 03 0 OOir- OA0 3 4928 33
3 4 4928 38
Bend loss = Bend K * Flowing full vhead in sewer.
Lateral loss = Outflow full vhead - Junction Loss K * Inflow full vhead.
A friction loss of 0 means it was negligible or possible error due to jump.
Friction loss includes sewer invert drop at manhole.
Notice: Vhead denotes the velocity head of the full flow condition.
A minimum junction loss of 0.05 Feet would be introduced unless Lateral K is 0.
Friction loss was estimated by backwater curve computations.
r
Harmony Corporate Center
Riprap Rundown at STRM-A Outlet
Updated: 10-Sep-07
Pipe Diameter: D 24 in
Discharge: O 23 9 cfs
Tailwater: y 0.6 ft (known)
1. Required riprap type:
2. Expansion Factor.
3. Riprap Length:
By: MBK 187700001
Checked:
Soil Type: Erosion Resistant Soil (Clay)
Max Velocity: V 7.7 ft/sec 11
Q/D2.5 =
4.22
< 6 --> use design charts
D =
2.00
ft
Yt/D =
0.30
O/DAl.5 =
8.45
d50 =
9.89
in -------> 12 in
--> Use Type
M (Class
12) riprap
1/2tanO= 2.07
At = ON = 3.10 ft2
L = 1/2tan0 * (At/Yt - D) = 7 ft
4. Governing Limits:
L>3D 6 ft
L<1OD 20 ft
5. Maximum Depth:
Depth = 2d50 = 2 (12 in / 12) = 2 ft
6. Bedding:
<=7ft->OK
=>7ft->OK
Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material.
7. Riprap Width:
Width = 3D = 3 (24 in /12) = 6 ft
(Extend riprap to minimum of culvert height or normal channel depth.)
Summary:
Type M (Class 12) riprap -
Length = 7 ft
Depth = 2 ft
Width = 6 ft
Reference: UDFCD USDCM, Vol, 1, Major Drainage, Page MD-105
V:\52877F\ACTIVE\187700001\REPORTS\DRAINAGE\RIP-RAP\STRM-A-OUTLET REV.XLS
EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE
projecttu HARMONY GORPORigTE CENTERS_" > ,: x 18770000]
�3? a
Prepared BY +AIIBKr
D'ate
„ .= k ;_,
_ :5�a�ksi8121/200,_
c
CITY RESEEDING COST
Unit
Total
Method
Quantity Unit
Cost
Cost Notes
Reseed/mulch
3.41 ac
$723
$2,465.43
Subtotal
$2,465
Contingency
50%
$1,233
Total
$3,698
Notes: 1. A<=5 ac=$6551ac; A>5 ac=$615/ac.
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
Unit
Total
Number Method
Quantity Unit
Cost
Cost Notes
Wattle
6 ea
$300
$1,800
5 Straw Bale Barrier
2 ea
$150
$300
8 Silt Fence Barrier
553 LF
$3
$1.659
20 Sod Grass
4105.00 SF
$0.75
$3,079
Subtotal
$6,838
Contingency
50%
$3,419
Total
$10,257
Total Security'
$70,257
X,
I
CONSTRUCTION SEOIIENCE
INDICAAII(�- BY USE OF A BM UK M SMBOLS WEN EROSION Cp NTH). MEAAIBEB i K
X[w 4 XI1JE FOR APPROY�rL 6Y TO THE CITY NQXENSCNEODLE MAY REWIIE slAMmxc A
YEAR
INSIST
I am
Sea
of
Nav
Oe
WY.tn
idol
Nq
sq
(FORT
MUIIN
OLERtOT G9AINNC
dial L MMON CONTROL
S Radial I
d•r BoaW
Abogmed Borr
Sol SowaHu.uoa
Omer
RNNf.Nl EROSION CONTR0.
