Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 07/27/1995 (2)PROPERTY OF FORT COrs u �wnal Approved Report FINAL DRAINAGE ) EROSION CONTROL STUDY TOWER SI30PPES P.U.D. CITY OF FORT COLLINS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t i 1 1 1 1 1 FINAL DRAINAGE ' AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY TOWER SHOPPFS P.U.D. CITY OF FORT COLLINS June 7, 1995 Prepared for: W. W. Reynolds Companies 1600 Specht Point Drive, Suite E1 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-5922 RBD Job No. 088-015 T3D.C. Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 303/482-5922 FAX:303/482-6368 June 7, 1995 Mr. Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Utility Services, Stormwater 235 Matthews Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. Dear Basil: We are submitting to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Tower Shoppes P.U.D.. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants Prepared by: Reviewed by: Qk/t- Perry E. C bot Kevin W. Gingery, .E. Project Engineer Water Resources Project Manager Denver303/458-5526 TABLE -OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 'A. LOCATION 1 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION I B. SUB -BASIN DESCRIPTION 1 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS 2 B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE, CONSTRAINTS, AND COMPARISON 2 C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 3 D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 3 E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT 3 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 4 V. STORM WATER QUALITY A. GENERAL CONCEPT 5 VI. EROSION CONTROL A. GENERAL CONCEPT 6 VII. CONCLUSIONS, A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT C. STORM WATER QUALITY D. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT REFERENCES APPENDIX VICINITY MAP HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS EXCERPTS FROM THE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE NEW F.C.H.S. EXCERPTS FROM PINECONE O.D.P. . DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS, INLETS AND CHANNELS EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS CHARTS, TABLES & FIGURES 6 6 7 7 8 I 11 24 29 38 45 I. II. FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY TOWER SHOPPES P.U.D. CITY OF FORT COLLINS GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The Tower Shoppes project is located in the southeast portion of Fort. Collins, Colorado. This project is bounded on the south by Horsetooth Road, on the west by Timberline Road, and on the north and east by the new Fort Collins High School. The tract on which the project is located contains approximately 11.74 acres and will consist of commercial development. The project site is shown on the Vicinity Map in the Appendix. More particularly, the site is situated in the . southwest quarter of Section 29, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. B. Description of .Property The site of the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. is presently undeveloped land. Previous use for the site was agricultural. The existing site is presently open ground covered with native grasses with several abandoned irrigation trenches running in the east -west direction. Currently, the site topography is uniformly sloping toward the northeast corner at approximately 1.66%. An abandoned concrete irrigation diversion box is located in: the southwest corner of the site. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. Major Basin Description The project site is located in the Foothills Drainage Basin and is included in the Overall Drainage Study for theTinecone P.U.D. B. Sub -Basin Description Flows from the site, in a developed condition, were included as part of the drainage study for the adjacent New Fort Collins High School, as prepared by Meline & Irelan, Inc. A portion of that report and overall drainage map for the area are included in the appendix of this report. Within the study by Meline & Irelan, the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. was split into two sub -basins. The western basin (approximately 6 acres) was assumed to flow in a northeasterly direction with 10 yr. flows intercepted by a curb inlet and ' carried by the school storm sewer system to detention ponds located along the east edge of the school property. The 100 yr. flows for this basin were to be conveyed by a shared overflow channel between the school and commercial ' buildings then by overland sheet flow to the ponds. Runoff from the eastern basin (approximately 7 acres) also flows in a northeast direction with 10 yr. flows intercepted and carried by the schools' sewer system to detention ponds, and 100 ' yr. flows overflowing the parking lot and being conveyed by sheet flow to swales leading to the detention ponds. M. