HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 03/25/2002No Text
'
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
TIDAL WAVE CAR WASH
Prepared for:.
Rhey Wright
5238 Fox Hills Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Prepared by:
iNorth
Star Design, Inc.
700 Automation Drive, Unit I
Windsor, Colorado 80550
Ph# (970) 686-6939
Fax# (970) 686-1188
November 28, 2001
"
Job Number 159-01
1
I
North Star
o&,N, design, inc.
November 28, 2001
Basil Hamdan
City of Fort. Collins Stormwater
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Final Drainage Report for Tidal Wave Car Wash
Dear Basil,
I am pleased to submit for your review and approval, this Final Drainage & Erosion Control
Report for Tidal Wave Car Wash. I certify that this report for the drainage design of Tidal Wave
Car Wash was prepared in accordance with the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage
Manual.
I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any
questions.
North Star
700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550
970-686-6939 Phone 970-686-1188 Fax
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................:....:.......................................iii
1.
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1.1 Location...............................................................................................................................I
1.2 Description of Property ........................................................................................................1
2.
DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS
2.1 Major Basin Description......................................................................................................
I
2.2 Sub -Basin Description.........................................................................................................
I
3.
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
3.1 Regulations..........................................................................................................................2
3.2 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints................................................................2
3.3 Hydrologic Criteria..............................................................................................................2
3.4 Hydraulic Criteria...................................................................................:............................3
4.
DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
4.1 General Concept............................................................:.....................................................3
4.2 Specific Flow Routing.......:.................................................................................................3
4.3 Drainage Summary ..............................................................................................................3
4.4 Variance Requests ..................... ............................................................................................
4
5.
EROSION CONTROL
1
5.1 General Concept..................................................................................................................4
5.2 Specific Details....................................................................................................................4
5.3 DustAbatement................ :...................................................................................................
4
5.4 Tracking Mud......................................................................................................................4
5.5 Maintenance........................................................................................................................
5
6.
CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Compliance with Standards................................................................................................5
6.2 Drainage Concept......................................................:.........:...............................................5
6.3 Water Quality and Erosion Control Concept.......................................................................5
7.
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................6
APPENDICES
A Vicinity Map
B Hydrologic Computations
C Detention and Water Quality Calculations
D Erosion Control Calculations
E Figures and Tables
F Excerpts from Previous Reports
iii
1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1.1 Location
This site is located in a tract of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 7
North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins,'County
of Larimer, State of Colorado. See the location map in Appendix A.
The project is located north of Troutman Parkway and west of JFK Parkway. The site is
bounded by existing commercial development on the west and north boundaries and by
existing streets on the south and east boundaries.
1.2 Description of Property
The entire project consists of 0.82 acres of land. The land is currently undeveloped and
slopes to the southwest at approximately 1% to 4%. The runoff from the site currently
appears to pond on site without a point of release.
The project will consist of a single structure which will be a 6 bay car wash and
associated drives and queuing area. The site will access from an existing asphalt drive
which loops from Troutman to JFK.
2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS
2.1 Major Basin Description
The proposed development lies within the McClellands Mail Creek Drainage Basin. The
site is included in the area covered by the Final Drainage Report for the Market Place
and the Final Drainage Report for Heart Special Improvement District. Portions of these
reports are included in Appendix E. These reports allow for a release from this site of
0.87 cfs per acre which was calculated to be the 2-year historic runoff by the above
mentioned reports. This runoff will discharge into the No. 2 Canal south of the site.
2.2 Sub -basin Description
Sub -basins are described thoroughly in Section 4,2.
i
1 3.
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
3.1 Regulations
This report was prepared to meet or exceed the "City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage
Design Criteria Manual' specifications. Where applicable, the criteria established in the
"Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" (UDFCD), 1984, developed by the Denver
Regional Council of Governments, has been used.
3.2 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
The runoff from this site and the allowable release rate has been routed to conform to
existing drainage reports completed that have included this area.
The streets and associated drainage systems surrounding the site are existing. There is a
storm system existing on the south west corner of the site. This site is intended to
discharge into that system. Therefore, a pipe is proposed to be stubbed from the existing
manhole into the proposed detention area.
Detention is proposed for this site and release will be restricted to the previously
calculated rate of 0.87 cfs per acre (0.66 cfs). Runoff from the site was calculated based
on the rainfall criteria adopted by the City of Fort Collins on March 26, 1999. Water
quality measures will also be provided in the form of extended detention.
3.3 Hydrologic Criteria
Runoff computations were prepared for the 2-year minor and 100-year major storm
frequency utilizing the rational method.
All hydrologic calculations associated with the basins are included in Appendix B of this
report. Standard Form 8 (SF-8) provides time of concentration calculations for all sub -
basins. Standard Form 9 (SF-9) provides a summary of the design flows for all Sub -
basins and Design Points associated with this site.
2
3.4 Hydraulic Criteria
All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the
City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are also included in Appendix B of this report.
1
4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
4.1 General Concept
The runoff from this site will flow south in the parking lot via pans and curb & gutter to
the proposed detention pond. The flow will be detained in the proposed pond and
released at the predetermined rate discussed above.
4.2 Specific Flow Routing .
A summary of the drainage patterns within each basin is provided in the following
paragraphs. For more specific details see the calculations located in Appendix B of this
report.
Sub -basin 1 contains the east portion of the site including the east half of the building, a
portion of the drive areas and a portion of the landscaped area. Runoff from this basin
flows to the east to the proposed curb which will convey the flow south to a curb opening.
The flow then is conveyed by a concrete pan to the detention area.
Sub -basin 2 contains the west portion of the site including the west half of the building
and a portion of the drive areas. Runoff from Sub -basin 2 collects in a concrete pan in
the drive and is conveyed directly into the detention pond.
4.3 Drainage Summary
1 The storm conveyance system is a surface and sub -surface system and has been designed
for minimal. maintenance. The proposed storm sewer system (outlet structure and pans)
and the detention pond will be owned and maintained by the property owners. The
existing storm system shall be maintained by the City of Fort Collins or other responsible
parties.
I
I
I
i
I
4.4 Variance Requests
No variances are being requested at this time.
5. EROSION CONTROL
5.1 General Concept
This site lies within the Moderate Rainfall and Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort
Collins Zone Maps. A potential exists for silt movement from the site to be transported
into the existing ponds located to the south of the site. All erosion control measures
necessary to minimize sediment transport have been shown on the Erosion Control Plan.
5.2 Specific Details
To limit the amount of silt leaving the site, several erosion control measures shall be
implemented during construction. Silt fence shall be installed along the southern and
eastern sides of proposed site. Also, vehicle -tracking pads shall be installed at the two
entrance the existing asphalt drive to control the mud being tracked onto the existing
pavement. During overlot grading, disturbed areas are to be kept in a roughened
condition and watered to reduce wind erosion.
5.3 Dust Abatement
During the performance of the work required by these plans, the contractor shall carry out
proper efficient measures wherever and as necessary to reduce dust nuisance, and to
prevent dust nuisance, which has originated from his operations from damaging crops,
orchards, cultivated fields and dwellings, or causing nuisance to persons. The Contractor
will be held liable for any damage resulting from dust originating from his operations
under these plans, on right-of-way or elsewhere.