STRWCNRAL
dtl tTVAB,w
n
eSom
leoSidmeleaids
Baer iA Rmrallm
gwmr
nyFunaw
Mlf�tll/Cwcele p Mg
Ut -GOM Yultli
WCAfTAINC:
51
prmw.mt Saint Ful
•IML real
pal aennng
oPwmllsm
N AUdgrW jWnkdu
MMer
1
1
1
A
wN � ST.w
PUN VIE1Y
I a EM1 ' � rt TM STMC w P a e M x MET roe mwev lrrn n»m.
STRATI! BALE STRUCTURES
hal.
D = tl5D = STATE CLASSIFICATION FOR NOMINAL STORE SITE. I
ALL EWES VLLL BE 'TOED' INTO ABOVE DIMENSION
IF RIP -Red TO BE GROUTED,
GROUT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE TO ASWI107-LATEST REVISIM
y
GROUT SHALL BE VIBRATED IN PLACE. TRIPS OF EXPOSED RV -RAP \
It
VET BRUSHED AND CLEANED On GROUT TO EXPOSE RIP -RAP COLOR.
DIMENSIONS GIVEN ON PLANS ARE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS.
RIPRAP SI D STMET 2 FEET BEHIND THE EES AND EXTENED THE
MINIMUM LENGTH PLUS 2 FEET,
THE CONCRETE PAN CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE WIDTH OF THE RIPRM PAD
THE RIFlEAP WIDTH SHDUD EXTEND A MINIMUM OF A EMT ON EITHER BID
OF THE CONCRETE PAN IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
RIP RAP DRAIFING
E
9$
a
4�
ex
3�
mxgm-xMv
BE
STANDARD EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES -
Mil City al Fa.\ Cu1Fe Sl "n Fill. metl hg tw must he notified W Meet
2A n pew to my mnvbodkn m Ph Yh
M r gal,w Imme\m Olt Adel % M M IWcF w to mY lead dM1l Mg a ty
:lgdddjmN�aa't d ri awo, wring .,). RI guff rmww .grew MW mm,m yid b
m c whumb r FiNtma a timeBE
mE en�•m0�wlmddw,ewe\. m Mkeiw F ue gpreM
uPvr�apmce mf watary Idealbessh mlwW ed to o"mgukm fort me t,
CM 1 glbl9nitea lH the dead
AlIgh, p the pNta\ y Coma p of time
M A011a es Hang Wrin I,F NF9 m\INIY (vYil.pin9. 9radin9. alillY Inafa
top u t F mM nm sm tl p IFS. HfAl'mg. elc)N ,Wes mq
two
wdduenP wi": mnea%NNdied xd
'o web gnu If .Hv Nnl r"on. peep, d wed mbwYg
Se tr Y (,A chumbe
y deco al help• uattl ea lam mt sped s
stw "ytw Vlld�lly/miw.."fHH p de)' wuen Hmenw Hpmvea by
tidP!•Mw twad- mem wo I i AS lead AlMITI be vuldled old mIllailed d t oil JliwHe be Immedq tl morml Alive u m
Far nglCdinsa Env had
Fugitive
9 Dgdust
ampard mt. w)eeenl pmmhe0. as dmn by Me OIY Uf
M III (awcwrtl) erodes ttndol meaeum OF he Mf to ma ddWdd as
e, to mical 111firwasil if I move
It theW09tl intended trap of F t tnpwwl11 ¢ufwle Ended
a w"lnl b wI
us r mw to any ary nogeedY nw °•' m w° w o w
Y •twin Ae enHll eauw rfp r� hghNwawa Angh T shod � i1- edwA b g. My wet
Had wort , O'll by url
maPY, real after 30 bn veal be awdAd ow mot
(Al Wdw,• cool \M bdpJng, bcppYp, a bpWAq of eW ormY b moot
ITT City eF"u by or FwR my MMa My hd m\ by Me= label he de W
WMUW t4r by the wimdw.
The Ibmn water ell b WmW vwwd We m•bw of the Mmnp M1e No Iowa BD
iM by MmN r ,n ctlm.