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ' A. Regulations The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the ' subject site. The criteria established by the Final Drainage Report for the New Fort Collins High School, by Meline & Irelan, dated November, 1993, which includes requirements of the Pinecone Overall Drainage Study will also be tadhered to for this project. B. Development Criteria Reference, Constraints and Comparison ' The criteria established by the Final Drainage Report for the New Fort Collins ' High School, prepared by Meline & Irelan, dated November, 1993, will be used for this site. ' ' As detailed in the drainage report for the New Fort Collins High School, the Tower Shoppes site was divided into Basins 2 and 3 (west and east respectively; see portion of overall drainage map in appendix). Maximum anticipated ' developed 10 yr. runoff, as detailed in the M & I report to be intercepted and conveyed by the school system, for these basins respectively are 20.6 cfs and 23.9 cfs. As designed in this report, the runoff from these two basins are 20.9 cfs and 18.2 cfs, respectively. As can be seen, the flow value from Basin 2 is 0.3 cfs higher than anticipated. We feel that this situation is acceptable because the storm sewer which serves this basin (shown on page 16 of this report) is not operating at full capacity, and can handle We additioni10.3 cfs. Basin 3 falls below its design value, so the runoff from it is acceptable. The report by Meline & Irelan addressed 100 yr. flows from the subject site as being conveyed by a combination of storm sewer, overflow channel, and overland sheet flow to Detentiorl Pond 213 of the Pinecone Overall Drainage Plan. Maximum anticipated developed 100 yr. flows from the entire site was 77.04 cfs, 2 1 ' as calculated in this report, with values from the Meline & Irelan report. As calculated in this report the 100 yr. design flow is 70.69 cfs, thus complying with the values from the New F.C.H.S. Drainage Report. j" As per the SWMM model used in the New F.C.H.S. report, Basins 2 and 3 of ' that report were modeled using percent impervious values of 89 % for Basin 2 and 85 % for Basin 3. This report by RBD, Inc. shows the same Basin 2 (Basin 1 of this report) with a percent impervious value of 71.8% and Basin 3 (Basins 2 and ' 3 of this report) at a value of 79.4%. Therefore, the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. values comply with the original assumptions used in the sizing of Regional Detention Pond 213. ' C. Hydrological Criteria ' The rational method was used to determine runoff peak flows from the site. The 10 and 100 year rainfall criteria, obtained from the City of Fort Collins, will be utilized. This criteria is included in the appendix. ' D. Hydraulic Criteria All calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria. ' E. Variances from Criteria ' No variances from City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria are being sought for this project. ' IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ' A. General Concept As per the Pinecone Overall Drainage Plan, all on -site developed flows from ' Basin 1 of this report, for the Tower Shoppes site, will be conveyed by parking lot sheet flow and gutter flow to a 12' Type 'R' inlet along the north line of the property, where it outlets to a 24" storm sewer, ties into the New F.C.H.S. ' existing MH -3A and finally disperses into the aforementioned Regional Detention Pond 213. This Regional Detention Pond has already been constructed and sized to accept the flows from the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. Basin 2 flows will be ' conveyed by sheet flow and curb and gutter to a 10' Type 'R' inlet along the east line of the .property, and then enter a 24" storm sewer, which will tie to an existing 24" stub from a 12', Type 'R' inlet on the New F.C.H.S. site, called ' CI-3, which is part of that site's drainage system. Though not directly on -site, 3 �J B. Basin 3 has been included in the runoff calculations in order to comply with the format for the New Fort Collins High School Drainage Report: The 100 yr. flows will overflow the storm sewer system into a shared.concrete channel, after ponding to a depth of 0.5' and then flow overland to Detention Pond 213. Half of this channel has been constructed as part of the New F.C.H.S., and the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. Developer is responsible for its completion. The design for the overflow path used by the high school was used for the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. and this design was checked for consistency with the more recent flow results of this report. It was found to be capable of handling the new values calculated by the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. report. Runoff from Basin -4, which is the adjacent half -street portion of Timberline Road, bordering the Tower Shoppes property on the west, will flow by curb and gutter to an existing 7' Type 'R' curb inlet, which outlets to the Foothills Basin Regional Channel. Flows from this basin do not enter the site. No on -site detention is intended fpr the site. Regional Detention Pond 213, which exists along the east/edge of the New Fort Collins High School property, has been sized to accommodate flows from the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. and the calculations in this report comply with values used in the sizing of that pond. Included in the back pocket of this report is the Tower Shoppes P.U.D Final Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. Specific Details Sub -basin Design Consistent with the New F.C.H.S. Drainage