5.4 Tracking Mud
Wherever construction vehicles access routes intersect paved public roads, provisions
shall be made to minimize the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking
onto the paved surface. A stabilized construction entrance is required per the detail
4
.1
I
shown on the Detail Sheet with base material consisting of 6" coarse aggregate. The
contractor will be responsible for clearing tracked mud on a daily basis.
5.5 Maintenance
All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained
and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Silt
fences will require periodic replacement. Maintenance is the responsibility of the
contractor.
6. CONCLUSIONS
' 6.1 Compliance with Standards
All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance with the
rCity of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual.
' 6.2 Drainage Concept
The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the construction plans
adequately provide for the detention and transmission of developed on -site runoff to the
existing storm system. The impact of the development of this site on existing
downstream facilities is not substantial. Detention is being provided to meet
requirements set by the Final Drainage Report for the. Market Place and the Final
Drainage Report for Heart Special Improvement District.
If, at the time of construction, groundwater is encountered, a Colorado Department of
Health Construction Dewatering Permit would be required.
6.3 Erosion Control Concept
-Since the site is less than 5.0 acres, a NPDES permit is not required. During
construction, erosion control shall be maintained to minimize erosion on this site and
transport of silt downstream.
7. REFERENCES
1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", (SDCM), dated March, 1986.
2. The Final Drainage Report for the Market Place by Parsons & Associates dated July,
1989.
3. The Final Drainage Report for Heart Special Improvement District by Engineering
Professionals, Inc. dated January 1985.
4. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated March, 1969, and Volume. 3 dated September,
1992.
6
No Text
I
I
I
I
I
I
y
b
G
G
u w�
v avn aua�
Q�n
O �
p
wn
Q olm
M1 $ t
•�.-
apt y'
s�
tl
v fanm.e
�
a� A
G
�
A. A.IR1
xmann V V gal
A. 1.1flIS
w �ourwiv�
g w �acwA 5
yy
E tl�
'.
� C o Anra
3 i
G G
G
66
S
�
EGy
].m gllva
Tro
�
t 3
Q
.a
$p�y
e�
ao �o.ry
c.
G u owa
Yt
.
°fa
�
G a�
w v1mr
,r
•o vurv�
3
t
`p
4t
a
V
Qg]
3
w
u�wa
..
L—'4
Y 164Y11 {
�
u mYwa
vQ'
6
Ip MI1t.4M1
i 19
b qyy�_
6y
$$
•
u�G
t i
+y
G �
�
ro wuwwfw
'On_
� 6 t
•o mna
�
;max
d
APPENDIX B
HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS
u
)
.
§
�-
B
02
Ile
§a
..
\)
z
)f
§
�E
4
«®
u
k
\
j
kcc
}
k\
\\u\
)S
jf
'
\E
g@
.
22
2$�
gee
■■
eu=
\(0(
4))
uc
I=.
kL
2SSo
£
.
_\.
@«ogf2@
I§
0 0
«\
;
a
£
0
§
ƒ§�
a
)
\
% 7 \
>
r
!
Of
\
)2k
k
® ! \
!
K
§«a
a
;
®f®
m
#
Z k
))
m
k
�
a
.<
/#§|
�]{M
) osa
«
>240
�o
§
k{\|
�
§/0
f
222�
f«)mE)
-$
\�
7�
j k
l ,
k
Q
W
}
N
Z
0
N
LL ~
�2
K W
O Z
O
�U
CLL
Td0
N LU
Y
i
W
C
O
c0
z
N
O
O
v
10
u
..
G
W
ILI_
_
N
xm9��
u �
N
ui
e
vi
U + �
;O
C
�
�
s.Eo
W
z
> W
Q
C C
O
O
K
o
W
O
O
a
O
O
N
W
m
J
W
a
KF.
C A
J
y
i0
N
O
vl
C �+
O
O
paE N
O
c c <
1
m
�
�
U n
c
o
W
N
O
y V N
G
O
G �
f�N
¢
N
co
m
(n
z F
y2
Q
C7
N O
H
mF¢
N O
wy
O
fA
CD
'
3
U
C
Y U.
d Q
m
L .6O
C
W
m E
q)
d
C
O
C
N
my
-e C
e
E
•E
to
c in
m 11
+
O
>
o E
U
m
U
E
z
c
O
--
E
+
CID
n
W
O
F
ca
#0
U)
0
°2k
LU
LU
��
s�
�,
ILI
2
OD
IT
§
=)}
!
s
k
!Z<
k
LU
kE�E�
I(a
2
2
)
770
«
;
m
§ e
,
§«G\
kkCL
co
�
�
(
.
�
\
k\
/
k§
f
)/
R
}
ƒt
cs
}I
(f
§
k
k :
/
—
/
co
j
j {
_
t
c
�,
)
�
�
§
\
z
LL
§E
�«
w
L�
In
0
w
■�
k
0
w
Rl
\
u
}
G
a.
2
)
_
/§1=
�
k
\
6/
k[ �
.§\E&
uo2w
S2E0
\
§
§
§
�■f0
§°JCL
} k
§
-${
§
§
{
2
2
/co
« /
§
q
�2«
/ j6
7
k
§
) }
�/(
_=—
6 Cc
2
/ \
1 cc
\
2§c
-
[)/\)
\
�o«t<
2
k
�
-
/
�k
a
.
/
K
)
LL
LL
O�
Z a
w
Y
0
w
a --
O
H
W
J
Q
Z
_O
' c d
c Ovi
c co
� O
E0
in`) o
� o
L Q j
0 O C
zp3
w
3
U
N
�o¢Uo
cv
u
U
0
m
�n
z
c
O_FF
f.wa
oaoa
a a U o
Y
i
W
LL'
O
00 N
N
O
oa
O_ y
W
O
Y
C
E rn c
oa
c�
(V
O
C
S
6
Oj
E
ui
ui
U
o
m
U
o
1p
N
o
0
LL
U.
7
m
�
G o
U
K
0
0 0
N
9
U
O
n
n
0
b
APPENDIX C
DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS
10
------------------------------
DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD
Developed by
Civil Eng. Dept., U. of Colorado
Supported by Denver Metro Cities/Counties Pool Fund Study
Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Colorado
------------------------------------------------
PROJECT TITLE: Tidal Wave Car Wash
**** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION
BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00
BASIN AREA (acre)= 0.76
RUNOFF COEF = 0.88
***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS
DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00
INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN
DURATION 5 . 10 20 30 . 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180
INTENSITY 9.9 7.7 5.6 4.5. 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5
***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = .66 CFS
OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = 1
AVERAGE RELEASE RATE . = .66 CFS.
AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR.
***** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE
RAINFALL RAINFALL
INFLOW
OUTFLOW
REQUIRED
DURATION INTENSITY
VOLUME
VOLUME
STORAGE
MINUTE
-----------------------------------------------------
INCH/HR
ACRE -FT
ACRE -FT
ACRE -FT .
5.00
9.95
0.05
0.00
0.04
10.00
7.72
0.07
0.01
0.06
15.00
6.66
0.09
0.01
0.08
20.00
5.60
0.10
0.02
0.09
25.00
5.06
0.12
0.02
0.09
30.00
4.52
0.13
0.03
0.10
35.00
4.13
0.13
0.03
0.10
40.00
3.74
0.14
0.04
0.10
45.00.
