Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 02/25/1993i1�e�ieci•` 7ti�ina 1-I9-q13 Final Approved Report -, Date 7��3 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR FIRE STATION NO. 10 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO RWIN'C. Engineering Consultants 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 303/226-4955 FAX:303/226-4971 January 13, 1993 Mr. Glen D. Schlueter City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 235 Mathews Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 ' RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Fire Station No. 10 Dear Glen: We would like to resubmit, for your review and approval, this revised Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Fire Station No. 10. All of your November 20, 1992 and December 21, 1992 comments have been addressed or commented on in this report and/or your copy of the original and second submittal report. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this resubmittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants Tracy Klttell Design Engineer Kevin Gingery, P.E. Project Manager Other offices: Denver 303/458-5526 • Vail 303/476-6340 • Longmont 303/678-9584 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION 1 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 2 111. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS 2 B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 2 C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 2 D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 2 E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT 3 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 4 V. EROSION CONTROL A. GENERAL CONCEPT 5 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 5 VI. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 5 .B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 6 C. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 6 REFERENCES 6 APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP 1 BASIN MAP 2 SUBBASIN MAP 3 HYDROLOGY 4 STORM SEWER ANALYSIS AND INLET AND CHANNEL SIZING 10 EROSION CONTROL 24 FIGURES AND TABLES 27 REVISIONS Description 1. First Submittal. 2. Minor text revisions. 3. Added basin and subbasin figures. 4. Minor hydrologic refinements. 5. Minor calculation refinement for existing storm sewer system. 6. Minor erosion control plan change. 7. Added calculations for overtopping Vermont Drive. 8. Minor text revisions 9. Minor plan revisions Date 10 Nov. 92 11 Dec. 92 11 Dec. 92 11 Dec. 92 11 Dec. 92 11 Dec. 92 11 Dec. 92 13 Jan. 93 13 Jan. 93 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY ' FOR FIRE STATION NO. 10 ' .FORT COLLINS, COLORADO I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The proposed Fire Station No. 10 is located in a subdivision and replat of ' lot 3 of the Timberline Plaza P.U.D., located on the southwest corner of Timberline Road and Vermont Drive. The site can also be described as being located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 7 North, ' Range 68 West, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, containing approximately 0.624 acres. A site location plan is included in the Appendix of this report. B. Description of Property ' The Fire Station No. 10 site is presently undeveloped. The study site is being proposed to contain a two -bay fire station with 12 off-street parking ' spaces for employees and visitors. Native grasses presently cover the property. The topography of the site is generally from the southwest to northeast at approximately 1%.✓The adjacent private access drive and the ' water and sanitary sewer are already constructed. Existing storm drainage improvements consist of storm drains to the west and north of the Fire study site, per page 2 in the Appendix. The western storm drain system ' J begins at an area inlet approximately 300 feet south of the Fire Station site rm an unimproved area of lot 3.7 This inlet is assumed to be inoperable at this time because a grate has not been installed on the inlet and the catch ' basin is currently covered with plywood. A second area inlet is located near the southwest corner of the proposed Fire Station No. 10 site, within a private access road, shown at design point 1 on the drainage and erosion ' control plan (pocket). This inlet collects runoff from developed lot 1 to the west, undeveloped lot 2 to the southwest, and the drainage easement between lots 1 and 2 and lot 3) Flows collected by this inlet are piped north ' under the private access road for approximately 142 feet where it turns east and ultimately discharges north of Vermont Drive to a major open drainage way about 500 feet north of Vermont Drive. Two four foot curb inlets are ' located on each side of Vermont Drive which remove storm runoff from Timberline Road and Vermont Drive. This system parallels the other system and discharges into the same open drainage system, per page 2-n-the Appendix. �— 1 � ' II. DRAINAGE BASINS ' A. Major Basin Description ' The proposed Fire Station No. 10 site lies within Basin 50 (Figure 2 in Appendix) of the Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan [1] and is ' comprised of portions of the Timberline Village P.U.D., Timberline Apartments P.U.D., Timberline Plaza P.U.D., and New Hampshire Subdivision. The basin is also a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 7 North, Range 68 West in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. A natural drainageway runs from west to east through the approximate center of Basin 50. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations ' The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria [2] is being used for this study. B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints From the Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan, no detention ' structures are required for flows leaving the project site. The developed storm flows will be routed to the open drainage way via a combination of open channel flow and storm sewer system. ' C. Hydrological Criteria ' The rational method for determining surface runoff was used for the study site. The 10 and 100 year storm event criteria, obtained by the City of Fort Collins, was used in calculating runoff values. These calculations and criteria are included in the appendix. ' D. 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. 