Report, the subject site is separated into two drainage sub -basins. It is proposed that all on -site developed 10 yr. flows from these basins be collected by curb inlets which will tie into the New F.C.H.S. stormwater system at the designed locations. At a maximum ponding depth of 0.50 ft. all on -site developed flows in excess of the 10 yr. event will either enter a drainage channel or sheet flow to detention ponds on the school site. No off -site flows will enter the Tower Shoppes site. However, Basin 3 of the New F.C.H.S. Drainage Plan has been split into two sub -basins, Basin 2 and Basin 3, for. this report (see included Final Drainage and Erosion Control Plan). Basin 3 includes offsite flows from the north half of Horsetooth Road, a portion of the high school's south parking lot, and the school's courtyard adjacent on the north. Although Basin 3 flow is not from the Tower Shoppes subject site, it is combined with on -site flows to aid comparison to the overall plan for the New 4 F.C.H.S. site. ' Roof Drain System and On -site Storm Drain System The Anchor Tenant building will have a roof drain system. The arcitect for this ' tenant 'has stated that the downspouts will be located along the back (east) side of the building and drain onto the parking lot pavement and in turn sheet flow to the 10' Type 'R' curb inlet for Basin 2. The remaining structures will have gutter systems which will drain onto the ground and overland flow to basin outlets. The proposed curb inlets and storm drain piping will collect all surface runoff ' flows less than or equal to the 10 yr. storm. Flows in excess of the 10 yr. event will be conveyed overland to Regional Detention Pond 213. There is no on -site detention intended at the inlets. Existing Inlets There is an existing 12' curb inlet at the outlet of the overflow channel. This inlet is intended for collecting all 10 yr. flows and smaller for Basin 3 of this report. As part of the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. project, we will tie to this inlet with a 24" storm sewer to convey flows from Basin 2 of this report. Existing Detention Pond The existing Regional Detention Pond along the east edge of the school site was sized in the Final Drainage Report for the New F.C.H.S. The developed flows calculated for the Tower Shoppes P.U.D. comply with the flow values anticipated in the final design of these ponds: V. STORMWATER QUALITY A. General Concept It is now required that the water quality of stormwater runoff be addressed on all final design utility plans. For this study, we have considered the downstream impacts of the stormwater runoff. Since the site isintended for retail sales, the nature of the runoff will not be hazardous. Stormwater which is released from the site will enter a permanent stormwater detention pond serving as a means to settle out suspended particles. 5 I ' VI. EROSION CONTROL ' A. General Concept ' The Tower Shoppes P.U.D. Commercial Development site lies within the Moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone, and within the Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone, per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. Using -the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Standards, the performance standard during construction for this site was found to be 79.94 %, required. The actual performance standard arrived at for this site by using various erosion control measures, is 96.22%, therefore complying with the City of Fort Collins requirements. The erosion control plan dictates that after overlot grading has been completed, all disturbed areas, not located within a building pad, sidewalk, or roadway/parking lot area shall have a temporary vegetation seed applied per the specifications given on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (included in the ' back pocket of this report). After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed in the amount of 2 tons per acre, minimum. The mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped onto the soil per the methods shown on ' the Drainage and Erosion Control. Plan. This involves an area totalling approximately 2.08 acres. ' After the installation of utilities, all areas on which there will be pavement, concrete, or a building shall have a gravel mulch/base course applied at 135 tons per acre. This measure involves an area totalling 8.26 acres. ' After the installation of curb inlets and sidewalk culverts, these shall be filtered with concrete blocks, 1/2" wire screen and coarse gravel (3/4"), according to the ' Detail Sheet of the Utility Plans. This includes the same area as above, totalling 8.26 acres. ' VH. CONCLUSIONS ' A. Compliance with Standards . All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. ' B. Drainage Conceit The proposed drainage concepts adequately provide for the conveyance and ' release of developed on-siteflows into the existing storm drain system of the 6 adjacent F.C.H.S. Flows up to the 10 yr. event are collected and carried by an existing storm sewer system, and larger flows are conveyed overland to existing detention facilities on the adjacent school property. C. Storm Water Quality The developed flows will be directed toward the detention pond east of the F.C.H.S. Stormwater quality will be controlled by allowing pollutants to settle out in the detention pond. D. Erosion Control Concept This site complies with and exceeds the requirements specified in the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Criteria. 