3.49
0.15
0.04
0.10
50.00
3.23
0.15
0.05
0.10
55.00
3.05
0.16
0.05
0.11
60.00
2.86
0.16
0.05
0.10
65.00
2.74
0.17
0.06
0.11
10.00
2.62
0.17
0.06
0.11
75.00
2.50
0.17
0.07
0.11
80.00
2.38
0.18
0.07
0.10
85.00
2.31
0.18
0.08
0.10
90.00
2.23
0.19
0.08
0.10
95.00
2.16
0.19
0.09
0.10
100.00
-----------------------------------------------------
2.08
0.19
0.09
0.10
THE REQUIRED
POND SIZE
= .1067219 ACRE -FT
THE RAINFALL
DURATION
FOR THE
ABOVE POND
STORAGE= 70 .MINUTES
TIDAL WAVE CAR WASH
Proposed Detention / Water Quality Pond - Stage/Storage
LOCATION:
Tidal wave car wash
PROJECT NO:
159-01
COMPUTATIONS BY:
PPK
SUBMITTED BY:
NORTH STAR DESIGN, INC.
DATE:
11/16/01
V = 1/3 d (A + B + sgrt(A*B))
where
V = volume between contours, ft3
d = depth between contours, ft
A = surface area of contour
Water Quality Volume Required =
0.021 Acre -Feet
Detention Volume Required =
0.107 Acre -Feet
Total Volume Required =
0.128 Acre -Feet
W=
100 YR WSEL
Overflow e/ev
Stage
(ft)
Surface
Area
W)
Incremental
Storage
(ac-ft)
Total
Storage
(ac-ft)
23.9
0
25
631
0.01
0.005
25.65
1469
0.02
0.021
26.00
1920
0.03
0.033
26.98
7179
0.10
0.129
27.00
7286
0.10
0.132
detention.xls
TIDAL WAVE CAR WASH
Detention Pond Outlet Sizing
-' (100 yr event)
LOCATION: Tidal wave car wash
' PROJECT NO: 159-01
COMPUTATIONS BY: PPK
SUBMITTED BY: North Star Design
' DATE: 11/16/01
Submerged Orifice Outlet:
release rate is described by the orifice equation,
Qo = Cok sgrt( 2g(h-Eo))
where Qo = orifice outflow (cfs)
Co = orifice discharge coefficient
g = gravitational acceleration = 32.26 ft/s
A. = effective area of the orifice (ft`)
Eo = geometric center elevation of the orifice (ft)
h = water surface elevation (ft)
Pond Outlet
Qo = 0.66 cfs
outlet pipe dia = D = 15.0 in
Invert elev. = 5023.78 ft
' Eo = 5023.94 ft
h = 5026.98 ft - WSEL
Co = 0.6
' solve for effective area of orifice using the orifice equation
Ao = 0.079 , ft`
= in`
orifice dia. = d = 3.80 3.80 in
Check orifice discharge coefficient using Figure 5-21 (Hydraulic Engineering)
d/D= 0.25
kinematic viscosity, v = 1.22E-05 ftZ/s
Reynolds no. = Red = 4Q/(ndv) = 2.18E+05
' Co = (K in figure) = 0.6 check
Use d = 3.8 in
' A o = 0.079 ft' = 11.34 in
Qmax = 0.66 cfs
1 -
' detention.xls
TIDAL WAVE CAR WASH
Emergency Overflow Spillway Sizing
LOCATION: Tidal wave car wash
PROJECT NO: 159-01
COMPUTATIONS BY: PPK
SUBMITTED BY: North Star Design
DATE: 11/16/01
Equation for flow over weir
Q = CLH3"
where C = weir coefficient = 3.1
H = overflow height
L = length of the weir
t - • '7=c m
H
4 ♦_ spill elevation
L Po
17 100 yr WSEL
Spillway will be designed with max 0.5 ft flow depth, H = 0.33 ft
Size the spillway assuming that the pond outlet is completely clogged.
Q (100) = 8.8 cfs
Spill elev =
5027.00
ft
Min top of berm elev.=
5027.50
Weir length required:
L=
15
ft
Use L=
15
ft
v =
1.27
ft/s
(6.63*1.33)
100 yr WSEL = 5026.98 ft
detentionAs
15" OUTLET PIPE CAPACITY
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File
d:\haestad\fmw\tidalway.fm2
Worksheet
15" OUTLET PIPE
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.013
Channel Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
Diameter
15.00 in
Discharge
0.66 cfs
Results
Depth
0.27
ft
Flow Area
0.19
ft'
Wetted Perimeter
1.21
ft
Top Width
1.03
ft
Critical Depth
0.32
It
Percent Full
21.59
Critical Slope
0.005237 ft/ft
Velocity
3.39
fus
Velocity Head
0.18
ft
Specific Energy
0.45
ft
Froude Number
1.37
Maximum Discharge
6.95
cfs
Full Flow Capacity
6.46
cfs
Full Flow Slope
0. 000 104 ft/ft
Flow is supercritical.
t
'1/16/01
02:53:3:53:34 PM
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666
FlowMaster v5.15
Page 1 of 1
SWALE AA
Worksheet for Irregular Channel
Project Description
Project File
d:\haestad\fmw\tidalway.fm2
Worksheet
SWALE AA
'
Flow Element
Irregular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula .
Solve For
Water Elevation
Input Data
Channel Slope
0.006000 ft/ft
'
Elevation range: 0.00 ft to 1.08 ft.
Station (ft)
Elevation (ft) Start Station
-5.00
1.08 -5.00
'
-1.00
0.08 -1.00
0.00
0.00 1.00
1.00
0.08
5.00
1.08
Discharge
3.46
cfs
Results
Wtd. Mannings Coefficient
0,014
Water Surface Elevation
0.39
ft
Flow Area
1.08
ft2
Wetted Perimeter
4.55
ft
'
Top Width
4.47
ft
Height
0.39
ft
Critical Depth
0.42
ft
'
Critical Slope
0.004537 ft/ft
Velocity
3.21
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.16
ft
Specific Energy
0.55
ft
Froude Number
1.15
Flow is supercritical.
Notes:
Q= Q100. 133%
Q= 2.6. 133%
t
' 1 v:01
02:5555:08 PM
End Station
-1.00
1.00
5.00
Roughness
0.030
0.013
0.030
FlowMaster v5.15
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
9/3/01
LOCATION: Tidal Wave Care Wash
ITEM: Water Quality Pond Sizing
COMPUTATIONS BY: ppk
SUBMITTED BY: North Star Design, Inc
From Urban Strom Drainage Criteria/ Manual, March 1969
(Referenced figures are attached in Appendix F)
Use 40-hour brim -full volume drain time for extended detention basin
Water Quality Capture Volume = WQCV = (required storage/12)*(tributary drainage area)
MAJOR
BASIN
Trib.
area
(ac)
% Imperv.
Req. Storage
(in. of runoff)
from Fig. 5.1
WQCV
(ac-ft)
DWQ
(ft)
req. vol
WQCV *1.2
(ac-ft)
req. area/row
(In2kow)
from Fig. 53
POND #1
0.76
70.0
0.275
0.017
1.00
0.021
0.15
WO outlet sizing for pond 1
From Figure 5,
for 7/16 in. hole diameter
Area of hole =
0.15 in
# of columns =
1
Area provided/row =
0.15 in
Area Required/row =
0.15 in
Use 1 columns of 7/16" diam holes
WQVOL.xls
APPENDIX D
EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
�
:
I
�
�
�11
o
J200
�m0
00'
)a�
@
�
<.