1 2 I I E. Variances from Criteria Two storm drainage variances are being requested for the Fire Station No. 10 site. The first variance requested is for the trickle pan requirement within the proposed open channel along the south side of the site.,This channel is to be used exclusively as any -overflow channel. An'Underdrain is proposed, instead of the trickle pa , to remove any minor flows from the channel and prevent minor ponding. The second variance requested is for the depth of water over Vermont Drive. The calculated depth of flow over Vermont drive was determined to be 0.57 feet, an increase of 0.07 feet above the Fort Collins standard. A large portion of the sub -basins are currently undeveloped, therefore the runoff coefficients used for these sub -basins were assumed. Because of the uncertainty of the future development, the assumed C values are conservative, increasing the calculated runoff more than what may ultimately be discharged from the study site. 44 Q IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN �'`� A. General Concept irne2� -�a,� -•� ' Engineering Professionals, Inc. (EPI) [3] performed a previous drainage study for the proposed Fire Station No. 10 site in August 1990. The EPI study was evaluated and determined to be a good basis of design. ' Drainage concepts proposed in the EPI report were utilized for this study since the proposed land use is consistent and the facility layout was not changed significantly. Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan used undetained storm flows ' in calculating peak discharge flows downstream of the project site. Therefore, no on -site detention facilities are required for this site. The storm drainage improvements proposed were designed to pass the minor (10 ' year) and major (100 year) storm flows without any detention. ' 3 The existing storm sewer system was determined to be inadequate to ' completely pass either the minor or major storm flows. The excess storm flows will overtop Vermont Drive and discharge to the North into the adjacent open drainageway, without ponding within the fire station parking ' lot or building improvements. The overtopping flow will be routed to the existing open channel drainageway by a utility access and parking easement platted as part of Timberline Apartments P.U.D. [4]. B. Specific Details ' The study area has been broken into five sub -basins. The sub -basins are shown on the Utility, Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan in the Appendix of this report. ' An overflow channel crossing portions of Lot 3 was initially proposed by Stewart and Associates [5] as part of the initial drainage improvements for ' the Timberline Plaza P.U.D. The channel was intended to allow excess flows to be diverted from a area inlet located within the private access road. The proposed storm drainage improvements for this study utilizes ' this channel concept as the basis of design. The proposed storm drainage improvements primarily consist of an open ' channel routing off -site flows in excess of the existing area inlet and grate (design point 1), located at the southwest corner of the project site within the private access road, around the project site to a proposed area inlet ' located in the northeast corner of the project site (design point 2). The proposed channel within the on -site easement along the eastern lot line of the project site was sized to convey the developed 100 year storm flows ' from the remaining area of lot 3 and the excess flow from the existing area inlet at design point 1. In addition, storm runoff from the proposed parking lot will exit through a curb opening into a rip rap lined open channel to the proposed inlet. ' The existing eight foot drainage and utility easement will be widened to 20 feet where the proposed channel crosses the Fire Station site. It will be necessary to obtain both a construction and a permanent easeme__ nt m ' the adjacent property owner to construct and ensure that the channel will be a permanent part of the drainage-p❑, la ' The existing on -site storm sewer system was in ffigated and determined to be inadequate to pass the full minor or major storm flows. The maximum flow the existing system can transmit was found by RBD's storm sewer hydraulic analysis (pg. 14-20 in the Appendix) to be 19.0 cubic feet per ' second (cfs) of water for the 10 year storm, and 14.0 cfs of water for the 4 I 100 year storm, assuming the ultimate condition [7]. The capacity of the ' existing storm sewer system decreases between the minor and major storms because of an increase in the water surface elevation in the regional detention pond (system outlet). ' The excess flows from the 10 and 100 year storm flows (9.32 cfs and 47.20 cfs respectfully) will pond to a depth of three feet at design point 2 before ' overtopping the channel into Vermont Drive. This excess flow plus the previous flow at design point 3 (010 = 4.28 cfs 0100 = 8.32 cfs) exceeds the existing inlet within Vermont Drive by 55.2 cfs and 13.6 cfs for the 100 and 10 year floods respectively. This excess flow will overtop Vermont Drive 0.57 feet over the road crown and be routed to the open channel drainage way via utility access and parking easements within Timberline P.U.D. V. EROSION CONTROL ' A. General Concept ' The proposed project site lies within the Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone and the Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. The Erosion Control Performance Standard (PS) for the site was ' computed to be 73.5% per the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites [8]. The Effectiveness (EEF) of the proposed erosion control plan was calculated to be 74.9%. Therefore, the ' erosion control plan as detailed in the Appendix and on the Utility, Grading, / Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan meets the City of Fort Collins ✓ requirements. B. Specific Details ' After channel grading has been completed, all disturbed areas within the drainage right-of-way will have temporary vegetation seed applied. After ' seeding, a hay or straw mulch will be applied over the seed at a rate of two tons per acre minimum, and the mulch should be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. Due to the construction timing, the mulch ' is intended to provide erosion protection prior to seed germination. vC All structures specified on the Erosion Control Plan, will a constructed in ' accordance with the Construction Sequence schedule. If the parking lot and/or the driveway have not been paved within ' weeks of overlot grading, a temporary vegetation seed should be applied to these areas. A ' hay or straw mulch will also be applie with the same specifications as the channel. I✓ VI. CONCLUSIONS ' A. Compliance with Standards All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual ' for Construction Sites [8] and the Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual [2]. In addition, all computations are in compliance with the Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan [1]. ' B. Drainage Concept ' The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the construction plans adequately provide for the transmission of developed on - site runoff to the drainage facilities at the north-eastern corner of the study site. These concepts are consistent with those proposed by Engineering ' Professionals, Inc. in 1990. A combination of street flow in Vermont Drive and the storm sewer system will provide for the 10 and the 100 year ✓ developed flow to reach the existing open drainageway. The flow within ' Vermont Drive will not exceed Vermont Drive's crown elevation by more than 0.57 feet. At the time of construction, if any groundwater is encountered during construction, A Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering ' Permit will be required. C. Erosion Control Concept The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control of wind and rainfall erosion on the project site. Through the construction ' of the proposed erosion control concepts, the City of Fort Collins performance standard will be met. The proposed erosion control concepts presented in this report and shown on the Erosion Control Plan (Appendix) ' are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Criteria. REFERENCES 1. Resource Consultants, Inc., Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan, ' February, 1981. 2. City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction ' Standards, May 1984, Revised January 1991. ' 6 ' 3. Engineering Professionals, Inc., Final Drainage Report, Fire Station No. 10, Timberline Plaza P.U.D. - Lot 3, August 1990. 4. James H. Stewart & Associates, Storm Drainage Calculations for Timberline Apartments, October, 1984. ' 5. James H. Stewart & Associates, Storm Drainage Calculations for Timberline Plaza, November, 1984. ' 6. James H. Stewart & Associates, Storm Drainage Calculations for Lot 3. New Hampshire Subdivision, August, 1984, revised October, 1984. ' 7. RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants, Analysis and Update SWMM Computer Model, Foothills Basin Drainage Master Plan, Fort Collins. Colorado, September, 1992. 8. City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction ' Sites, January 1991. 1 7 L APPENDIX A Ll 1 i 1 i i I I 1 VICINITY MAP l"all, •Cl RJ. • ru C Ra Fla \// \ • ' �---�1 Z 1. I � Dr. • n E. Sluorl prs �+ C•� `^O Ltl a Ln' • "r - lCA ppp B 4• K•r.nee ` R I � \ � a S. • e.)K 5; CI C1. S I \ {p] 'y P`o �La fr. ri • `� 510.•Arngr �'r '1j G� - �p3 Ni°dorp ch �i Pc CI It s Cr. _ u a . Dop+ U Ilk Cl. o Tcpl. 4pntl th ' u c( Rush r-ud n• �� CI. u v t' ' (l.. Irnitcr \ r h 5twOodrerlwpeQ In I1/ �OJ C1 . PARKWO_Ol Epslwp°,I 1 CAKE Ct J \( Tcnkw Vudl o Rollin W`10 /u r ) Cn)1 Droke Ikq e u O f' J Yucco L C. or gg \ c c u •,j o ? b V"n ` ' I d T Curlef m a4': I s 1 �55 \ Crysln CI. R r Pt. �j \ O , orot n L9KC' �'• a Ate! =X mm =1 R= i4 Xt C G' to ; `\ v G •1 VU � •,. p r � � r ••\ (, i • u np ` enlrnnial �` rrw. ` - SITE LOCATION s(r+l oorwy In i I I .xtoro sere I c, i v � t mrof l Q u `a+ C J i• I� /�sf = 0/MOOd I V mdf ter. lj � p0 d'i� aS h� z 1 4yo C! $' IA t lciwaiod SL ti y( rI r• ^ I n i a' I +. '^ pa• Wkbe)o5 Cl na ilahwn v" "\ Yenrlirt� ° Igkow)y Cl. nVrrgnl �• Io I ry Tice t. K� t+orselcwl Rd r r C .�' 9 oQ � E G '� •= t n CAV i I F Ch FZxA1 O Amq dMr/oped rc PkWoP'tt Re \ to .J " p� s,•n,t�. to-. K E .:/ e.r I l St. E Sr..e �'n p, J•'a r o i u , ay° ;/ e a X'If 4 I u Sum°I Gwnrw Dn � � ♦ 3r Y E1 To s (} C�! >• A' p. ♦r�taq..rey w Ji• `� a � / b • rn 1 ) � li ,[yam I 'a(r'{ err". yr, r�r • *. � "V V."' y^ • Ip 4y.• •:. .•. Y. 9p I y Cl nr..r. a :�' C . oa y , p ," C4 pfa) I u cAF �4 qiq Wheolm Ur Fe C1. 8 � • irt. L S I�to imberline a 7 t Eo1b _ _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 CONNECTICUT �R. EJ vi Q MASS. ST. SUB BASIN 50 BOUNDARY CT. O / TIMBERLINE / VILLAGE P.U.D. CL. i EXIST. > i STORM 0 I i SEWER VERMONT DRIVE LOT 1 i EXIST. I MANHOLES I EXIST. INLETI, Y LOT 2 1 Z O cc :1 LOT 3 W m [0 F- g N Q W VALVE I PLASTICS J DANFIELD COURT BASIN MAP NOT TO SCALE DRAINAGE SUB BASINS VERMONT_DRIVE -----J -C_� SUB BASIN 3 I 1 1 'SUB BASIN I ! I 5 I SUB BASIN I I I �— —� 4 . FIRE SNATION I#10 SI E I I LOT 1. TIMBERLINE P SUB BASIN 1 LOT 2 0.45 cfs WATER OFFSITE FLOW P.U.D. LOT 3 I SUB BASIN 2 I I I I I VALVE PLASTICS, ( I I — I I ��—SUB BASIN_3;—_—� DANFIELD COURT' ►: w HYDROLOGY I/ CLIENT VqU&H-r * ff)-,C JOB NO. 11f3 - CVZ? INC PROJECT FIRES 7/9 71e>AI CALCULATiONSFOR 61157-lPf, Sire Engineering Consultants MADEBY 7K DATEV0V CHECKED BY- DATE -SHEET OF - ------- -- . . . .... a g o,< 0 - -------------- - - ­ - - - - - - - L . -T ------ J. L----- - 2 Z ------ --- - tit ----- ----- /,, v; 7 --------- ---- --- ---------- ---- L -------- --- ----- --- --- - ----- - AIZ ------- ----- --- ------ -- --- --- -- - ------ -- _77 _7_7 - - --- ----- - - - ------ ----------- ---- ........... . -------- T Q �oto� - -- --------- - -- ----- F-1 _1­­­:. 1­0,o?, ...................... ............ - - ------------- ----- - ------- ___7__- 7 -- ---- .. . . .................. ----- - . .. ...... ------ 7­1--------- -------- - - -- ------- --------- - ----- ---- 7-i-T- ------- ------------- ------ ­ ------------ 4- ----- - ------ ------ --- - ---- - ­ ------- --- 2 T .... ....... r ...... 7- ------------ --------- ... .. . ... ........ .. ------ ---- ­ - --- - - ---------- - - -------- --- ... ... ....... ... T------ ------ ----- -- -- , ------------ ---- W + O 4 Q a CV LL Z O F- ` \ C � w F-- 0 fi Z O Lu o LL U h 0 Q O U p Z Q to LL O w 41 _� W m F- J o � [� U • � J fn Q U I q 0 v %er W V v � /�� ` � l u.• e 3 a O y � �l v \ Z u c N O ;_I O O o .-a N O v ...i j Q O C� � n p C c LI) U U ^ O• p O N N 1 � O O O S Ul \ \9 W j w -• w O o w o do v, Lr) F- bJi c c o 0 z �. n LLI o °` o . �7 _� cr- W a > p e o v O O "1 O'' 0 W J cn N cV V o a� _ e Q (L Cr i 3 Q O I z J � Z O O O o O aQ a I Q N \ \p m rvj rv� O w M d Ul I 0 U z t; z w w z c) z w U w 0 6Q G/jr x cr- e W 4 ^ V J W CC ¢ou o h LL y J ? 2 c tL c 14 O •, •3Lz, 1 � •, p to U a a p O Q~ C a J a a� �o J ` Q O n U U r o h 0 14 0 O O ti •c O w t= w h J rN w w cc Oa u w O t- to o 0 0 0 � OM W � Q W ^^ W J+. CL Lo W XnIn M M Jo Jo z o 0 0 0 0 a cu Lu W u N Nb w O O Z) 0 p U z f7 Z a Li w _z U Z J z I 111 1 H1 1111'wlltlll IN 1 Y 11 NIIIII� Is HE ill 11 In Elm Hill IN Hill INE Ill Hill 1i ONE I HE I CLIENT 114061i7 ' LftE _JOBNO. ILLOIJ- NC PROJECT "Elk-rS7,9710m CALCULATIONS FOR S&S,6,9.SIAv-s Engineering Consultants MADE BY tIr DATE Cb'D CC CHECKED BY— DATE —SHEET OF i ... .. 