7 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1984, revised March 1991. 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites, by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. 3. Urban Stormwater Quality Management Guidelines, prepared for the American Society of Civil Engineers, prepared by Wright Water Engineers, Inc., Denver, Colorado and Camp Dresser McKee, Orlando, Florida, 1991. 4. Overall Drainage Study for the Pinecone P.U.D., prepared by RBD, Inc.Engineering Consultants, June, 1992. 5. Final Drainage Report for the New Fort Collins High School, prepared by Meline & Irelan, Inc., November 1993. 0 8 I 1 1 1 1 0 1 11 0 1 1 APPENDIX 1 I n U 1 1 1 L t 1 VICINTITY MAP .1 I 1 1J 1 1 1 I 1 [J 1 1 1 1 C, ny F ` DRAKE RD. -o oG O a PROJECT m SITE W J N HORSETOOTH RD. a o � a o � Lo rn con ix W ix a Z J W Z On Z O Z F V O U HARMONY RD. VICINITY MAP I HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS 3 4/ 11 rn t rn Lu o CL o 1 11 a N W a a. O N CC ui 10 -v 0 L a) m c 0 a) a) L 0 N a) m U a) N O CL O 0 a) L N a) w a) 75 U m a) L N N L �I �I N _W Z Q a 2 O 0 N J O Z } W w I I U') O O 1 .1 ' Z O z N W co Z v U a O U. O 0 LL Uj W o U ~ 'LU Q } '0 N CD U) v 0 (ou o 0) 0 c � m Y c ° c a Y N N aN=F—., O y N 0 a U U O O co co co a7 p p O O co L L C C a) (D w a) t t LY co a7 O O N aD a0 O 0 D N r- co c0 + U C O 0 � U7 C F_ LL N a0 N (O i a N N cV �— U? O N a0 co c N •- O a) F— t M m w O 0) N > C r a) O) O (O N C_ UD N M C �- t � O O O c ca co o N Vf N N j O U) O O O ai `n IT v' M E rn m F= aci C 'J ti ap � O U o 0 0 0 co N co m LO � co v 0 - 0 M N O co C Z Lfncocm y M LL O () �o N 7 C L- a) > E ;B Q LL O co C 3 ca N E (J a) Q' U W a) O - w > M w a) a) 3 L a) cm 7 it m to o LUc- o O Z > > I 1 [J 1 1 0 O I `i w 1 CLo 0 1 1 1 i 1 1 0 i Z 1 NW U. Z co U. n. O O U) LL W la.0 O Q H 1 Of z y. 0 1� o cu o 0 mWW O Y C O C d N Y N cch fl y O E 2 F— rn o> U U O O cu cu cQ fQ O O O O U) L b- � ca a)L L a) a) a) (D��� O CO .. �L co +�d:cv)L6 LL N w N O C IT M to to co N ao Q N N N H F— O N CO U) e r- N r- O N a00 IT > Ncu �- J O co O co C N O r- O H I� O O O R M o CV 4 N N > O to O O O E rn m m M O O O O O O O U o 0 co � (D N N N cu O IT (D M N O C � •— N M '- m .0 1 co y fA 0 m E LL O O (a w N 7 C L Y > r0, Q LL N O c0 3 CD N O Ecu U w N O = w > c a) E 3 L a) w m 7 IL o H � w LL O Z D > I iiiiiinning ��0111111111111111111i imilli loollimil��CC� MINIMUM m��� i i 111�i ii011� inn 1111��811111 . �1�111111AA . MilligiollillillillimilloiligillillI r a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Engineering Consultants CLIENT 4:1 T'y 4=9 LASIS, -JOB NO. PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR InL TI-EE-a-1- ;L-CU/ MADE BYJ�DATE 2.91 CHECKED BY- DATE -SHEET OF -I --- A c5 (SE _uj,u'taa� rz f_=� I, -L-L! -7f I PEZ _:5 F=r-Ti i57tj L C_ CrYL ------ A4 Li �=7 r X n es5 17 t- 7 1 ---- - -------- . . ........ .. .... ... ------ ----- - -0.1. `-7-77: � -------- -- Y z d _=3 a. . . . ------ A- . . . r ------ ---- A-n Q_ 7� ------- ---- 1 d d �_L L_ 7- 7 -1 (cam I S, t i _,L! L.L. L�_ i I C�,. -.Q. I ii=. _-1. _.Z 4- 4- F i z I t 1 4 4i 1 L� 84 --I L-Li- � 1 1 1 1 i j i I I d 7T-1 4 ---- --------- - c`/1 I tj I I I I I I I I I IF r I I I I I Engineering Consultants CLIENT �Rrr Oz-'Nt LA S IS -JOBNO. PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR MADE BY W DATE Z-97- CHECKED BY DATE —SHEET�OF 2; A 1 a if 'C"' A AC Q :. LJ'w U t"i -i-i 1 IL LIE T- I llllifi�! i of i 1 -Lit t IT -Lj I —h tu if 4 i 7- 77= 7-U F I j ro CIA F -7 --A 7 -4 r�-+7 i L 4 tj "ITZD: I Lj FF _7 + _j j J- S, ... ... T -T-T -T 7-- if TF -T- 1 —yi --7 1,T #1 T F i T if 1: T Fl ik T!1 Li J-L i7 !fill if �tt b Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Major and Minor Storms per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria w 1 ARTERIAL w/ 6" Vertical curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc.. 0 is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 1 V is based on theoretical capacities Area = 3.55 sq.ft. Area = 47.52 sq.ft. Minor Storm Major Storm 1 Slope Red. Minor 0 V Major 0 V (X) :Factor : X . (cfs) (fps) . X : (cfs) . (fps) 1 0.40 : 0.50 : 135.32 : 4.28 : 2.41 : 2031.62 64.25 . 2.70 : 0.50 : 0.65 : 135.32 : 6.22 : 2.70 : 2031.62 : 93.38 : 3.02 : 0.60 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 8.39 :. 2.95 : 2031.62 : 125.89 : 3.31 : 0.70 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 9.06 : 3iI9 : 2031.62 : 135.98 : 3.58 1 0.80 : 0.80 : 135.32 :., 9.68 :. 