!
E
j ..
.
{(
zc.
±(
\
�
22.
2
■
](
/\
_
)
»)U
f
o0
�
B�
)(
.
.�
§
�
§�
§En
<
10
®
a
b�
>§
22
■a
d§
:
\]>
.
\ ��
\)f
f�®
)7\
d \
K
\/�
ba
7
ƒ
§�\
\»
§\4
q(§
2\
a
i \
\.0
CLO
op
2 /
b
,2
C
§Ea
®�\kJ
k G 4&
K
J S&
]]]++
®%)
to
/o0
kgk®S
]\]
�cn U)>>
4�«]g§2J
u
I
1
I
I
North Star Design
700 Automation Drive, Unit I
Windsor, CO 80550
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT:
TIDAL WAVE CAR WASH
STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY:
PPK
DATE: 04-Sep-01
EROSION CONTROL
C-FACTOR
P-FACTOR
METHOD
VALUE
VALUE
COMMENT
BARE SOIL
1.00
1.00
SMOOTH CONDITION
ROUGHENED GROUND
1.00
0.90
ROADSIWALKS/BLDG
0.01
1.00
GRAVEL FILTERS
1.00
0.80
PLACED AT OUTLET
SILT FENCE
1.00
0.50
STRAW MULCH
0.06
1.00
ESTABLISHED GRASS
0.08
1.00
FROM FIGURE 8-A
STRAW BARRIERS
1.00
0.80
EFF = (I-C'P)• 100
MAJOR
SUB
BASIN AREA
EROSION CONTROL METHODS
BASIN
BASIN
(Ac)
1
0.26
ROADS/WALKS/BLDG
0.21 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.00 Ac.
GRAVEL FILTER
0.00
STRAW BARRIER
0.05 Ac.
NET C-FACTOR
0.20
NET P-FACTOR
0.96
EFF = (1-C"P)•100 =
80.7%
2
0.50
ROADS/WALKSIBLDG
0.33 Ac.
ESTABLISHED GRASS
0.00 Ac.
ROUGHENED GR.
0.00 Ac.
SILT FENCE
0.07 Ac.
STRAW BARRIERS
0.10 Ac.
NET C-FACTOR
0.35
NET P-FACTOR
0.89
EFF = (1-C•P)• 100 =
69.2%
TOTAL AREA = 0.76 ac
TOTAL EFF = 73.1% _ (94.0%•29.77 ac. + ., +99.6%'0.40 acyl.14 ac
REQUIRED PS = 72.9%
Since 73.1% < 72.9%, the proposed plan does not meet the performance standard
Erosion.)ls
1of1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
North Star Design, Inc.
700 Automation Drive, Unit I
Windsor, CO 80550
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
STANDARD FORM C
PROJECT: TIDAL WAVE CAR WASH
SEQUENCE FOR 2002 ONLY COMPLETED BY: PPK DATE: 04-Sep-01
Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an
approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer.
MONTH
2002
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
Demolition
Grading
Wind Erosion Control:
Soil Roughing
Perimeter Barrier
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Soil Sealant
Other
Rainfall Erosion Control
Structural:
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters
Straw Barriers
Silt Fence Barriers
Sand Bags
Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
Asphalt/Concrete Paving
Other
Vegetative:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Sealant
Temporary Seed Planting
Sod Installation
N etti ngs/Mats/Bla nkets
Other
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY: CONTRACTOR MAINTAINED BY:
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: TO BE DETERMINED BY BID
DATE SUBMITTED: APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON:
DEVELOPER
' Page 1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
North Star Design, Inc.
700 Automation Drive, Unit I
Windsor, CO 80550
EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE
Project: TIDAL WAVE CAR WASH
Prepared by: PPK
ITEM
QUANTITY
JUNIT
COST/UNIT
JTOTALCOST
Silt Fence
340
LF
$3
$1,020
Straw Bale Barrier
2
EA
$150
$300
Gravel Inlet Filter
0
EA
$150
$0
Construction Entrance
2
EA
$550
$1,100
Subtotal
Contingency(50%)
Total
$2,420
$1,210
$3,630
CITY RESEEDING COST
Reseed/Mulch
0.82
ACRE
1 $615
$504
Subtotal
Contingency (56%)
Total
$504
$252
$756
EROSION CONTROL ESCROW AMOUNT $3,630
Page 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
APPENDIX E
FIGURES AND TABLES
E
R-M-P Medium Density. Planned Residential District — designation for medium density
areas planned as a unit (PUD) to provide a variation in use and building placements
with a minimum lot area of 6.000 square feet.
R-Lid Low Density Multiple Family District — areas containing low density multiple family
units or any other use in the R-L District with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet
for one -family or two-family dwellings and 9,000 square feet for multiple -family
dwellings.
M-L Low Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas for mobile home parks
containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 6 units per acre.
M-M Medium Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas of mobile home
parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 12 units per acre.
B-G General Business District — district designation for downtown business areas,
including a variety of permitted uses, with minimum lot areas equal to 112 of the total
floor area of the building.
B-P Planned Business District — designates areas planned as unit developments to
provide business services while protecting the surrounding residential areas with
minumum lot areas the same as R-M.
H-B Highway Business District — designates an area of automobile -orientated busi-
nesses with a minimum lot area equal to 1/2 of the total floor area of the building.
B-L Limited Business District — designates areas for neighborhood convenience
centers, including a variety of community uses with minimum lot areas equal to two
times the total floor area of the building.
C Commercial District —designates areas of commercial. service and storage areas.
1-L Limited Industrial District —designates areas of light industrial uses with a minimum
area of lot equal to two times the total floor area of the building not to be less than
20,000 square feet
I-P Industrial Park District —designates light industrial park areas containing controlled
industrial uses with minimum lot areas equal to two.times the total floor area of the
building not to be less than 20,000 square feet.
I-G General Industrial District — designates areas of major industrial development.
T Transition District — designates areas which are in a transitional stage with regard
to ultimate development .
For current and more explicit definitions of land uses and zoning classifications, refer to the
Code of the City of Fort Collins, Chapters 99 and 118.
Table 3-3
RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPOSITE ANALYSIS
Character of Surtaoe Runoff Coeffr
Streets, Parking Lots, Drives:
Asphalt.. . .................... ...................... _......... ......... »..... ...................... 0.95
Concrete.... ..... ......... .................... ...... ............................ _................. 0.
Gravel»..........»».............................._..................»..........:...._........... 0.0 5
Roofs........._..............................»_...._...__........__......._------- ..-........... 0.95
Lawns. Sandy Soil:
' Flat <2%........ ».»..»_.._... _..... ._......... _........................._..„..............
..
Average 2 to 7%..... .......................................... .... ....:_.._...------ ..------
Steep>70k............. ................„..........................................................
I^
�I
Lawns, Heavy Soil:
Flat <20/6 .............
Average 2 to 7% ..
Steep >70/6 ..........
MAY 1984 3-4
0.10
0.15
020
020
025
0.35
i
DESIGN CRrrER1A
No Text
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL N. 3)
STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
1
1
1
1
1
1�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9-1-1992
UDFCD
0.
0.