7 f eloo r4 ij 3 7- ----- ---- _R_ s - ------ 57,z: Aj if if ----- ------ r T -4 __T r-: 7 ------ --- 4-) --- ---- -------- - A,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------- ... ...... ... ------- -- -------- - - - - - - - - - - ----- - I_ • __ _ _ ''Ifli i Jr-i-d --d ---------- _7 ... ...... 7 _7 71- /7 /V --------- -- -7- ----- — ------ ij 7' J 79 _T 7: j ----- --- - - - - -- - - - - L Al f of_7' flTj CLIENT VAVbNT 0° fXLC JOB NO. 0/It INC PROJECT FIRE S T A r/o.v CALCULATIONS FOR S&9B,9 SIM NtO FC[ aGI Engineering Consultants MADEBY Tk DATECt DEG 51CHECKED BY DATE SHEET Z OF Z [SocaT�oN (c=oNr "_ ZJ L/E7ERi`/iNE _/00 :yR GREgTCsT TiriE of cavcFtiIR.9Ti, 4 L 1 - _ F FLo'w F �.L`k /1NE DF.PTN o iN_..� /9 N vEL. FRo gR.� a -- I_ i i= I Li �/- TCR/1/NC V_ ELO �iT,j — — i — p �, f._7 �S ..- lV� � 1� I� TRN-vEC C.f� I _ _ /-ERM:LNE /.LhE oF:q_ ,I _- , - •._L `-{'-': ,� I�OFT4 9d Al ? Orivi_ 77 + t , OETER/r%N6 .TihE'oF�c�vcEVTRAT/oti — r b.i1s)xso F U —- p 1 I �flM lU _ �{� h''i N 3 � /'� /�/ - �• �L�S£' .S � ril/J Ps/,vlhky'- 1 J' - t -- --- ��I 1 r r - I ..- _. .�..... "._ _ ._ _-- _ - i 1 �- r- I 11 1 1 4 4 t F y i ' STORM SEWER ANALYSIS AND INLET AND CHANNEL SIZING I CLIENT _VAG6H7' r` f%I %'C JOB NO.R INC PROJECT r 1 RE S 7-.9 T/O A/ /0 CALCULATIONS FOR I u[EY Ca4C,5. Engineering Consultants MADEBY LE DATE o80Ec ZtHECKED BY -DATE SHEET / OF 11 CLIENT VAgt- IV Z- -* "Ifk,- JOB NO. INC PROJECT 1Le--S7_4710A' /0 CALCULATIONSFOR CIIAYA14-1 q,97/A/--1 Cu,eVf Engineering Consultants MADEBY 74 DATEjOt _Dfc UHECKED BY— DATE SHEET I OF -Z m A/ 4­ _CAR� 7 A W-D-47-- 7 �kXD F 11-7-,_ _T` v, 7­7 1, i-L- J o c —------- 7- - ------- -- 4 ---- -------- Jr. L !+ L _U ;-L-4 --- -- ------ -- --- ------ 4 7, L 1 i T 7- --- ---- , i T I --- ------ -- ti j�_L _:_J T Lj_ _L_ ------- - -- .. ........ SHEET z �A 1 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION FIRE STATION NO. 10 PROPOSED CHANNEL ALONG EASTERN EASEMENT STA ELEV 0.00 41.00 12.00 38.00 24.00 41.00 'N' VALUE ---------- SLOPE ------------- (ft/ft) 0.035 0.0100 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) --------- (sq ft) ------- (fps) -------- (cfs) --------- NO. ------ 38.20 0.2 0.9 0.14 0.50 38.40 0.6 1.4 0.91 0.56 38.60 1.4 1.9 2.69 0.60 38.80 2.6 2.3 5.80 0.63 39.00 4.0 2.6 10.52 0.66 39.20 5.8 3.0 17.10 0.68 39.40 7.8 3.3 25.79 0.69 o,o 23•.71 39.60 10.2 3.6 36.82 0.71 /,.: •3s' 39.80 13.0 3.9 50.41 0.72.O,os>5s.2/J-5 40.00 16.0 4.2 66.75 0.74 d,o= /•87' 40.20 19.4 4.4 86.07 0.75 40.40 23.0 4.7 108.54 0.76 40.60 27.0 5.0 134.35 0.77 40.80 31.4 5.2 163.70 0.78 I 4 ,-- I 1 4 a' 1. rJ i Boa PR06R,94 9SE•S /1ANN/NGS Eq. SECT/oN 6- B oN F44 J3 Q �6 R R 215 Se /s i3/36F_ NC Engineering Consultants J I� J CLIENT _ VA 4 6 N 7 x FRyE JOB NO. It-? - Cl e PROJECT FIRE,57A710AI /O CALCULATIONS FOR P.9kK/u4 La7 Cpsg OptNiuL MADE BY T'r DATE iDOEc tWHECKED BY- DATE SHEET / OF I CLIENT VA v G A/ T "` FRYE JOB NO. / 65�3 - 0 / 8 T:DINC PROJECT FIR R E S rA r/ QV /O CALCULATIONS FOR S 70 R hl S E W E.P Engineering Consultants MADEBY TK DATE "Ov9 CHECKED BY DATE SHEET / OF % I{f i I I I I - L. � I I I _ T_O PGd9=3d'35 _FaR ;- - 1 _ Ex/5T/vG -- hN SAv�ERTS _, _ _ - - 07C,71 EN1� /oV of 'REpc`7 I - ,- - i - - - - , F - -I _.. - � - t a 1 — cONIDITLD.N iiilll — �- - 1 1 _ { V I _ _ _L — _ _ — r F_2C7 0 A/ L _D g�— 1 _0P ED O y• _ _ 71 - ZAi 3 7 SV L ET 6,QA TES _ VE _r o qZr- -%1�r- I I L � ' L DE Tio'V fL E 9nitlE_ 9S`. c ------------ 5 x SAl- ETI :. - - T - - I ' — FF - 1 - t + J _ IJSE�✓ r1 BE.B J 1 �G 1 , C '-.L. 1 •-.__ r '..r_ I- . -1_-1 1 -- I . � .; —L - i '._L .-� — _J. --- { _ } r 1 217 ------------------------------------------ REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN 1 USING UDSEWER•MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED 1 BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1 - DENVER, COLORADO 1 *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 12-08.1992 AT TIME 07:38:13 *** PROJECT TITLE 1 FIRE STATION NO. 10 1 *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 10 YEARS *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES 1 ....--••-••-.......•••••••-••••••••••••••••.................•-••••••••••- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND ^ WATER. COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET 1 •••...••••••• .......................................... 19.00 33.65 WSEL FROh RRD Swan MODEL 2242 .00 N/A N/A N/A .00 .00 N/A N/A N/A 19.00 42.00 34.57 OK OK Pea K FL Ow L./ H c-L a RIn o 4 P4 oFcsE 9 - - 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 19.00 38.00 36.86 OK GRATE EI. i uKE r 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 4.44 42.00 39.89 OK Rc-Fa Pv (c/s¢ Fca P£aK Elcti 1 5.00 N/A N/A N/A 4.44 41.40 40.96 OK 6.00 N/A N/A N/A 4.44 41.40 41.05 OK �atcS. OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION 1 *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTN ID NO. 1 ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) -•••••••••••........••••••••••••••••••••• 1.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND ............................... 26.70 27.00 27.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 19.53 21.00 18.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 11.32 15.00 18.00 0.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 16.55 18.00 18.00 0.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 ROUND 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES 1 DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. 1 1 (FIL[1 FIRUTI\I2701WI.O ) 317 SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EKISITNG SIZE WAS USED ..........................................•-----............................... SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 'DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS 1.0 19.0 19.6 1.78 5.63 .1.52 6.64 4.78 0.73 V-OK 2.0 19.0 15.3 1.50 10.75 1.44 10.91 10.75 0.00 V-OK ' 3.0 4.4 15.3 0.55 7.51 0.81 19.43 2.51 2.07 V-OK 4.0 4.4 5.6 1.01 3.50 0.81 4.54 '2.51 0.65 V-OK 5.0 4.4 4.4 1.50 2.51 0.81 4.54 2.51 0.00 V-LOW ' FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ' ...................•--•-----......................---...-------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % (FT) ........................••--....-•-•-•-------------------------------- (FT) (FT) (FT) 1.00 0.40 32.30 31.54 7.45 0.21 NO 2.00 2.12 32.85 32.30 3.65 8.20 OK ' 3.00 2.12 37.72 32.84 2.78 3.66 OK 4.00 0.28 38.12 37.72 1.78 2.78 OK 5.00 0.00 38.12 38.12 1.78 1.78 OK OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ................................... 