3.41 : 2031.62 : 145.37 : 3.82 " 0.90 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.27 : 3.62 : 2031.62 : 154.19 : 4.06 1.00 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.83 3.81: 2031.62 : 162.53 : 4.28 1 1.25 : 0.80 135.32 12.10 4.26 : 2031.62 181.71 4.78 1.50 0.80 135.32 13.26 4.67 : 2031.62 199.06 : 5.24 1.75 0.80 135.32 14.32 : 5.04 : 2031.62 : 215.01 : 5.66 2.00 : 0.80 135.32 15.31 : 5.39 : 2031.62 : 229.85 : 6.05 ' 2.25 0.78 : 135.32 15.83 : 5.72 : 2031.62 : 237.70 : 6.41 2.50 : 0.76 135.32 16.26 : 6.03 : 2031.62 : 244.13 : 6.76 2.75 0.74 135.32 16.61 : 6.32 : 2031.62 : 249.31 : 7.09 1 3.00 0.72 135.32 : 16.88 : 6.60 : 2031.62 : 253.36 : 7.41 : 3.25 0.69 135.32 : 16.83 : 6.87 : 2031.62 : 252.72 : 7.71 : 3.50 0.66 135.32 : 16.71 : 7.13 : 2031.62 : 250.85 : 8.00 1 3.75 : 0.63 135.32 : 16.51 7.38 : 2031.62 247.86 : 8.28 4.00 0.60 : 135.32 16.24 7.62 2031.62 243.79 : 8.55 4.25 0.58 135.32 16.18 : 7.86 : 2031.62 242.92 8.81 4.50 : 0.54 135.32 : 15.50 8.09 : 2031.62 232.72 9.07 1 4.75 : 0.52 : 135.32 15.34 8.31 : 2031.62 : 230.25 : 9.32 5.00 : 0.49 : 135.32 : 14.83 8.52 : 2031.62 : 222.60 : 9.56 1 5.25 : 5.50 : 0.46 : 0.44 : 135.32 135.32 : 14.26 : : 13.96 8.73 : 8.94 : 2031.62 2031.62 : 214.13 : : 209.64 : 9.80 10.03 5.75 : 0.42 : 135.32 : 13.63 9.14 : 2031.62 : 204.61 : 10.25 6.00 : 0.40 : 135.32 : 13.26 : 9.34 : 2031.62 : 199.06 : 10.47 : 3 n St kd3� { 4 a �iJtk r s 1 �tZ et 1 Z 1 �x 1 F. l � • 5I �T T 5 1} 1 �� 1 _ EXCEPTS FROM THE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE NEW FORT COLLINS HIGH SCHOOL BY MELINE & IRELAN 11 12/ FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT for NEW FORT COLLINS HIGH SCHOOL November 1993 w r a r r r Prepared by e me relan, Inc. Consulting Engineers 4710 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 . 13/ rINO STORY SCW[R- FORT `r;- P.C. H. S. 'os-rr"AT' c ,.4 �K os IFLggtdIJ cF IVr:-w F-I-: Ce-,,, . va-xA.t.t_ ��'[At N A4-7 t_ ^fit_ a.l:} re'2bF�l �E.Llh16 $ IRE.La.ly � �Nc. (�tPo�T f�.lb�/, t9 ci3 r V w J Q y m O N m n n m A N m n Z = W�•' Q m Q Q f m Q P 17 P {7 A Q A m Q n Q O. "m N �G P n Q N N Eli(V m P m Q N ¢¢ 2 Z r. O r LL v � ^I Q n n n Q N n W ~z~ I N 1 J Q JQ W. C U J W.. � N O J .. Q -3!itiF'W:'c: r r r W': 0 0 0 0 o v> o o m W "O O O O O O P O O O m O f m O m O f O O J C U "' N A O P A n O P N N A N f A n m O O N J1,, O Q n N m N f O n O n N N n LL :. Z U Q O A O m O m O O O A O m O P O m O P O Q O n O m O f O m O n O N O N O Q O N O N N Q P P ^ m f m P m N P m n O A m P P Q v M O n Yf f n A N fV Q n m A Q m f Yf 'z B 0 as d 0 0 1' 7 I I I I a a Z k 0 0 O�/ w N W MJ LW l'J i' y C O A Yl O m Yl N YI A Pl P p' �j m m m 0 m J :. Q {A A O A P A m N m N O OI m N m 2 A O m A Cf m P m N f A m 17 m m m f N m N A m 0 O ZZ? W Q_ C Z Z' O F L C A m A nl N O N P E f N A N A f m m P A m W Z � O m O fV ^ N o N A m n N T f N fmV W N O U J Wq W 'G m 17 P t'1 1'f N C] N N O N O � N O O O O N > b b n Y b A Z_.... b f A m C 1 -:' N . W W= O m O 0 A 0 m A N N A m O m A O f A N m n N A A N N N 01 o m fD a <:O C7 m n 0 0 0 0 m o P c 0 m 0 0 v '- O eNi h w H N A H v Q Q A �G � P N M A O C N A N P O O O O m N N m O m � n O P r m m m m m O O O N Y A N A M A n m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O L Qi (B W � I. O W A P m A N N A m O O N A P m N O m m O m N P A m m N V. N m N N N N N N P Y N N Z O' U O O O O O O O Cs O O O O O C 0 C O O O am v U A N f v1 A N N P A N m f N 3� Z I o + y,Q Q A 17 ¢ P P ¢ r F- Z N Isj I c/ TABLE 3 DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY BAS1N AREA: (AC) C. Q (CFS), .: 10 :: Q (CFS) 100 B1 0.89 0.95 4.4 I 8.0 B2 0.54 I 0.95 2.7 I 4.9 B3 0.53 0.95 2.6 4.8 1 3.54 I 0.55 8.2 16.1 B4 0.38 0.95 1.9 3.4 2 5.69 0.87 20.6 I 35.9 3 7.15 0.84 23.9 45.1 B5 2.22 0.95 10.0 20.0 4 4.69 0.90 18.5 41.3 5 1.68 0.45 3.0 6.5 6 3.32 0.37 2.7 I 5.7 7 5.09 0.68 17.9 30.7 8 1.68 0.45 3.0 I 6.5 9 17.43 0.65 27.9 46.8 B6 0.69 0.95 3.6 6.2 10 11.35 0.32 8.1 16.8 11 4.38 0.25 2.0 4.4 12 8.46 . 0.25 4.2 8.7 13 4.59 0.45 5.9 11.0 R 5.99 0.64 7.8 I 17.1 C-1 17/ 1 Ir Ly r 1 1 1 1 TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF STORM SEWER DESIGN LINE. TYPE DESCRIPTION 10 YR. : DESIGN FLOW::. (cfs) : PIPE:::.. ..SLOPE:. ("/o) PIPE _ DIAMETER.::. (n)(1) PIPE PLOW VELOCITY (fps)(2) FULL PIPE CAPACITY (Cfs) SOUTH SEWER ' H1 I LA i ERAL I Bldg. 3-1 to MH-1 I 4.46 I 0.81 I 15 6.42 I 7.6 Si TRUNK I MH-1 to MH-2 I 4.37 I 0.60 I 15 5.89 I 6.5 . H2 I LATERAL I Bldg. B-2 to MH-2 I 2.73 I 1.3.4 I 12 5.35 I 5.4 S2 TRUNK I MH-2 to MH-3 I 6.96 0.60 I 18 I 6.39 I 10.8 S3 TRUNK MH-3 to Inlet CI-1 I 6.67 I 0.60 18 6.33 I 10.8 H3 I LATERAL Bldg. B-3 to Inlet CIA 2.69 1.60 I 12 7.30 I 5.9 S4 TRUNK I Inlet CIA to MH-3A & Inlet CI-2 I 19.89 I 0.61 24 828 I 24.4 H4 LATERAL Bldg. B-4 to MH-3A 1.95 I 3.00 10 8.51 I 4.9 S5 TRUNK MH-3A to Inlet CI-3 41.18 0.59 30 9.58 41.7 S"o TRUNK Inlet C1-3 to MH-4 61.82 0.43 36 8.53 I 57.6 HS LATERAL Bldg. B-5 south to MH-4 226 I 2.36 10 8.09 I 4.4 H6 I LATERAL Bldg. B-5 north to MH-4 8.05 0.50 18 6.12 I 9.7 S7 TRUNK MH-4 to Inlet Ci-4 69.37 I 0:55 I 36 9.68 I 65.5 S8 TRUNK Inlet C14 to MH-7 85.0 0.70 36 11.86 73.9 S9 I TRUNK MH-7 to MH-8 86.71 0.70 36 12.10 73.9 S10 TRUNK MH-8 to OUTLET 86.71 1.80 36 18.05 I 118.5 NORTH SEWER " H7 LATERAL. Bldg. B-6 to Inlet CI-6 3.65 3.54 10 10.57 5.4 SillTRUNK Inlet CI-6 to MH-9 2923 0.541 30 8.76 39.9 S12 TRUNK MH-9 to MH-10 2923 0.541 30 8.76 I 39.9 S13 TRUNK I MH-10 to OUTLET 2923 I 0.541 30 8.76 I 39.9 See Appendix F For Design Of These Pipes. See Appendix G For Design Of These Pipes. (1) All pipe is smooth flow plastic with inside diameter greater than nominal pipe size. (2) Pipe velocity at normal depth when design flow is less than full pipe capacity. D-1 PHI L:.:PE.FL::RiSdSSOC.d:=INC WORK SHEET � �. an Ong,. ,��w Project: =c+ Siue $1 S,. 