0.
xten
10-HoL
ed De
r Drain
entio
time
Bast
(Dry)
t
(
1
zk000
D
1
?tentic
-Hour
n Pon
Drain
Js (Wet)
Time
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Impervious Area in Tributary Watershed
Source: Urbanos, Guo, Tucker (1989)
Note: Watershed inches of runoff shall epply to the
entire watershed tributary to the B pP Facility.
FIGURE 5-1. WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV)
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL(V. 3)
STRUCTURAL BMPs
m
E
3
m
a
U
rl
0.21
0.01
0.0;
0.0
0.02
ZrIA4,91010APOPIA
�►mommmommimpur
SOLUTION: Required Area per
r.
FAR
Aff
WFA AR
1A AP
PAP
EMEMIA
FUJI
'F'EAPIA
FAA
Al
FA
�
�
011
.
�
0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60 1.0 2.0 4.v .
Required Area per Row (in.2)
Soume: Douglas County Storm Drainage and Technical Criteria, 1966.
FIGURE 5-3. WATER QUALITY OUTLET SIZING: DRY EXTENDED DETENTION
BASIN WITH A 40-HOUR DRAIN TIME OF THE CAPTURE VOLUME
Rev. 3-1-1994
UDFCD
Table 88 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values.
Treatment C-Factor P-Factor
BARE SOIL
Packed and smooth......................................:......................... 1.00 1.00
Freshlydisked........................................................................ 1.00 0.90
Rough irregular surface........................................................... 1.00 0.90
_
SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP
........................................................... ...... 1.00
" 0.50"
STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ 1.00
0.80
SILT FENCE BARRIER
..................................................................... 1.00
0.50
1
ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... 0.01
1.00
ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. 8-A
SODGRASS
1.00
................................................................................. 0.01
1.00
TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS
1
.................. .. 0.450
................
HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2
1.00
TONS/ACRE ............................ 0.100
...
1.00
SOILSEALANT
.................................... ................................ 0.01-0.60W
1.00
EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS
.................................
GRAVEL MULCH
Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of appro)amately
1 /4' to 1 1 /2' and applied at a rate of, at least 135 tons/acre0.05
..............
1.00
HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH
'
After Planting crass seed apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately anchor,
tack or crimp material into the son.
Slope (%)
' .
1 to 05.................................................. ... 0.06
6 to 10
1.00
............................................................................. 0.06
11 to 15
1.00
............................................................................. 0.07
16 to 20
1.00
................................................ 0.11
1.00
25 to 33................ ................. ........................................... :0.14
1.00
.......................... 0.17
>33
1.00
........................................................................... 0.20
1.00
'
NOTE: Use of other GFa= or p.Facmr
vakm reported in this table must be substridaW by docIsr"
dwL
(1) Must be conSVuCted as the first step in overlot grading.
'
in Table 11 , thus or hydraulic
(� Hydraulic used only 15
m sha0 be betweenMarch an 1
5 un�lesssan�gateedd.
(4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation.
i
-
1
1
MARCH 1991 8-6 DESIGN CRITU"
I
'
0
c
O
' a
O
U
H
z
'
N
a
a
0
U
'
a
0
w
cow
EG
W
W
U
w
'
a
W
a
a
1 9
I
im"CN 1991
0 0+01000
O v a In In In
m W W.m W m
0 ololaol000000
o vavvinlnlnlnlnln
v WWmWmWmWWm
o m0%00,C%0%a%Om0%0%0%0000
o4.v1;444;avvvvnn.n
M
CD co W co co W m W co W. W W W W W
O n0Wm0%01W0101010101010101010%01010%
o avvv'vvvvvvavvvvvvvvv
N m W W m W m m W W W W W W W m m m m m W
0 oMvIn1D1D1D1DnnnnrnnnnnnraDmmWWm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o vvv.rvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
•-I eoWmmWaoWWmaDaoaoWWmmaoaoCOWaoaocoWmW
o mAlMv000wv%V 1D1DIDnnnnnnnnnlnmmm
. . . . • . . . . . . . . • . • • • . . . . . . • •
o+. Mvvvvvvvvvd'•1Tvvv'vvvvvvvvvvv
WmmmWmmWmmmmmeaaomaoGoGomm wCDmaoco
o %0 0 N M v v In In In 9n 1D 1D 10 10 10 %0 10 v ID 1D n. In. n. In. n. r
to M v v v vvv v . v v v v v v v
mWcoWmW WmWmW W W W WmmW WWCDmW WOpm
O v ch v-4eI M M v v v or In In 0 gn In In In In in %D m %0 %0 %0 %D r
r MMvvavvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
m W co co co m co W W W to W m w co W W co W W W m W m co m
O 0 10 W O rI "4 N N M M M M v v v' v v'.v v v In In 0 In %0 %0
1D MMMvvvvd a*
d. v• . . . • . . . . • . . .
avVvvtvvvvvvv WmCDmCOWW W W W Wm0W000DWCOW W W W CO mmm
� c InNInrow00arirlriNNNIV NMMMMMvvvvvw
de
�-In NMMMMMIVIV Qdtielef'elvvd'eltTvvvvvv
W CC COWWWWWWWWWmWCOW WCDWWWCOWW W W W
at .iW�MleInIn%D�DnnnWWWWWWa0%0%000oo
. • . . . . . . . . M . M . M . . . - .
a v N N M M M. M M M co; co; M M M M M M M M v v v v v to W CO W W W WW W W W O M w W W m m W W w CD m= W W W
O%0InWO Vol NMvVinInIn%01O%0%0%Dnnnn W W 0CND1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . •
V' rl lV N M M m m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
WCDW0WCCmWWmco0WmW W W co W W WmW WmW
In •i•"IlnnmOO•-INNMMM�a! V �� W WO1p{p{pnn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M ri N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
WWWWmWWWmmWmCOMCMOM W WmW W W W W
O Nf N10m 010 •'INNMMMv�•Q��v•p W W W W W W W W
. ..........................
M O•-I •i •-1.•1 N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N eDaDaDmmmmCDeDWaDWCDW WaomW W WeDW W W W W
to tnIn0lNMvu'110rnnWWW0101010101pIOac0-0a
. ..........................
N O1 O O ri •i •-I •-i •y ri •mil ,� .i •i r1 •-I •1 ri •..l � ...1 N N N N N N
rmWmmWWWWeoCoaDeDmeommmmComWmmWm
O v0 OMin w mmm000•iVol Vol •"I N N N N M MMMMM
N W o+ O O O O O O O •i •-1 •-i .-I rl rl .-t .•l ••1 •i .� rl ..l ••l •,,,� rl �
nrmmmCOCOWmWWmWWmWCommWWmeommm
In mNW.-I V�Inrnm010100r1.-i.-i•-1.-INNNMMM Mtn • . • • • • . • • . . . • • • . • • • • . • . . .
'� 1DEDWOf0/0f01010101010000000000
0000000
rnrnrrnnnrnC000WcoWWWWmmmWmmW
O 10e'10vn010•-INMMat�Inlnlnln�DlD�plDnn�DtD ID
. . . . . . . .