M Qehabed were cove be 11u ld ma MUNq
C1Nw1w'amwa prwMe umommy IMwtw bynm-MNvtw eves •ee'J able rw
wit w H M 9m .a.
CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP
wsicr
x a n1w Mmrt Mlv2m
smE Rv
a,•
IOU
Wlpl)
I106)
FLATS To
AS- HER)
Be
Be
m
OF AS
Be
m
5- 10
10
e
- 10
a
<1
tlA4 Ix
_ IRS
W - x0
275
b - 00
f
0
3 5
OA41e
IOU
I
SD _ ,B
m
- 5Barx5
s
2- 10
10
aAa 24
IRA
OR
w - TO
HER
5- f0
diB
35
At
1- 16
x
I wts As: NBC h^+a-,y.we-,m.SILT .FENCE mrm'rt
.
1/x' _ !/i Rdd"
Karl
1. AT
RIf�up WT SIWL BE ID m
BxRy4/Fpf ID THE CpISIxN:u3x 511E
2 YEMICIE RILNBID MIT 9 BE WNTNNFD
iNEEDED 10 MN WIFIWL FRW HN'.
PMhSR Rltl(E0 Oxro MY s ..
VEHICLE TRACIING PAD
NDPE8 IPENMIT NOTES
1. "R ME PTW:
y R mfardly i W emebuclAn mM mal al wwok m•mrmluy
9h ability win,
mi make
era me melrvcbm ul A Mmtm/d t• Pma.
6. Thii Ma mtMua as Shaved F aye lW g e m
2 m,wi Imm el Pw mlyd•a pwAwW o-nbtle
OwntllNn of "INNS chador"
. Goat Swing Muw tmgmwy did says
5, Go3 of Wd tim MAIM;
6, Way VnWwtFm - Randall almm
T Rader me"ct n
Mg easing
Of Rommial at wi
III IRA mtaar, avid aw". "]A m" at We We m •¢aped to widened do g wa/a
yWFg
BE R d 'Cl - m abbe mcbuclim, "d d •C - aids aM dwebw ma site lfee FIRM
Due Ned Rebates Fi ity Zww and Ls Israel MitY made Ow Nc City of Fred Collins to" m
BRAN
HBO e,el sit, Moody Ed wamF dy 0.5i to 1; We rise Fpo mW ee b "-0 tO to "M
and .wen .w'
a TiN ps6ewbpna\ WWwy °mob W MI a ,lllurd board Babe mcbwtlm. Use eXe
mYCM1d of few Ima With M" q ma web.
I R he her des Pes m�wa •Ihena •9 be red M.Ws da%e a den g an Oil
In vy m YLL
g. MN eF b mlefp m-clwnndW mgmwu Of aFNsga
Mwv pW Waan rbecWOwYp eMen M Ib N➢. ORION t a Slem wW rv^ylIm, Bar
len Plm. WmW, wY
w wens %a,led ro m p-NN M"IM pane by aA Be
y n YM:
21. £ee GaY h Do Cmbd Nw.
1 BYV S FDA STg61WAh POLLUPOW flttYSN1YJ1:
a &r m6 g ml Contrds Sae Letlm Cul Not" m6 6 ce TWO (this d t),
b. AMMO(@ 111I and SEA PnmtY : Y m Owed b un ding m
wd wrtle, and dVOW W •mom dy sit and mw t, to des modO la cmbd bat Flats
"bl ue blmbri and TRIM •w y Wholle m F...11 ae M b,it.Mmvrts WMEFq
mmtwM$ • e p brwdWcls M ld add be aiwbmged rem in, al n,,b M1meu mrd it m
Of, a 0 W, curb Am w :term �d:Wtw .N�wWl t, m"wrIn ""dV Wd M UlM Via
WMWWtMy
to r om the fixed mdtwb, and mwl ful 911s hwn occul
FNb'Pl STABMZAPM AND LONG -TERN STMYWAILA MMA MT:
ye Erapw Cm N Net" this eel to IFtl desllnLLm massive,, 1a mW Wufmu
abona lla d".