1.00 190.00 0.00 ........................................... 34.55 33.79 34.57 33.65 SUBCR 2.00 26.00 .26.00 34.35 33.80 36.86 34.57 PRSSIED 3.00 230.00 230.00 39.22 34.34 39.89 36.86 PRSS'E0 4.00 142.00 142.00 39.62 39.22 40.96 39.89 PRSS(ED 5.00 0.10 0.00 39.62 39.62 41.05 40.96 PRSS'ED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUSCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ............................................................................... UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT 1.0 2.00 35.07 1.06 1.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.00 33.65 2.0 3.00 38.66 0.85 1.53 2.75 0.00 0.00 2.00 35.07 3.0 4.00 40.77 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.70 3.00 38.66 4.0 5.00 41.15 0.25 1.32 0.13 0.00 0.00 4.00 40.77 5.0 6.00 41.15 0.00 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 5.00 41.15 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. 2 (fll[. FlMTA%laolwl.a ) y/7 LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD•JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. ' FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. u 1 1 1 3 (FILE$ nRUTA\u701W1.Rm( t fV7 REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING_UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE ' DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ' - DENVER, COLORADO ' *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 12.08.1992 AT TIME 08:46:02 *** PROJECT TITLE : ' FIRE STATION NO. 10 *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS ' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES 1 '------.._._' •-' -' ... .......................... MANHOLE CNTRBTING- R-AINFALL'•-••---RAINFALL'•-•-•- DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET .... 1.00 N/A N/A .. N/A 14.00 37.15 NO 1✓S fL FRcn RB 0 S w H H HcDFL 2.00 N/A N/A N/A 14.00 42.00 42.00 37.15 OK PEA K FL DW 1 / N & t < R ) n a R PkcP osEO 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 14.00 38.00 38.05 NO �aA7E U. s v�ci-- 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 4.44 42.00 39.96 OK REFER P& ir/34FCR PfAB 5.00 N/A N/A N/A 4.44 41.40 41.03 OK Flow CAA CJ. 6.00 N/A N/A N/A 4.44 41.40 41.12 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION ' *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 -----•.............'-'._._________.__________......_............•••- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ' ID N0. ID N0. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 1.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND ..................... 23.81 24.00 •••• 27.00 .... 0.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 17.42 18.00 18.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 11.32 15.00 18.00 0.00 ' 4.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 16.55 18.00 18.00 0.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 ROUND 18.00 18.00 18.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES ' DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. ' 1 (FILEt FIMSTA\IMISOE.p ) �yX? 6'h SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED ' -------••------•••...............••••-••••'••-•'............................... SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 6 FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. ' NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ... ... .... 1.0 14.0 19.6 1.40 ... 5.37 ..................... 1.30 5.89 3.52 0.86 V-OK 2.0 14.0 15.3 1.13 9.84 1.36 8.31 7.92 1.66 V-OK 3.0 4.4 15.3 0.55 7.51 0.81 14.32 2.51 2.07 V•OK ' 4.0 4.4 5.6 1.01 3.50 0.81 4.54 2.51 0.65 V-OK 5.0 4.4 4.4 1.50 2.51 0.81 4.54 2.51 0.00 V-LOW ' FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A ..-------•-•-•---•-••-•••••-••••• PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ..................................... SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM ' X. .... .... .... 1.00 0.40 32.30 31.54 .... 7.45. 0.21 NO 2.00 2.12 32.85 32.30 3.65 8.20 OK ' 3.00 2.12 37.72 32.84 2.78 3.66 OK 4.00 0.28 38.12 37.72 1.78 2.78 OK 5.00 0.00 38.12 38.12 1.78 1.78 OK ' OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET ' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ---------------- ------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED -------------------------------------------- CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ' ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ................................ 1.00 190.00 190.00 -........................................... 34.55 33.79 37.15 37.02 PRSS)ED 2.00 26.00 26.00 34.35 33.80 38.05 37.15 PRSS)ED 3.00 230.00 230.00 39.22 34.34 39.96 38.05 PRSS)ED 4.00 142.00 142.00 39.62 39.22 41.03 39.96 PRSS)ED 5.00 0.10 0.00 39.62 39.62 41.12 41.03 PRSS)ED ' PRSS)ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW ' *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT ' •--------------------------•--•-------•-.....-............... 1.0 2.00 37.60 0.39 1.00 ------------ 0.19 0.00 0.00 1.00 37.02 2.0 3.00 39.55 0.46 1.53 1.49 0.00 0.00 2.00 37.60 3.0 4.00 40.84 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.88 3.00 39.55 4.0 5.00 41.22 0.25 1.32 0.13 0.00 0.00 4.00 40.84 ' 5.0 6.00 41.22 0.00 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 5.00 41.22 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. 2 (FILE. FIYFSTA\uocuoa.an) 71,7 LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. ' FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 1 1 1 ' 3 (FILET FIR"TII\1.301/02.0 ) RWINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT - v4a&H7. * FRYe JOBNO. PROJECT F/RE STAT/O.V /O CALCULATIONSFOR SNLET CALC_f MADE BY > r DATE o Ot'[ AaHECKED SY _ DATE SHEET OF J RMINIC Engineering Consultants CLIENT V19!/41Y7 'r f,PjE JOBNO. PROJECT F/Rf STAT /O AJ /O CALCULATIONS FOR 4'E/Q C19L[S L E&e 11D.OT CQ MADE BY Tk DATE PL4Ec14HECKED BY DATE SHEET / OF 2 73 /3j- 21Z RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA FIRESTATION NO. 10 - FLOW OVER VERMONT DRIVE WEIR COEF. 3.000 STA ELEV 0. 0 42.50 ✓FRnouT �' f+iS>/N4 INCE t 227.0 41.00 a 244.0 41.50 �inaEac//�E Rean 297.0 42.00 ELEVATION DISCHARGE (feet) (cfs) 41.00 0.0 41.10 0.6 41.20 3.5 Q,o ° 7, & O r is mi l = 0, .27 , 41.30 9.7 41.40 19.9 41.50 34.7 Qieo ° g5,51 e/= 41's.7 41.60 55.7 41.70 83.2 41.80 118.2 41.90 161.4 42.00 213.5 )PR ObRA// EQu,9T/ON Q- CLf/-?/2 [17 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 EROSION CONTROL .2 y/?,:�, RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION PROJECT: . FigEST,A_TiON. No. /6 _.-STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: T K/TT ELL f RB,D 2.vc. DATE: D6 Nov f2 %Q Ev/S EO o8 A/cv 42 DEVELOPED SUBBA§IN ERODIBILITY ZONE Asb (ac) Lsb (ft) Ssb ($) Lb (feet) Sb PS Z ODE RgTE Rgip_ 1f- , 3.2 3 2 _0 _ 3 s-_ 0. s 0 --- - ---- I _,S6--s_u�'L 13 9, 3 7 _ O ,. ,5 n 7.2 , Z_ TAs�E � --- ------ O. G7 Sd-' (0,32� O• b 7 M ONLY DISTII I/ i, 195'io..5 3CO AREA FRcq 1 37'(0;3) o. JUBBAS/u 6 (TNuu0E1 PRoiosC 0 C VAVAJ MARCH 1991 8-14 DESIGN CRITERIA 1 I 11 L EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: F/ R E S 7 A T 10,V /Vo. /O STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: T. %iITTELL /RBD X vc• DATE: 08DEc f2 Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment A GRAVEL FILTERS /100 0,rr0 RPROPOSEO SNLET B HAY OR STRAW BALES /•00 0,eo C CONCRETE PA1/EI7CNT C.O/ /100 PAR91V& { pR/vE�✓Aj L) HAY OR S7RA!✓ Ha/.C// 0,00 /•00 ALL LANSCAPE AREAS MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS 72.2 7-A/C /.vTEN7 .OF 7/,E P4,9A/ /S TO INSTALL 6.91,E Q CNEcK 019/1S //✓ >NE CNA NNEL, //✓STALL A GRAVEL FILTER 9R0uw0 :7//E 'PR OPosEO INLET, A/✓O Na[CN ALL OF 7NE LAA/OScAPE AREAS•//LL LANDScpP,--O • O 1, AREA ARE TO 6E SL'EOED wITN JegPOR�gR/- oR PERENA///94 GRASS SEED PR/OR TO NuLCN//✓<•, NGW F_vE,? DuE TO 7-NE CO41S7-,Pc1C2'/0.v SeOVeAlCE NO CREO17 w/LL 6E TAKEN FoR TwE SEEO/.VO., v 7NE PRGPOSE O 6u/L 07,vG S/7L3 /NCLuOES A BASE/7ENT✓ TNEPEFGRE THE Bu/LD/N� FGCTPR/ivT " 19RZA//,9S 8CSAI C.rcLUDEO FRo/111 7NE eoeos/041 v CONTIPOL PL,9N. 6Ec,9VJt /T "" Ac> AS y SEO/tiEuT 7RAP (Pc&'O), DfScR/P7/ON ARt,9 wc) dE7A/--D(5) P C 3 PARKIN6 c 07 0,/0/ A, c D,GO/0/ 010801rr DRIVE uAj' 0,07/ C O, G07/ 0,07/ cNANA/EL (�o A B o./(,a 0./024 L ANSC4PP/AI6 44 ck - SgBGAS/N 2 0,075 'A� 8, D 0.0015 C, 09B -5,vQ8A5/N4 0,047 A,B,D 0,00902 0,Of -Su08ASINS 0,D4/ D 0.00t4b 0,02e-24 0.51S 0.17709 0.37132 NET P= 0.17 90 _ 0,344 (),i3 y NE7C= 0.37132 0.72/ 6 0.515 h �3S FFP= [/-(C+'P))y/00 �[/-0O3�9frr0.71/J�"/O0= 74,9*7c 74, 9;> > 72.2 10/4,V IS oK , ' MARCH 1991 8.15 DESIGN CRITERIA CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE IPROJECT: F/ 9ES7A I/ bN /yo • /D STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE FOR 19 9.3 ONLY COMPLETED BY: 7, K/TTELG Aeso IV4, DATE: 06 Nov 9.2 Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for ' approval by the City Engineer. YEAR MONTH IJ OVERLOT GRADING ' WIN'D EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers ' Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other (ccvER STOCKPILED ' ngTEel qC) I t RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL I ' =UCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers ' Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags are Soil Preparation ' Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings/Hats/Blankets Other ' STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY MAINTAINED BY VEGETATION/Y.ULCHING CONTRACTOR ' DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON ' IVIARCH 19SI 8-is DESIGN CRITERIA I 1 I I 0 FIGURES AND TABLES DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 50 30 I— 20 z cc U w °' 10 z W a 0 5 w cc 3 0 U 2 w Q t:? 1 ' ►I� .MEMO -off • � r �/��I/�I■■III I����■■■■� �V"MFAWYA■I.If �MA�=MM■■■■� ►�MMMMEI/■WOA! MMM■■■■� W®/ MOM NOME ONE 1IMMEM oCC:CC`C7CC 2--.3..._.... . .5 1 2 '3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY. FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. k. *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELQPED" LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical Release No. 55, . USDA, SCS Jan. 1975. 5-1-84 URBAN` DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROLDISTRICT DRCOG:., No Text w] 0.7 IL 0.6 1AJ z 0:5 W > 0.4 O a 0.3 w 0 0 z 0.2 0 z O i EXAMPLE �.�1111111111111111111111111111111111111111'II11111 O I 2 3 4 FLOW INTO INLET PER SQ. FT. OF OPEN AREA (CFS/FT2) Figure 5-3 CAPACITY OF GRATED INLET IN SUMP (From: Wright -McLaughlin Engineers, 1969) 5 MAY 1984 DESIGN CRITERIA' J%F 1 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES PLAN NOTC Ia Any TIN of 1-101. o, ti Q,v O�v USE EQUATION 801 SECTION (1 - K ! CASE I L �3 INLET ON MAINLINE or k= e!OS �1lin(�t(C /Nn:h�inz ca USE EQUATION 805 NL�Vi_k V"` K= �ine7� 5 eC fnhlei °„•, 1 PLAN SECTION CASE M MANHOLE ON MAIN LINE WITH A° BRANCH LATERAL Ouvl TABLE 803 4 USE EQUATION 805 °4 N —_2— k Viz A ` ) .29 WI �✓ 1 0,,vs SECTION CASE II INLET ON MAIN LINE MITH BRANCH LATERAI PLAN USE EQUATION 801 .z a�. SECTION CASE W INLET OR MANHOLE AT BEGINNING OF LINE CASE IIIK� ,CASE N0. K. go I 0.05 22 1/2 U. 5 II 0.25 45 0.50 IV 1.25 60 0.35 90 0.25 No Lateral See Case I Date: NOV 1984 REFERENCE:. Rev: I APWA Special Report No. 49, 1981 -?i/.�If STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA I TABLE 802C rlLu%E /�-1 STORM SEWER ENERGY LOSS COEFFICIENT /. 53 (BENDS AT MANHOLES) , 1.4 , ' � r•Ly I I l 1.2 ' , I' 1.0 A' • C.`1G i i OM I Y 0.8 I , i c d'% Bend at Manhole, 71 no Special Shaping I U o04Y Deflector � 0.6 , CMG Cu i ed I I C,YS I I Q yf Y Bend at Manhole, I l Curved or Deflectorl I 0.4 0X6 Manhole zg vsy I I 0.2 I � p.Cv I Z 12l 0.0 200 400 606 00 800 80° .1000 De119ctlon Angie Y , Degrees NOTE: Head loss applied at outlet of manhole. DATE: J A N. 19 8 6 REFERENCE: REV: Modern Sewer Design, AISI, Washington D.C., 1980. -?:2/3,f-- 1.0 .9 .8 .7 1'J t- w Uj u- .4 z r• cD z_ z .3 Li a 0 .2 15 12 5 11 10 4 8 3 10 6 Fz LL 2 9 0 4 _ I 3 8 a ��� z 1.5 a 7 L / �°m%\ey z 1.0 :_ xample,_Part a 1.0 Z g -. Q 5.5 a -_--a .8 <n w .. .6 0 U. 0 ti 5 x z .7 , z z w 4 = 4.5 Z. Q. 0 .3 6 a w 4 LL 0 2 x 0 .5 tz 0 = F ' a z o 3.5 w w .4 0 0 0 .08 w 3 ( o~ .06 3 x co 00 z = cc .04 cc .25 2.5 w w a .03 a F.. 3 a .02 0 2 2 a f- v n. .01 0 .15 L u. 0 0 Yo a 1w Figure 5-2 NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2" J Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA ' Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities lajor and Minor Storms ' per City of Fart Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria COLLECTOR w/ 6" Vertical curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc. 0 is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 ' V is based on theoretical capacities Area = 3.55 sq.ft. Area = 28.96 sq.ft. Minor Storm Major Storm .: Slope Red. • Minor • 0 V : Major • 0 V (X) :Factor : X : (cfs) (fps) : X : (cfs) (fps) 0.40 : 0.50 : 135.32 : 4.28 : 2.41 : 1129.59 : 35.72 2.47 0.50 : 0.65 : 135.32 : 6.22 2.70 : 1129.59 : 51.92 2.76 0.60 : 0.80 135.32 : 8.39 2.95 : 1129.59 : 70.00 3.02 ' 0.70 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 9.06 : 3.19 : 1129.59 : 75.61 3.26 0.80 : 0.80 135.32 : 9.68 : 3.41 : 1129.59 : 80.83 3.49 0.90 : 0.80 135.32 : 10.27 : 3.62 : 1129.59 : 85.73 3.70 1.00 : 0.80 135.32 10.83 : 3.81 : 1129.59 : 90.37 : 3.90 ' 1.25 : 0.80 135.32 : 12.10 : 4.26 : 1129.59 : 161.03 : 4.36 1.50 : 0.80 135.32 13.26 : 4.67 : 1129.59 : 110.68 : 4.78 1.75 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 14.32 : 5.04 : 1129.59 : 119.54 :.. 