�- vlDrnrrWmWW W W MOM W WWWWmWmmW W
nnrnrrnrnnnnnnnnrnnnnnnnnn
In 010v1DnWmnP. r. . . 1D10{pinvvMMNN01%0V"10%%0
. . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O ONNNNNNNNNNNNN1vNNNC4CNI Irlr-100
nnnrnrnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
E 0000000000 0 0 000 0 0 o 0 000 0 00 0
0 EE 00a0.000000-0000000a00000000
zwral rINMQtnlpr W010•iN!•faTlnlpnm0101nOInOlnO
a rimri•i.-Irl•i•i•1mmNMmvvto
I
8-4
DESIGN CRITIRIU
APPENDIX F
EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS
F
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
HEART SPECIAL IMPR. DISTRICT
CITY OF FO
COUNTY OF LARIMER
STATE OF COLORADO
DECEMBER, 1984
REVISED: JANUARY 1985
PROJECT NO.: 311.2
Prepared by:
Engineering Professionals, Inc.
2625 Redwing Rd., Suite 110
Fort Collins, -CO 80526
(303) 226-3852
v
INTRODUCTION
This final drainage report is submitted in conjunction with
construction drawings for Heart Special Improvement District
prepared by Engineering Professionals, Inc. The City of Fort
Collins "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction
Standards" were used as guidelines for runoff calculations and
storm sewer system design.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Heart Special Improvement District is located in the West
half of Section 36, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth
P.M. Proposed improvements consist of construction of portions
of JFR Parkway and Troutman Parkway, realignment of the Larimer
#2 Canal, construction of.a 5-foot by 20-foot box culvert under
the intersection..of JFR and Troutman Parkways, and construction
of water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer utilities. Future
land use in the District will primarily be commercial and
business -related, although approximately 10 acres in the
southeast portion of the District is intended to be developed as
high -density residential. The District contains approximately
45.3 acres, is predominantly covered with native vegetation, and
slopes to the south and east at from .5 to 2%. The site is
bordered on the north and east by Boardwalk Drive, on the west
by business and residential properties, and on the south by
agricultural land. The Larimer #2 Canal crosses the site in a
general northeast -to -southwest direction.
HISTORIC DRAINAGE
Before construction of the Landings and Whaler's Cove
residential areas, the portion of the site below the Larimer #2
Canal drained to the major basin thalweg to the south, while the
area above the .Larimer #2 Canal discharged into the canal. At
present, the majority of the site drains into the Larimer #2
Canal, a 'port.ion drains south toward the basin thalweg, and the
remainder drains into an open channel leading to Harmony
Reservoir (see Figure 1). Estimated historic 2-year and 100-year
peak discharges into the Larimer #2 Canal from the site are 5.9
cfs and 20.5 cfs, respectively. Estimated 2-year and 100-year
historic peakdischarges from the site area below the Larimer #2
Canal are 4.2 cfs and 15.5 cfs, respectively.
MASTER DRAINAGE
A report entitled "Master Storm Drainage Report for the
Landings P.U.D.," by Cornell Consulting Company recommended that
' areas above the Latimer #2 Canal be allowed to release storm
flows at the historic 2-year level directly to the Latimer #2
' Canal. Those portions of the site below the Latimer #2 Canal,
with the exception of Troutman Parkway, were to drain into an
open channel running to Harmony Reservoir, as outlined in the
' above report.
DRAINAGE UNDER DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
' City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Utility staff has
recommended that the Larimer.#2 canal running through the site be
' sized for a total discharge of 240 cfs, 155 cfs of irrigation
flows and 85 cfs of stormwater flows. Assuming only those areas
' above the canal and to the east of College Avenue, (with the
exception of the Jetty P.U.D., which discharges to Harmony
Reservoir) contribute to stormwater discharge into the canal, the
' allowable release rate per tributary acre is approximately 0.87
cfs per acre (see Figure 1): we request that the City of Fort
Collins require all future developers in this basin east of
College Avenue above the Latimer #2 canal to design and construct
facilities sized to detain the developed 100-year"runnff mD_j me
and release at a rate of 0.87 cfs per tributary, acre.
Curb inlet lengths were sized for the 10-year event
' according to City of Fort Collins Drainage Design Criteria.
Storm sewers discharging from future building sites into curb
inlets were sized based on a detained release rate. of .87 cfs per
' acre summed with any offsite discharge. The remainder of the
storm sewer system from curb inlets to the Latimer #2 Canal were
' sized to handle the larger of the peak discharge from the 10-year
street runoff intercepted by. the curb inlets, or 10-year peak
discharge from the total tributary area assuming a time of
' concentration -of 20 minutes.
According
to recommendations made in the Cornell
Report,
'
those portions
of the District below the Latimer #2 Canal
(basins
H, I, and M;
see map) were to drain undetained to
Harmony
'
Reservoir via
circumstances
a grass lined, trapezoidal channel.
unforeseen during preparation of the
Due to
Cornell
Report, we propose that detention facilities sufficient to detain
r the 100-year event and relea sing onto "Somerset" at the 2-year
9 Y
' historic rate be constructed by future developers of basins H, I,
and M.
An undeveloped area of 3.6 acres at the Northwest corner of
Landings Drive and Boardwalk discharges under Boardwalk via curb
inlet and culvert onto Basin E. The inlet and culvert were sized
by others based on undeveloped conditions; future developers of
that parcel will need to detain on -site to limit future
discharges to .87 cfs per acre, as this area historically
discharged into the Larimer #2 Canal. We assumed that these
undeveloped flows passed through Heart S.I.D. undetained to the
Larimer #2 Canal.
ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS, INC.
n /
Jonathan B. Howard
Michael N. Schmid, P.E.
JBH:psm
coal
tv
N+�
° II.
COLORAOO AND ° •• SQUTHERN
X• ° P r u ,
—, n P . • ��rll ti COG�EGE•� .4VE ° A A • I
•o \: � I � � •�•\� ,�l ,� i III— �—� :�
^:.h ••-11 ft ,d� ell —
p n�
Iv
n,r••'Li i — S':k4t-�t•__ ��fff\���. ^��+ � si 'Q�'I. (F� �j I � _ � �1
R'..• ' °`
y
iw
NION �P F
Ln
� 1: �,•° !�A' III � li •„'� ' �� �\�,___..-
a Cpb�
X
1 a i� (� n it
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR THE MARKET PLACE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
INTRODUCTION
This drainage .investigation 'has been performed for the
purpose of providing design information for the development of a
proposed commercial shopping center to be located at the Northeast
corner of the intersection of South College Avenue and Troutman
Parkway, Fort Collins, Colorado. The City of Fort Collins "Storm
Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" was used as a
basis for guidelines and criteria throughout this investigation.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The study area is situated in the Southwest Quarter of
�. Section 36, Township.7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The
site is bounded by: South College Avenue on the 'West; the
Fountainhead P.U.D. on the North; the JFK Parkway on the East; and
Troutman Parkway on the South. A small parcel of land located at
the Northwest corner of JFK Parkway and Troutman Parkway, known as
Superblock Holding, is excluded from this development. •This phase
of development contains approximately 8 acres. The area is
Presently undeveloped and used for three residential acreages with
the major portion of the property being vacant. The topography of
the site.slopes from Northwest to Southeast at grades varying from
0.5% to 2%. The site is predominantly covered with grasses and
native vegetation.
HISTORIC DRAINAGE
Prior to the construction of the streets bounding the site on
the east and south, the Larimer No. 2 Canal formed the easterly
boundary of these lands. The No. 2 Canal was reconstructed and
relocated as a part of the.Heart Special Improvement- District.