5. ON CMTRDL[
DImod, maenq ge doAAd-old ww ro renno» "cm awl• Va to fromu» she era ffi , al
ANN off5'eble vex halving N MITI oiNmdTIwr�Y ad NW" it= Mw" lleasingeuraff Do Wiiti, MW we b SET
wMoM WI TV barFtl dorwdwlm and Fertiletl 4 aFertilemW W VwdM e &," wN NI di
ry ajolq into me Calve be PwMw Rbf.
N9"ECTIW AND MUNENMM
and m,htw m OI enitl an Ida reeula of WIb Section 06 the
Tw�embn d GndiLL , at be Cgi Dried P IL
SEEDING CHART
Table ITT, Abol llm Rate,of Made
wary A"Itmlm and/" Carer Cr,.
Iw rare° Smvanl When Pounds Awe
MI Rt s, Cad
Cuts p J0
cl m m6 Nn Cap o0
OEM on
meet - so
BwIeY SprF4 WY 60
WAIT Mwm !0
Mprtl s bm15
Scarthurry
Nwm 10
rm vH.Hn Sue my map ga.nn I, the worm Wwm wwn 7.....
growth y naanle i A mllw Olanln0
WM W wW and bmawm/cover crop gained
Td 11.4. Planting Oaf.. No Pa.aay gad T. po ay/Cow 6ce Gaew.
GgyB PERENNIN IELPEPARY/ WR
IAASSES CEW(VU s
Mmn Coal dam Cm
Jay 01 - FOR 26 Tu Yee W No
All 01 - May 15 Tu Yu NW, MET ^ Yu
ft
Jun OY-"31May Is - Rely 1 Nab May Tas No
9 01 - Mq 31 No Yw No Y"
% $q Bey No Na No Y"
01 - 0.e 31 Yw Yee No Nv
blwFq miabe ra
"I bIBrIUr alp RMldyywlvd< WM Be" OUMu 0. nlur6 glob
Iwgwwy ww m Far v[p'
YSIN Aweeldde ml of ux AVpbtp Rode
Sbw v Ed Jon 01 - 0a 31 1 1/2-2 uw/me
XNwIN (Brad OF pp) mar 15 - May 15 1 1/2-2 Wn/me
UOYon MW (male a hblbl•) Am 01 - OF, 31 Mal gglki
N y10 x n admm Ed ngth, ' duo not" voOemd Mof ased �Uwd"dI
qmm le o "Mtw mofcl mo1wM, If wohal
11 Yrlgotlm la teed. hpwl, mulR" may be aPplm Own Mwcn 15 Ihwein 5p SO
My IN SbaBr Mules
L in: fin m .0 hmto wcw th• al by we of
MomdE
(a) A ag . F Bra wYrp Me IM Four Fmw w
p I be f* the we10 FNww ' A\me i length
lt Ina tar
or
IOr vod:d a"dcc a°rev to minufada..nTn.wmn:.
(a) Oil a r m Inc mym to men
aymror:srm of s
2 M elrw nonaY map a M1y� al nonbae .eedl.
e. ^.Yu,`:�wFar
,J@..�`w'ww".wen a..w ... " ..a'1V11brul.I 19T41.
.
:5 {an va",a w fi w .wr...a am,.. r"
w ;. A,IF
r�� �w +� ";Ten ,�:�. o101 u B .:
do IT
virl
.,ern_ +� ' er,,. .,..=1. �'w
21, ��= wa o ®111.2 as Ind mada,rTV
.'IT everhe
••
o'T"I7G
. w.w m,a Wen l-u.wa�il
Ae Indevidow
mard .... des wm.r no1.. a.d err w.w,.
eras':
wH.. men. e- r.-w....a...am wen"
IN ;+.:::SR==B IRI'6 .�
TO,el, Ta: : 0.m..,..w mean.
ti
td.'Zw'ASan
ifti
forded
.:Y rm
..... .rw
�mwwae wvwvdd..