5.16 ' 2.00 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 15.31 : 5.39 : 1129.59 : 127.80 5.52 2.25 : 0.78 : 135.32 15.83 : 5.72 : 1129.59 : 132.16 : 5.85 2.50 : 0.76 : 135.32 16.26 : 6.03 : 1129.59 : 135.74 6.17 ' 2.75 : 0.74 : 135.32 .: 16.61 : 6.32 : 1129.59 : 138.62 : 6.47 3.00 : 0.72 : 135.32 16.88 : 6.60 : 1129.59 : 140.87 : 6.76 3.25 : 0.69 : 135.32 16.83 : 6.87 : 1129.59 : 140.51 : 7.03 : 3.50 : 0.66 : 135.32 : 16.71 : 7.13 : 1129.59 : 139.48 :. 7.30 : 3.75 : 0.63 : 135.32 : 16.51 : 7.38 : 1129.59 137.81 : 7.55 : 4.00 : 0.60 : 135.32 16.24 : 7.62 : 1129.59 135.55 : 7.80 : 4.25 : 0.58 : 135.32 16.111 : 7.86 : 1129.59 135.07 : 8.04 : ' 4.50 : 0.54 : 135.32 15.50 : 8.09 : 1129.59 129.40 : 8.27 : 4.75 : 0.52 : 135.32 15.34 : 8.31 : 1129.59 128.02 : 8.50 : 5.00 : 0.49 : 135.32 14.83 : 8.52 : 1129.59 123.77 : 8.72 : ' 5.25 : 0.46 : 135.32 14.26 : 8.73 : 1129.59 c 119.06 : 8.94 : 5.50 : 0.44 : 135.32 : 13.96 : 8.94 : 1129.59 116.56 : 9.15 : 5.75 : 0.42 : 135.32 : 13.63 9.14 : 1129.59 : 113.76 : 9.35 : ' 6.00 : 0.40 : 135.32 : 13.26 9.34 : 1129.59 110.68 : 9.55 : 1 No Text CLIENT 0 , 1 11 (=>F F--C>ZT 1--M u w 1C JOB NO. 1 T:ADNC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR 6A 0 1 Engineering Consultants MADE BY-50-._0ATE2-•9Z CHECKEDBY_DATE SHEET Z OF Z 1 ! 1 f �C,POCaTIES 7(=o Pr ,LU L_ M GE' TD1 Fl allGlJ tJE i i. ! -*--- IJ�dJp1= STe7TT�1 I i Q 1 i� . i, vj p(J CCtt 0 ,pp I I I I r 0 In 40 I I I I I I rMdro Si�ei✓l - lL1or�>✓ N•Ad4.1.1�T 1=XUc�D_LSII Id.BoVE F IIOo .67 ' maw NloT--jD C�'I dscxi� C-2oL1/ loo so ooit 1 �ouE S1OE GF S2 ET 61,4`Ly� /z zxa -7 +-.z-(Ico 9934� �.. C1L�33X low 99 3a.� _+- C� fx33>t-yCO.Sxlaoa� 99:67�,+��2x7J_35:_ 1: I 11 Ctoo Bo' 9 64 47 sZ. FT 1 r .. C, i i s ..o.olE�. .+ _9 SxQ3, 7 + s. s 1 , .. t i. � .I � 1 �. •� , 1 y i_.I j r4 i-.i i ; , a , i 1- , .: I } CiIE'rr=— �Eelm�-r+=e. 3s' • 0,6'+' Z�_:1 ifl 1 { �lDecu4s� i- - i -7 -.... .., ...... MArJn11T.iC�S L no.t l, L ! i i- , 4i— 34/Jb' O Q O a f N H a a O U Ei �a O I O q N ' aU) W E-+ O N O D,rn000 o V 4 1� to N N ggqqt0 O O O M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CCa�CNNNNNN C g q q q q q q q q q O gO11\ 1(1 C10101 Q1 CI! 01000 O C C C C C C C C C C C C N N N M gGONgqqqqqq W ggqq O h q q q 0) (A ) 01 C1 01 O1 C) m O1 9% 01 C1 01 C% 01 O C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N o q CO g M q q q q q co g q q M q q q coca O OnCUN D 0 %D %D rrrrrrrrrrrrggqqqq O C CCC C CCC C C C CCC C C C C C C C C C C C C ri g q q q q q q q q .q q q q tO N g q q q q q q q q q q O M N MC N N N ID'D ID IO Vr %0r r r r hr r r r r qqq c1 c4 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C co coq q q q q q q M q q M q q q q q q q q q q q q q O �D0NnCNo, NNNN�D 'Q%D0 Q %Dkoto00rrrrrr . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q M C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C O CC1 r-1N M M C CC CN N N N N N N N N%D%D kD ;D %D 1Dh g q q q q q o q q co co g q q q q q g q q q q o M q co O ODD o O.-I.-i NNnMMMCC V'C CC C C in In N N kD%D 0 q q co CO co q q q CO g q q q CO co q q co g M q q q q q q O N N N r q GI O O ri ri H N N N N N M n MM MC CC CC N N M n M n M C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C q cow q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 0 q q q q q q N I IgriMd NN�O WrrrggoM W w MC%000OO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C N N M M n M M M n n n M n n M n M M n n M C C C C C q CO g q q q q q q q q q q q CO co q q q q q q g q q q O I%D NqO.-i N n C C N N N Ur %D vo tO%D h r r r o g q Ol c% C H N N M n n n M n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n q q g q q m CJ q q q o g o q M q q q q q cJ g q q q q N HriNrg00riNNMMn'c7'CCCCmn0%D00r-r- M f' 1 C I n no 1 M no no 1 n n no 1 M M n M n M n M cO q CO cO CO q q CO q CO g p q q q q q q q q q q q q q q O M N w MMOHNNMM MCC C CC C NNN N kD%D%D L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M O ri r♦ ri r-i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN g o q q q q q o q q q m o q q q q q q q q m g q q o N NN ON NMCN VD r r r o g q C% Gl M M 0 M 000000 N a%OO ri ri H 'Al H H r{."i ri ri H ri ri ri ri 44 N N N N NN r M g q q q o q q q q q o q q q q q q q q q CO q q q O I C N O n N cooq 01 0 0 0 ri ri ri r-1 N N N N n M M M M M ........................... (V q C) O O C)O O O O ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r-1 ri .-i ri ri ri ri r-I ri r r g q q q q q q q cooq q [O g q q q q q q q q q q q N oNcorq C N h h m m 0 0 0 ri ri.-i ri ri N N N n M M MM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .--I Uqq C1 C1 O141 C1 C1 C1 G100000000000606 0000 r r r h r r r r r r r o g q q o q q q q q q o q q q O UcyOr.'rC10riNMMCCNNNN%oQ%DUr rrtDtDQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ri Ck7rrrrggqqqqqqqqqqqcJqqqqqq rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr N a%0Cor rggrrr V' Q%DNC-Kr MCO) NNm0O rriC)�D O ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNoHoririHl060 r h r r h r i- r h r h r h r h h r h h r r h h h h r x (-1, 00000000000000000000000000 c9N:00000000000000000000000000 Z(z4 HINnCNWrgCIOriNMCN%Dr-wm00ONONO Wv ririHHHHririHIriNNMMCCN a NoARCH 1991 8.4 DESIGN CRITERIA ' Table 8B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values. Treatment C-Factor P-Factor ' BARE SOIL Packedand smooth................................................................ Freshlydisked ............................................ :........................... Rough irregular surface........................................................... 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.910 0.90 ' SEDIMiENT BASIN/TRAP................................................................. 1.00 0.5011, ' STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ SILTFENCE BARRIER..................................................................... 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.50 ASPHALTICONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. 0.01 8-A 1.00 1.00 ' SODGRASS................................................................................ TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.45 0.01 1 1.00 1.00 HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE.......................................... 0.10" ) SOILSEALANT....................................................................0.01-0.601" 1.00 1.00 ' EROSION CONTROL MATSIBLA14KETS..................................:......... 