202 130M e93•aa3s - Project NO: Corner. CI0 3= 4=2 FAX M9 8 6s • ' •-�� 3 Date: V r � �� ; 1 ,ram •� �+ I ! 1 A?\CH. CHAINNEL SECTION �, Page: —Of: I-10 I9/ 1 � J . Q Q �N w �-- 0 Q Ln U 0 ►i LJ r !LO00 co I O co O 4 M177JW:7AC7 60ZLON a , (3 ji MEMEMMEW ZO � �e 4-7 �a No Text Zy Meline & Irelan, Inc. COMPUTED SY ER�t—y� DATE SHEET NO. OF Consulting Engineers CHECKED 8Y Fort Collins. C0I01000 �%''4 gr; DATE St FILE NO. O Z1• 0046 PROJECT ? .--%.?17 /J�r PROJECT NO. CALCULATIONS FOR: OVERFL011) Fn2 1jA510Q I 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 37 38 i- - — ---- -- -- - -- - - -- - --- - - -- - -.... 2- 3 4 --- - - -- 6 --- -`� ---- - -- 7 -- - ------ --._M Q >n .. �-�------ - 8 - --------------- --- 10 - - -1- 12 14 - -t1— — Q 1718 1ti r_ `- N �- . t zo .} I19 i. ! { I ! I ►' I l l i l j t t i; j ? I 4 ► i l I t t t l f i 2122 1 i tIt 2324 25 26 ? _� a; W J27 29 32 34 -� 35 � 1 38 ti a' -it 37 -- ' O�-� v' v - 38 -v J 39IU 40 41 a2 — — — 0�✓' S£ 69 '79 Pass;;ap l l43 1Y107�21�0 OS'L£ '73 ; i j 44 I-9 I , I , ,. O. i i I A f• ,5 a{ BARS AT a — Ir� I I II� SG 'ICBaI.d✓ C B 1 a O N O ySal AR SaT mi 6' TNIC7R y QQ I I SIDEVALUC (TTP.) ' ) 1 1' 0' TTP 2 �S BARS AT 6'OC I ' 1 A BA= of aiM DETAIL "A' A-OYUNE I� + 1 't BARS AT Iz'," WARPED CURB B,, 6u (TTP) iI I I .•i Y BC U WITN I V2' DK "OL 61, CENTERS— EXTEND CKANNEL TO OUTSIDE ED" EDeE OF W LL DETAIL 'A' ,Loa sEE m 34.3_4 _L- DETAIL'S' 1 "S BARS ---a- L5ARS—S•0.0 a a� A cPENINa S' 6' EL, 34.op `ELa 'd o' SECTION A —A A -*I PLAN VIEW 76' 1 CAS% I S' e V"PEO GUTTER DEPRESSED GUTTER I WAR; GUTTER TOP OF cu" EEGcO FL.39.Sv 6 C 3.5 FLUSH ! I/z'R• �{ BAR �— •:.: `.:. r1T11 C:JRB\ i/a'—� LEG / 16'L7NG LL •a• ., 'n •••: FACE :: T •:.' : • ... 3 BAR 1/2 PIPE SPI14" f ?; ` + ; . • ' ND 1 1/: twat Nut a/ .0 • ,•i R,` 1 n/� DI A. 161/Y GA4x=vEL • Ji.. A00—TTIR9, s 1/2' AT TOP ' .., tU' 3i S/6" PUTS �rl- e DETAIL 'B' GENERAL NOTES- • F P c Sr A. EXPOSED STEEL SHALL BE GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO Y-111. Z. R KEY JOINTS WHERE WALLS CONNECT TO TOP SLAB AND BASE. REINFORCEMENT IN A S AND BASE SHALL BE S' FROM THE S)DWEXPOSED TO EARTH. REINFORCEMENI IN OP SLAB SHALL BE 1 1/2a CLEAR. b6'lgC-A • ss/Qi AM I"4 ALTERED FLOWLIXE SECTION B-B (REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN) Sc99'r /- so 77e s0S(69 �✓({ BURS I ;S BM — (1•±��aauN I04 BAR I 1 —� 4 BARS -Q'C.c SECTION C—C BOTmw= ,Gee- •e-c \ CONCRETE SIDEWALK CULVERT FOR VERTICAL CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK NGf F G SEfiY( N1' ►p / ov�� ear: 6AT !rY9� v U / I-11 •Meline & Irelan, Inc. COMPUTED BY J �� DATE .SHEET NO. OF Consulting Engineers CHECKED jqjSY� �� �� DATTE rr �+ FILE NO. :Crl cvins. COjOrcao PRO.:ECT>jYir �, 96 Q• A N l A PROJECT NO. Q'L I . CC �O CALCULATIONS FOR: OVE2Prti1 e=2nM Curb I'•„1�i-s Cr-1 � �I-2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1/501 f6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2244 25 26 27 22(8 29 30 31,J32 3/3 3435 36 37 38 1ioj-FMOY` 4Z.S-D —�OM YriGYL t_. IA0.Y1 Y12� _ DY' 64k. 3 VAX: w:S'-4C. 4r 7�i 4- 5 — ---- .. - - - 6 73Id�Y • E4- -67'T , 7 a re 9 .� 1� ' --J r 12 �+. ' - -- -- - a r' 13 21 ,e i _:sue—Res-'s�ls_6 8_ Q�¢ ?2:!¢�r6 �s 19 1 ! G .n e:240_ (3G.2 I 1G so C_ � omm4!rc`•a•% P, i I 21 23 24 25 26 - - - 27 I rItza lei i l.92� I i I m w_ o.0fo 30 31 33 �A5S ctjAZ4NEt�belu+¢eYl_$e�+ev�_.��a�a.._ ca-oi._$I=�_ 34 - �----n —..-- — --- --- --� 3SCyl%S� 71, 37 38 Av�• 'jj..—C¢$.�it O-O!b•-zL-23.3 �.¢�o — 7%l0 =13 - ----�L 40 PeAl C.. 44 _- 1-12 EXCERPTS FROM THE PINECONE OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN BY LIDSTONE & ANDERSON 24 L 2 S/ ' Name: Architecture] Horizons Date: 04/07/94 File : POND-DAT Range: ODEF C _ ......_SAS.1 N-_62s..-00EFF.1C-I.ENTS-AND-..AREAS ..- - - -- -----SWMM BAS I NS & % I MP ' BASIN AREA COEF. DESIGNATION ac. C ACC. AREA WEIGHTED C IMPERVIOUS WEIGHTED % I % SWMM BASIN % MOD. IMP. % IMP: 81 0.89 0.95 0.89 0.95 100 100 82 0.54 0.95 1.43 0.95 100 100 301 100 -...-81---0.53 --0.95 --- L96 0.95... -- -100 . --- - • 100 - .... --- -- - -- - - -- -- 1 3.54 0.55 5.50 0.69 47 66 306 58 55 (Adj.by t0Y Plant 84 0.38 0.95 5.88 0.71 100 - 89 --- 68 78 314 & -...89- eNelI.+ 2,3 3 7.15 0.84 18.72 0.81 85 81 307 88 85 (Incl. part of 85 85 2.22 0.95 20.94 0.82 100 83 311 100 & Adj.for Plant - - 4 . - 4.69.,_.1.90..25.63.. 0.84 ..._. _. _. 93 . - - 85 308 .._ 93 ' 5 1.68 0.45 27.31 0.81 33 82 6 3.32 0.38 30.63 0.77 24 76 309 24 -.7 .__5.09 .-1.68 8 1.68 0.45 -35.72 37.40 -0.75 - ---- 0.74 _64 See Note 1_.__.14 33 72 305.-_.----- 313 3._....{((( Pond 01 imper.__.--------_----- __-- 33 9 17.43 0.65 54.83 0.71 60 68 302 62 55 (Adj.by 10% Plant OX._..- --- -100... ----.69...--._...-------.._---- ' 10 11.35 0.32 66.87 0.65 16 60 303 18 <(( Irr.pond 100% imp. 11 4.38 0.25 71.25 0.62 0 56 304 0 8.46..._0.25 ._.19.71. 0.58 _. .... -.0 ... _50 AM - ...-0- ' 13 4.59 0.46 = RED MTV. R 5.99 0.54 84.30 90.29 0.58 0.57 35 See Note 1 45 49 49 316 310 0 ((l( Pond 0% imper. 45 33 (Adj.for L.D.RES. _-- -- _ --- _t. PARK NORTH_-- 8.30 -0.05 _98.59 _0.53 - AVG. C D -- -45-____Ja-0 N V E R 5.1.0-H .0 to % Imp.-._.--- ----___--- = N. LOW RES. Not included, drains direct to foothills channel ' - A:X+Y Y:A-X . X : Imp. Area --_._-----TOTAL BASIN.61.--9B.S......__----- __451 IMPERVIOUS -------...