".
..
ax..>w^ .� ....
+WkMgrl��a.,
w mw.... wen.
wwL.mm
iiS"u ifs—s'v:n'wCIIX^.mday m.made FBI wweorwm
.w
fRom'
w...s.dvalRE ao..m.. n m.m Aduo arm.
Ti
Jea O
CD
City
of Fort Col
Colorado
UTILITY
PLAN A
PROVAL
APPROFF
MY su�M
IyaCIQ@ an
Eat" A Easleea
UUi
Dal
OIECXEA BY:
IT
Ds\e
Sbmealw OR
CHECS" BY:
l'eNa LEEWu
CREQIIE$ BY:
he0c
Dale
aE[XEIA BY:
77
Dale
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICHTM)I
CENTERCFCWORADO
1-800-922-1987
Fro THIF �ING OF
THESE PLANS HAYS BEEN RENEWD BY
ME LWAL ENTITY FOR CONCEPT ONLY.
ME REVIEW DOES NOT IMPLY
RESPONSIBILITY BY ME RENEWING
OEPARTMENT, ME LOCAL ENTITY
ENGINEER. OR ME LOCAL ENTITY FOR
ACOIMCY AND CORRECMEW OF ME
CALMLATIONS. FURTHERMORE. ME
RENEW DOES NOT IMPLY THAT
QUANTITIES OF ITEMS ON ME PUNS
ME ME FINAL QUANTITIES REWIRED.
ME RENEW SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED
IN ANY REASON AS ACCEPTANCE OF
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BY ME
LOCAL ENTITY FOR ADDITIONAL
QUANTITIES 6 ITEMS SNOW THAT MAY
BE REQUIRED DURING ME
CONSTRUCTION PHASE.
p
E
ad
cl
mmcl
Ed
�CgB,
Pre
FIT
pRg
a FIT
B B9 i
E
pyq ppE
tl tl
(IIIII`
IF
W
W
O
a
Z
Palmit-Seal
O
0 W
U
W
IZ
LL C
0�
U p
OU 8
OZ 1
mR
w
J W
0
Z bj
O0
00
0 Q
N
B W Z
Pm;w Ni: 187100001
M to (XVICI
Carl
What
WLNOD
Dan
Na. DgdA C-141a
Regill Sheet
0 6Lt11
Wes
_ __...
/I
' II
T
I
s 11
? I1
I
I
NOTE
1. DISTURBED AREA WITHIN ME POND LIMITS SHALE
B REWOETATED WITH SOD.
LEGEND
0 WIN IIIIIIIII IN
UNITS OF CONSTRUCTION
-------
RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPERTY UNE
SECTION UNE
-----
PROPOSED FLOWLINE
�m�
NEW INDEX CONTWRS
— H —
NEW INTERMEDIATE CONTOURS
nsr—
EXISTING CONTOURS
Wow
NEW STORM DRAIN WITH MANHIOLE
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
----�
PROPOSED SWALE
PROPOSED AVERAGE SLOPE
DIRECTION OF FLOW
®
VEHICLE TRACKING PAD
— >:—
SILT FENCE
®
100 YR WATER WATER SURFACE (EL-4928.29)
®
RIPRAP
�RI
STRAW BALE CURET PROTECTPON
WATTLE
(CURB INLET)
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION
CENTER OF COLONMO
1-800-922-1987
BEFORE YOU DIG GRADE OR EG1kVAUE
City of Fort Collins, Coloreoo
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
APPROVED:
CNy Engineer Date
CHECNED W.
Water Is Waetex er Lulay Dole
(NECKED W. SLDrmvater Utility Dote III
CHECKED BY: Pa- 9! Recreation Dote
CHECKED BY:
TASI Engineer Dole
CHECKED W.
Dole
THESE PLANS NAYS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE LOCAL
ENNTY FOR CONCEPT ONLY. THE REVIEW DOES
NOT IMPLY RESPONSIBWTY BY THE REVIEWING
DEPARNENr, THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER. OR
THE LOCAL ENTITY FOR ACCURACY AND
CORRECTNESS OF THE CALCUTATIONS.