0.10 1.00 GRAVEL MULCH ' Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately 1;4" to 1 1/2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05 1.00 HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH Af;er plantina Grass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) tack or crimp material into the soil. and adequately anchor, Slone M 1 to 05.............................................................................0.06 6 to 10............................................................................. 11 to 15............................................................................. 16 to 20............................................................................. 21 to 25.............................................................................0.14 25 to 33.............................................................................0.17 > 33.......................................................................... 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values repor led in zhis table must be substantiated by documentation. (1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading. (2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11-4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required. (3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between l0arch 15 and Nlay 15 unless irrigated. (4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation. 3'�/24F MARCH 1991 8.6 DESIGN CRITERIA t TaUe 3-13 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values (continued from previous page). ' Treatment C-Factor P-Factor CONTOUR FURROWED SURFACE ' Must be maintained throughout the construction period, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. Maximum length refers to the dov:n slope length. Basin Maximum ' Slope Length M (feet) 1 to 2 ..........................................................................1.00 0 0..1.00 ' 3 to 5 300.00 6 to 3 200. .1.00 0.50 0.50 9 to 12 120..............................................................I...........1.00 0.60 ' 13 t . 17 to 20 60.o 16 80..........................................................................1.00 1.00 0.70 0.80 > 20 50 . . 1.00 0.90 ' TERRACiNG )Just contain 10-year runoff volumes, v:ithout overflowing, as determined by applicable hydrologic methods, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. Basin Slope M 3 to 8..................................................................................... 1.00 0.10 9 to 12.........................................1.00 0.12 ' 13 to 16..................................................................................... 1.00 0.14 17 to 20.....................................................................................1.00 0.16 > 20..................................................................................... 1.00 0.18 ' NOT E: Use of otter C-Factor or P-Factor values reponed in this tape must be substantiated by docurnentatiron. MARCH 1991 8-7 DESIGN CRITERIA IN REMOVE 42'! E(ISLNG COPB ( G4Tr6P. VERMONT DRIVE 26MOVE 3' ZL ORIVEWdI' 4GRROdCH REF p6T4/ /verNSTd/L OP r .- �— / . oN �oz Z'ASPHALT 2 AtvggLr , ._ ._— ____ _— _ __ / 'F/ PATS.L( __ __---_____x Rare Nf TYvZ -- — _ 6' pETACHEP W4CK Yid � MO/LTBHYES gimp ' I l � I, ACCESS KOMP A A �} �- /N4C ri/cN - ✓S - / Z NET W 4p rBc 2DrE. ` 5JOOr00 C(G / 4N } I — W n YITT ITT s\i m ELI MITI r nn ;z E'A_ JO/Nr5 F ' 1 5 NENT 0 OO]FOLL u4B f GurJER IN I 1 - 4rcN ExrerEw - `— — I PM;rWS SrP. nit IN,/9' TT f i I -- - -- EA I 1 I /9. 54NriA 61 WEE, Evewce - E � (oGF • II z2.AI � /O / 1' STUDY EUMASIN B0✓NOGRY 'I III 9 TONDA4P BNFdLL .n �wpN c STaV l } F { -j .. - CURB f GOTY6R MFddd ALI LSTd/L FIN IT F i 1 FIRE STATION IN I 6ro 1I__ __ _ 4PFROXIM476 ROOF EWE / n^je �\ I I I d1 o N 065% — �I' n sw.linm Ens mElaEmn gwrs m 9uWr i \ I."' 1 C fGnIFU.UN9NxI !f9 evE 1N, 47 RVa lI+ErvC NIG'14WITV WaNF KS Muu ZETITIC N IT ALIN' h ry@WvygmyFJQ;t p, •E ALL O/ST//R8E0 OK6I5 Tp 8E SEEPEP ; Iuzv E ' / 'iE., /. I oFTEP FiNeC s4daNs rF r d/NdC4' fd EM T _ i�q¢r P wNH t Wm t MI 1 a [ 1 "IHTppF^ r .. 5 ,��}gry�1'...�ZO`ullclKiv EOK. [ j.1v4 W4 EGEY .3ft0 Sl .— "N 1 ". I.K1. E'^Ay�t`I,/00 YR WE ELEY.. bLO ("WE/4'ECEY. VSPMONT OCI Iassam E eccw rmrmaxvze"^^^'^' .... z Be - W'NA UN6E1N 10 nunLy Nan ¢no.i aVICK .Ewe T Y co Iwsw .aY15 ws i n 6� sw,u. N orE RETE4T0 - v v dCCWN 4N //Y/ REFO 4 3i H 4 }Ik •i 1 j- u'Y'>•4n'{ Ery�y1Ppq FOR L/M/T5 OF SUB845/N STuel6 1 5 I .':I I } 1 .EpurtEwreE.Bw,sg6Yiyjy E,rEamnmuw&.. DEYBGO PEx ©FF„ as rcnutuw rvuRmrrvl«wr v .w w£�cga�rmn xa wnraxEnry Ewm me vlv , . IO oa ENT V nE6M1 ' 3ry G«%i84`c, /i y"•O5� tO8r08 INEu ENH 0.iR'n "LL f O I 1 OAVNq tlEWtlinrvSq RML 6a�^MVfao1 .'IMMUNE XI ST d FLOWS TO I 114 Sr1E I cPv4^^hh 4 9E pCagErrvEa pY F YatNINLN%ALINC -. G% VPoW4#9 6PR.4fr Nl4 //4. "NIX.P N3 �� EXIST ORE4 /NLEi TIMM CIYGUW�fMN➢KCM1YN LM4 Yu (iRE1 Edl 6 :MEFWW Pi .NWy flp 6MWlµp pn' NP' nl CSY�sP R,GYJW.L "'Po a mxrr I II I nP[W EI., P 'F I VN 5 Iu[E.IN Gv41 IX Or •.\ i MM mE'`�"e'Xtl nt{°NVAISC riMwE„ I - I II 0 - 160 Cis 1 IN TIlE fl�NONARNOW � N Mn wvlepsry, ywa f ="I - GI 5 ]2 cfc EVENT To p j/rNr µ ae1 5p r46 wnw0em I •w II M I. 0 ✓ERFLOW I (B SrS Ex(S07- °I'" rNc n KMFW EWu4E Nn =v I . 11Jl6u I II ' E I O�o0 2 90 ]' / , 6 ".t`EOlpv eq I wrlw^E^yupti i I W I IL.I P I' 5' C!0 I .E O m l V Cs f q��oo 7 t4 cl5 n of bry vvl�i W61mL w6,amw.clvn s . I z I v Im I 1 1 % I OVH(CFLOW T90�O Lam' I4RLNINLET J ,MgOUY/nIM{xe NMrtanspp lore 1 - L240 Gv4TE GLEv EiWhN MNuTw6wrMyman ''. i'. a Idl ul r(o 92 I..I 1npMaw LroE. Ilawt81.wE4/IK1pn WT Ylu JIFFM I IONTO 1 1 Inl. MET<auvynl yavNCgvnwMMLTg1sWCoaRIwl-1r{atq II 1 s 1 II01: /NY 38.12 a IINSE1xNxoamronawrmos. IIIa AlrtlK+rc f f °° Iles IW' I.nei 1 A I:rI NME6I,IIF,IWF1C aaYNW1nP%WGIal� E1£E PoY6MG101 !. s IPo :.I O.IWI 1W.I .I _I6 . EII&Ift IM1ENd49 MA Eg4NpE.pAVIM1MilVl!IVlROW14®IW f '� �oz rawrli wrt NI4JI51NlIHF 61QX6nFWN .:... ME SVERYKpN CF CLIENT' L 40 P REVERSE Curve TING COPB(GR d./7.116 TT&4 n/E ¢2' R/-/ sTRPCT Y 4PP40ACH$9E TYP(C4 _494I H.y/E 5/SN I � a g N ZZ�5-- a,21� .66 It I Exisr FM P -f' \ \ \Is. . sw �l .AYNLET % \ \@ SETS TRnP b� N ITc Ali 0 m SE6 Z Core OPEN/NG QD uss i GOAT EL .980 nx•n B1 EXIT ELE1I•3$Nat I m a'® N E W/NGBf�NMI? �l / I \\NINE. I E�4Eed4EA'd' l9' 6ECT76N A -A N�� III I IN d t ' V N IN IT IT '�• Ir B 1 IN, I / r l� 4 \ d } \ e.3 i ^ ll I' pp In- l VICINITY MAP INEERING " ~ ND Or aEJULY,199O f` A/� EN`OFESSIONALS, INC ., Po W "E°SI°"5 aYn DPTE "" " N0P nm �PRGP I io pOUDRE FIRE q I IIE FIRE STATION R to G RR(E sIn ¢es a uao surtv[rons ❑ E ,E,w i," ~„ UTHORITIY UTILITY, GRADING &DRAINAGE PLAN'""i aP 1 ` 44 �1