--------.C:(95X+-2Y)/A-.-------- -- REPORT BASIN 62 108.9 == 41 $* % IMPERVIOUS. AC:.95X+.2A-.1X - AC-.2A:.15X X:(AC-.2A)/.75 Areas beyond. school site & study.------ --- - - - - - -- - --- - -- - - - -.. ---- -- - - ---- -.._ . e; Values from Hester Drainage Study for Pinecone P.U.D. %I : X/A %1:(C-.2)/.75 NOTE 1: BASINS 7 & 13 in rational method assumed pond rater surface as impervious. - .Used grass for paid areas.in basies.305 & 316 in SWIM._._... ---..------.--------__--- Difference between master plan areas & above areas is Timberline Rd. flow direct to Foothils Channel _ and.part of PARK + H.LOW RES. to BASIN ------- MODIFICATIONS TO SWMM MODEL BASINS BASIN ( OLD VALUES ) ( ADD VALUES ) (( NEW VALUES )) NO.._.. IMP %.. ACRES_... IMP % ACRES.-__JMP.% _ACRES __ - --- ----- ----- PARK 0 6.9 DEN.RES. 40. _ _ 8.8-- ' TOTAL to 65 22 15.7 65 16 38.8 22 15.7 18 54.5 61 64 15.1 95 0.9 66 ..16.0 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ K-1 65 88 2T00. 54.5 18.0 0130 _ 66-94-SHOO-84: 6-19.1-1200- 67 86 1500. 28.3 40.0 .0360 68 81 1800. 60.0 40.0 .0100 69 95 1300. 46.0 40.0 0300 106-2000: .0350- 121 204 500. 10.1 90.0 142 173 1200. 35.5 40.0 150 151 2400. 30.1 65.0 302 302 2800. 18.1 55.0 303 303 1400. 10.3 18.0 304 304 700. 4.4 .0 iN Z 309----309 --1000. 1108. 311 311 312 312 1000. 313--2200: 111 OTOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA (ACRES), 0100 -:b100` .0100 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .016- ---:250 ---.100---:300 ---":51 - -.SO ... _. _--- --- - -- .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 i. .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 :016--150--100-----_.300- 51 ..50" 1 :016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 00180 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .016 .250 .100 .300. .51 .50 .00180 1 - --:250 - i ---- - -- - -- 016 250 .100 .300 .51 .50 00180 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .OT6_--a 0---100"_ MO- _:Sl :30 - - --1--- ---- . 016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .000180 180 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .016-- :.250- ---100 300- -- ,1 - .50 .00180 ...1 -- --- .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 016 .250 100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 .016--250 --100 - -- :300 - --- :51 _-:50 " '50 -.00180 -� ---- --- .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .00180 1 .016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 1016 .250 .100 .300 .51 .50 .00180 1 M-14 ---BASIN G R000 —100 YK FULi * TAFTHILL R0T0 FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR |NLETN7CH (R[ 6-/-94) | SERIES SUBAREA GUTTER WIDTH AREA PERCENT SLOPE RESISTANCE FACTOR SURFACE STORAGE(IN) INFILTRATION RATE(IK/HR) GAGE MER OR KAHLE (FT) (AC� IMPERV. (FT�FT) IMPEAV. PERV. IMPERV. PERV. MAXIMM MINIMUM DECAY RATE NO ��—�"� o�—o~� � __.._. 1 . - - -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 Sri N, ff �DO'�I rn rn •w -n o Of X L AWN. IORTH 1 t DESIGN OF STORM SEWERS, INLETS AND CHANNELS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIEWCOUNTIES AND UDBFCD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................. ON DATE 02-16-1995 AT TIME 15:07:17 *** PROJECT TITLE: D P 1 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 1 to YEI,L. S'r'z:'F-M EVeQT_ INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 12.00 12, -TYFIE 12, 21ki I r- _T �P I —, FAQ 10 Y12 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.25 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 1.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 1.50 STREET MANNING N = 0.013 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.50 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 24.44 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.49 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 4.55 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 4.60 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 24.25 BY FAA NEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs 20.90 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 20.90 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 20.90 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 20.90 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 31/ ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING ' DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ----------------- ---------------------------------------------- SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO.............................. ON DATE 02-16-1995 AT TIME 15:14:34 F** PROJECT TITLE: D P 2 1 1 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: pP i Cov��F�o INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: USA A I S S��E��/nLiG GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.25 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 1.