FURTHERMORE, THE REVIEW WES NOT IMPLY THAT
QUANRTIES OF PENS ON THE PLANS PRE THE
FINAL i0fin TES REQUIRED. THE RENEW SHALL
NOT BE CONSTRUED IN ANY REASON AS
ACCEPTANCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BY THE
LOCAL. FNTIIT FOR ADDRIONIL QUANTI VIES OF
ITEMS SHOWN THAT MAY BE REQUIRED DURING
THE CONSTRUWON PHASE.
0
»,X.� w.�.: 1enlKaol
FM N ,, Dmma-TIDE(
CDY ILW uIx xWT-W-ID
l WMNWYu.W
�Iamng No. C-140
Ranom Sheet
0 5d11
DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY
Design
Point
Basins
Area
(acre)
Composite
-C-
010
(cfs)
0100 lots)
5
5
1.44
0.79
3.66
10.26
g
6
0.86
0.87
3.25
8.52
7
7
1.26
0.70
2.54
7.06
11
° a, a, a m
Lw1 � ■ 6P —I
NOTE
1. DISIUBED AREA WTHIN THE POND LIMITS SHALL
BE REVEGETATED WITH SOD.
Is NEW WIN Well ■
LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION
----
RIGHT-OF-WAY
— - -
PROPERTY LINE
SECTION LINE
—•••—
PROPOSED ROMNE
NEW INDEX CONTOURS
— W —
— w —
NEW INTERMEDIATE CONTOURS
_ 4 R
EXISTING CONTOURS
STORM DRAN WITH MANHOLE
ANEW
--••�
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED SWALE
PROPOSED AVERAGE SLOPE
y
DIRECTION Of ROW
®
VEHICLE TRACKING PAD
—SF—
SILT FENCE
®
100 YR WATER WATER
SURFACE (EL-4928.29)
®
RIPRAP
STRAW BALE OUTLET PROTECTION
CURBINLET)
QDESIGN
POINT
3 BASIN NUMBER
1,B4AC BASIN AREA (IN ACRES)
ssss sl sl sass DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
CPLL NO ORAnON
CENTERE0.OF COLORADO
1-800-922-1987
°Y ING WMR
"a� VVA e9�pE KMNNYUIFtlIKYM
City of Fort Collins, Cobrado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
AFVRONTD:
Ciry EiNineer Dote
CHECKED BY:
WM a WoF4Motb Utility Dote
CHECKED BY:
storm.°tr umny DaM
CHECKED BY:
Port a R ree9on Dote
CHECKED m:
iMlie Enginew D°M
CHECKED BY:
Date
THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN RENEWED BY THE LOCAL
ENTITY' FOR CONCEPT ONLY. THE RENEW DOES
NOT IMPLY RESPONSIBILITY BY THE RENEWING
DEPARTMENT, THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER, OR
THE LOCAL ENTRY FOR ACCURACY AND
CORRECTNESS OF THE CALCULATIONS.
RUMERMORE. THE RENEIY DOES NOT IMPLY THAT
QUANTITIES OF BEMS ON THE PUNS ORE THE
RNA- OUANIIPES REQUIRED. THE REVIEW LEW SHAL
NOT BE CONSTRUED IN ANY REASON AS
ACCEPTANCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BY THE
LOCAL ENTITY FOR MDITIOW WANNTIES OF
ITEMS SHOWN THAT MAY BE REQUIRED DURING
THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE.
9,
ZK
aH
J Z
W
mU
F
LU
CL
a
S
2
(0(O
UO
Z
J
(7
O C)
m�
Z
Y7,11ST*c
ftj w r.
187700001
Wm : HOC A. ENIA
ON ILW
MB. 2w1-01-1°
On, WMMDD
DlanrG No.
Rwosbn
MAN
0
at