Prior to this construction the area drained into the No. 2 Canal.
The •Heart Special Improvement District installed storm drainage
pipes onto the properties at the intersection of Troutman Parkway
and JFK Parkway. The construction was performed in accordance
with an agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Larimer
County Canal No. 2 Irrigation Company whereby the Ditch Company
allowed the City to discharge stormwater into the No. 2 Canal.
MASTER DRAINAGE
The site has been considered in several previous: -drainage
studies:in this area. The "McClelland's Mail Creek" Basin is the
City's designated master plan basin in which this site is located.
The site has not been studied to any detail within this Basin
' Master Plan. An investigation for the area to the North and East
was prepared by Cornell Consulting Company. This report was the
"Master Storm Drainage Report For The Landings P U D " It was
' recommended in this report that the area above the No. 2 Canal be
allowed to develop and detain stormwater on -site and to release
run-off at the 2-year historic rate into the No. 2 canal. A
' subsequent report prepared by Engineering Professionals, Inc. for
the Heart Special •Improvement District recommends that in
conjunction with the reconstruction and relocation of the No. 2
Canal, as a part of the S.I.D., that the rate of discharge into
' the canal be'limited to 0.87 cfs/acre. The storm drainage pipes
that were installed to serve a .properties were sized on that
basis. This site is a portion of Basin A (6.12 acres of 9.96) and
' a portion of Basin B (1.85 acres of 6.14) as defined by the Heart
S.I.D. Flows from those portions of Basin A & B north of this
site have been calculated using 0.87 cfs per acre and passed
through the Market Place drainage system. (2.83 cfs for Basin A,
.3.51 cfs for Basin B)
Additionally, 7.6 cfs from the Fountainhead P.U.D. will be
allowed through this site and discharged to the.No. 2 canal.
DRAINAGE UNDER DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
' This site is proposed to be. a retail' shopping center with
perimeter pads for food service and other high traffic uses. The
majority of the site will be directed westerly to Basin A and
ultimately to the Troutman crossing, (7.405 ac.) and the remainder
of the site will be directed to the JFR Parkway Crossing. Flows
from Troutman Parkway and JFR Parkway will be released directly to
' Canal No. 2, but detention has been provided on -site for those
adjacent portions.of Troutman & JFR. The release rate used was
0.87 cfs per acre per the Heart S.I.D., and detention provided on -
site based on the difference between 100-year storm- and 0.87
cfs/acre release rate. 60,000 cubic feet of detention is 'required
for this site.
No detention has been provided for flows from College Avenue.
However, these flows will overflow through the Market Place site
and ultimately drain to the Troutman crossing.• Also, flows from
Isthe 0.83 acres (Superblock Holding) were not considered, although
pipe stub -outs have been provided and"capacity in the existing
system has been provided per the Heart S.I.D., allowing future
development of the site.
All easements for off -site drainage structures as shown on
these plans are handled by separate document and not by the plat
of Market Place P.U.D.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.) The site is to. be developed to retain the general drainage
pattern existing prior to development.
2.) All final design and construction shall conform with the City
of Fort Collins "Storm' Drainage. Design Criteria and
Construction Standards".
3.) On -site detention is to be provided with controlled release
rates that meet established criteria per Heart Special
Improvement District Final Drainage Report.
4.) The site is not located within an established floodway or
floodplain.
i
5.) The existing condition of the property to the north is such
that natural ponding is already in existence. Overflow of
that natural ponding occurs approximately at elevation 5031
per aerial topography of the site. Future development of
that property will require filling this low area to elevation
5031. The development of Market Place does not substantially
alter any drainage characteristics of the adjacent northerly
property and does provide drainage facilities to accommodate
future development of that property.
Prepared under the direct supervision of:
M.
O.�►Q��•u Y�Po;�spy`
Donald M. Par ons, P. E. # 13131
13131o`rk,
'aNAL�� OO`
9� OF CO��
'So some detention of flows from.College Avenue will occur in all
situations except the 100-year storm, and even in the 100-year
event, the time of concentrations for College Avenue will be
increased.
- 32.0
z
/ T
.0
\ \\ i
`SL.�PE= :a Q1AC�2JT TO t�FFSIT"EX \ j 1
?eGPEEle7,f \11
P,T C
•S�MEt�JT. ^�
1
�% / -- 1 \
^W�^ �Il� ���-ST. 11
—L s Z G�° G La% j I / c renti c �e 2 To Pnv:�rJ. 11
Z `�..• �� ,�./a?� s l l l I I `'.. �`] Q ��� DQ
W o J E," �1,Z`
I 'O' `=,J: •'FYI n' vCa
> / j (, ti .
QZZa?\
/ �I S•O.a.�.vJ \ �Nv. "�' C,3 � 24. _ ,sC ���__�- ��/
Hit !v1ARKET PLACE POU . T)
Checked By: J.h13 GRADING
Prepared: h1AY 39 & DRAINAGE PLAN
v5q_of
fief
--
. LEGEND _
" IY(1998
PRCLIMINARY. _ - ID. Clly'01 F 1 C sl I,y D IItY aLlyd x+P^cla m°,l0 oat x.a'a! ; CECON PD:NT '
la z1 Parl v<on mu \k Im el.
NOr'FgP CQYSWISFEGW N PASIN CRITCHI.
NOKMBER 26. 2001 �'i' ({I Mapla aq p4bvx9 11aFgj Mq I(9 Ial e w 1 a JI a gee nn 1 j m m
e a I m appaw t• M 1nm w r a eo- tra 0.60 0.4 FUNOFF; of o
e ml� b u 4ucn fe( e� Hal at a m me f O� p m
°p r°wa p Mt +MM an Ywcllm P oitl.a kn tl P t c r-
:� . e P a+IWO vN 1 1 ,Lal w lMl a [ t a p°nNl AREA IN ACPF O at
pQ9 [p
- p ablulL 1 lx9 pl Ilya Mtll ynllM l LM 1 '(n Mla a FLOW DIRECTW. q U p Q
A xu<t °p n and tM n t kp.Ge. _ DO
C o
`-' r.:' ;c \ EpN911� w Ja a p%ea x9 a al 1 tlb 9 IlN( blpp q 9 a4444449 1111Y x 1911 tl BASH BOUbr 'mil N N ON
b \' 1 MpYn9 9 l ) A M k9p ^ ea al( -0Y k N9 algl 9 9 • • III
E%ISTNG PPt • C (;
' - \ cm\ li ^ wge \L6t \^ p mml omam conbd II a N° p _ O
.. \ ..\ 1\\ IINx a 1 a. b°S!1 eh IMI say rmaNeWmea eY a a t al q ® PROPOSED INLET ANDS P. '0 d
Y w OF t11 IY Ltb) c y, 0 1 MA 4M t P Y P 1 1 , FLARE
I \ \ \'y/ / y \ p corkel 9 ^a/ ^ al q t) Bernard. r N pp Y Ne D END $ECTONI
/ f \ f�q1// \\ S o IIIY \
rp property Md1 0 1 M q xl Ina L. a g9 1 aM t NU , PROPOSED INLET LOtf [
20 10 0 20 .40 1\\\1 \\ / d Ih M t III M 1 or ac ap i All pro 0119 4"a 1 ma a 0 1^ C ll be y o! _ _ _ _ ICI'
t \\\\\ L y / \ Fort Dow E g q Dp. M Al 1; EXISTING 5 CONiOUFT
- An temporary (1 1 ) Y e ll wall B p l a a ep[Le [r ____-_ EXISTED T CONTOUR! '
SCALE: 1'� 20' .. I ee M \ 1 \ \\ [4uc1 n aellkhm N t x 1 N e[
I NqF \\ p rlwm 1 OFF'
N1 a be 9,y1 All aOF 0 a pwlal°an U PROPOSED 5 CQ`I T6MJR
- °..a ma mmE.+ dal e. .ew ma oamla w
' \ ` Y 9 Wn wa.
P m
wx:--" A -
f IV � 1 / \ , / �.. .__ _ _ _ _ 1 m <w r M° eqy a 1 q r PRwI IFosE4.l GANTDU
- CALL UTUTY'NOTIFICATON - If . ' LI" IF } ^.' -- r.,. \ \ I ILET L^ • " �\ x acne stoops, MN a 1 (Rol fact , D Ra NI it X Rn or be Q ¢ ..
CCIANTER /OAF /CCOLLORADDOo �/ .. / EnsTNG \ � 1 R lea, I l 5 1 tr new i by 1 + r°°9^e x waiting . a p l +It it
SIT FENCE �
1=Vo0ww922wA1OV/ rcurshe�/ \\ Mr al t Pi Y vMq R wa°n wa ma.
-@1MM DAYS IN ACVANCf / 3 City Nera1n panel the backing. wori a aep nlnq I my u —rt P V INLET PROTECTION m
¢ , \ 1 \ m \ala 1 City street, by m po y Mm.. My x
BEECR� rtU IMl EM•L M EXCAVATE , chat be decnw YnmNpt.lr by lM+ as ^aa treat apmu.a matma
GB 11HE 4. G OF UNDOND ` / 1 1 \ \ MEMBER. UTUTFS CONSTRUC➢ON ENTRANCE
i
�\ 1 \ \ , � $T SEO MERIT iRAPENThiA
�P
II 9 ( \ x r SB �� ERGslan BALES o
\ \ 1
✓ l[
\ �SOttl— / SCE OE NL -S51Pµ SUP
O
ER 9
If IS
\ w\ O
IF I IF
EXI SOWAIK=XREAC2
RAINAGE SUMMARY'TABLE
\ \\ro REMUN \ 2 \
ME
j\ 1
[ _ \ .,+ _ Tu .? CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE - a 9
I \, M y \ :. ` • . 'YOF YMSYAt IA4n .. n,. AVE 4..or l qi N41AJ TCP C O N Oon
's �z ).
cD ra'0 0 85 \ F.M.FL(((� YE, CAR wAsx f
Al i X4E2 J \\\R\ \ n appCE EM t3 ONLY CA4P{ETEO 0 PR( DAIS
ECi
4
r ET �/ // A A� Y )AlU ^ ! II I tIp MI aIIIGRI to
_ \ � ., \ iea ,[^�au a may NN I a n uamitllG9 c x^gau a Iw: pp10 I Y ! City Engineer,
NET LL G'x8} 0' iIAE HMfL /
L BU D. RVR P W/b'
I. P- 1 �esmvsxui / L AND
i
I
OFF
1 /
IA AN
m / .,
Is
FillPC
i D TExrIDn PCND sx
m \ soxE �1 ^ ' �' ^ e coxsmucrzD r
` r TD' VbuMENCIxo HE A.
\ \�\b ��'' IJl.. d's S!•1. FiLRAQNzcDT EpSPNy�.BWrYPE AY DVKRL4T EEFDIF,,�MHc��, n.�h t �'S''yC al R'°\ , D.
T - ' IMTdIT1ET L 6URIE0'RWP-CP w/ a { '�" s \ + t,{.. : 1Ell
l a•ai
^ ` 3 44 :ws{+ucrLaE TW AND B' TrilI / .� � y� � t
%1` Va.! SGZB .CXI APPROxAi1MFELT B RF WO rAM1C /i '�y
^ ,rEXGAbCOF ��L'''```P�
IN 7\� SSLOPe� iorciosn G wF � DETENTION POND SUMNr1ARY
:
REMARKS
.JO'MATH
1' PAN
EAC2100)0
(2
0 (10ESMINMINfi10.61
0
0.65
081
56
5.0
0.66
4.1
TI
3Ax
Fur
MAR
'APR
MAY
JUN
I
AN
SEP
OCT
NOY
EEC
Demaltkn
Dna 9
I
oppose
"no brinpul Say
sW P q^N9
SAL
;Lr
Pm4n B
oppose
I
All IRIIrr.(((
wadi 4 u
is
ous
Sdas�l T P/
MetSvc',
earrlow
sot Fenn Mr
+
sans Borta
owe Sao h
Ilm
Co 1
yFmro
pri99/Canm
OtherTorroci
Y�M! Sion
losses
IMl y/G
Twnp Y Swel
pi[ Ilcq
N 1 9/ t
DOW
ate
4
x.
IF
e0f
Exqui G pooh
CTON
Z
a
DID.
J
W
T
i/
0
L)
a<
>
O_
N
>
Q
Q
~
V
o
.c
SPOR AN XaLIF; O1W AC. FT.
y _ \� iF IS /. " DETENTIONPROVIDED 0,10E AC. FT. STRUCTURES INSTALLED CIX MACI98 MAINTAIN pBSy-I L "
DETENTION PROVIDED RY ED 6Y'
\ I ' IOC TR HNEL _ 0.66.SE - \ YTIJjIEEIMYFIJY.Ain
DETENTION POND SHALL BE O66 CFS WOOTATON/MUL NG CONTRACTOR ]0 E FJS `
9vEN EXCAVATED IN THIS AREA L..S 1 MA% RELEASE RATE \
BY 3C D SHALL 9E"ICED .HALE SUBMITTED APPROVED B CITY OF FORT GOWNS ON
AS A SEGMENT DUMP CORNING
CONSTRUCTION PRIOR N -
ANDSCAPIIIQ. THE DEDUCTION
Y L
POND VALL.ME REGPADED.TO _ - Qf o6 Fort AN'APl .OQIOFOdo
MATCH GRADES Sro4M ON ' - \ UTILITY PLAN'APPRQVAL
J ` r�
THIS PLAN.
_ AN pKWY APRI
GILy Engineer
. 1..-0ET/RTON PMNE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ' I-
.1.p OU11V1 A _ PRIfOR TO COMMENCING ON OVERLOT GRADING CHECKED BY Water
DET(ENTON POND SHALL B OVER.E%CAYATED ) CHECKED BY r — - %FI
BP 20% AND SHALL BE US D AS A SEDIMENT St.
If G - ATiONS SHOMN TRFAP DURINo corysTRUCTill
E. IwM M E.c NATIONS RFF��kw RFn FOR \ .Y <. .r. CHECKED BY PIE, c _
1 CTpI fA M ME IOD YE R �� I .TO LANDSCAPING -
\ IS�H BE RHGRAEb TO M TCH CRADES.EHON41 ". CHECKED BY
P
u4 fu+lsxEn RC<R Bc n smars _
O ,£AP HETE A E SURFACE _
sort E oeT R p - -TIFF I'