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 1.50 STREET MANNING N = 0.013 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.50 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 27.81 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.54 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 4.92 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 5.92 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW 31.64 (cfs)= 29.20 (cfS)= 28.47 (cfs) = 0.73 (cfS)= 29.20 (cfs)= 28.47 (cfs)= 0.73 1 '------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UDBFCD ------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDS INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................. ON DATE 02-16-1995 AT TIME 15:11:19 '*** PROJECT TITLE: D P 2 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 2 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP, GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.00 USE b It7 TYPE 1✓ P� 2 , HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 ' INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.25 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 1.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) _ 1.50 STREET MANNING N = 0.013 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (it) = 1.50 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: ' WATER SPREAD ON STREET (it) = 22.47 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (it) = 0.46 ' FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (fps)= (sq ft)= 4.33 3.90 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 ' INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 19.67 BY FAA NEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 16.90 ' FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 16.90 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 16.90 ' FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 16.90 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 3Z/ I ------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- OPEN CHANNEL FLOW ANALYSIS: FLOW IN A PIPE Developed by Or James Guo, Civil Eng Dept, U of Colorado at Denver Metro Denver Cities/Counties and UD&FCD Pool Fund Study User= PERRY CABOT RBD INC. FT. COLLINS COLORADO ............................. ON DATE 02-13-1995 AT TIME 11:38:55 '** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 1 ** DESIGN INFORMATION PIPE (EQUIVALENT) DIAMETER(INCHES) = 24.00 IPE ROUGHNESS MANNING N = 0.013 PIPELINE SLOPE (FT/FT) = 0.0085 DESIGN FLOW RATE (CFS) = 20.90 1** NORMAL FLOW CONDITIONS: FLOW CENTRAL ANGLE (DEGREE) = 360.00 FLOW DEPTH (FEET) = 2.00 FLOW AREA (SO FEET) = 3.14 (FLOW VELOCITY (FPS) = 6.65 SPECIFIC ENERGY (FT) = 2.69 SPECIFIC FORCE (KLB) = 0.46 FLOW FROUDE NUMBER = 0.00 NOTE: FROUDE NUMBER=O MEANS FLOWING FULL. * CRITICAL FLOW CONDITIONS : ,FLOW CENTRAL ANGLE FLOW DEPTH (DEGREE) = (FEET) = 259.302 1.64 FLOW AREA (SO FEET) = 2.75 FLOW VELOCITY (FPS) = 7.59 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY (FT) = 2.53 SPECIFIC FORCE (KLB) = 0.46 FININUM LOPE (FT/FT) = 0.0085 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i Z4 to F, IPC O.4 • &T 1>I=616;Q �POIN-T I L I 1 OPEN CHANNEL FLOW ANALYSIS: FLOW IN A PIPE Developed by Dr James Guo, Civil Eng Dept, U of Colorado at Denver Metro Denver Cities/Counties and UDBFCD Pool Fund Study User= PERRY CABOT RBD INC. FT. COLLINS COLORADO ............................. ON DATE 02-13-1995 AT TIME 11:43:05 1** PROJECT TITLE: DESIGN POINT 2 ** DESIGN INFORMATION PIPE (EQUIVALENT) DIAMETER(INCHES) = 24.00 1PE ROUGHNESS MANNING N 0.013 PIPELINE SLOPE (FT/FT) = 0.0056 ESIGN FLOW RATE (CFS) 16.90 (** NORMAL FLOW CONDITIONS: FLOW CENTRAL ANGLE (DEGREE) = 360.00 FLOW DEPTH (FEET) = 2.00 FLOW AREA (SQ FEET) = 3.14 (FLOW VELOCITY (FPS) = 5.38 SPECIFIC ENERGY (FT) = 2.45 SPECIFIC FORCE (KLB) = 0.37 FLOW FROUDE NUMBER = 0.00 NOTE: FROUD,E NUMBER=O MEANS FLOWING FULL. * CRITICAL FLOW CONDITIONS : FLOW CENTRAL ANGLE 'FLOW DEPTH FLOW AREA FLOW VELOCITY MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY IINIMUM SPECIFIC FORCE LOPE i 1 1 1 (DEGREE) = 237.603 (FEET) = 1.48 (SQ FEET) = 2.50 (FPS) = 6.77 (FT) = 2.19 (KLB) = 0.35 (FT/FT) = 0.0069 24" PIPE O.K . 1!1'7 PC—:(Z.%GPO11.]T 7- 1 .35/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T:MINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT -JOB NO. OtS ;: ' PROJECT IEZF CALCULATIONS FOR C> LX'�\V (fF MADEBYf5' DATEO?-' 1`4 CHECKED BY DATE SHEETOF too i�c cj� Q Q—� --t --- - ---- ------- Gi LILL DF� 4 -------- ------ - ------- ------ a_ 13 -S VK5 ------ --- 7- ---- - - --- ----- ---- (DO ---- ---- 1 4- - 7- 55 7. 1 -0 ------- - -- t W 51 �3 t4- 53 S 3 A ........... . . .... -7 . ------------ Ob-T, --- - --- - -T-%D --------- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - F Lk DW_'._V0U_ '\Zv i -ttvI- i_.:__L J_ �__i (6- -74 S7 G. :_ 4 E, 4j- 4- -.b. S3 - - -- - - 4-a ------ 7-7 -4 r d L 0D_ 6k ---- - -- ----- CCU - ---------- . .... .. 7_ 7 -- --- ------ LJ 4 -- -- -- -- ----- 1? ... rr 12 C. �A Aj;�. �G.r _­L-A ------------- ------ ------ 7- -- ---- ----------- --- ----------- 0E 100 I_ . ....... jf ) (c). ---- e-) N RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION TOWER SHOPPES STA ELEV 0.00 20.00 15.00 15.00 25.00 15.00 35.00 15.10 55.00 20.00 'NI VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) ---------- ------------- 0.040 0.0080 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE - (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. --------- ------- -------- --------- ------ 15.50 10.2 1.9 19.63 0.51�� Z•a a Q '� ' 'w '� �� - S 16.00 .22.7 3.0 67.24 0.57 C)• 8� 16.50 36.9 3.8 139.03 0.60 17.00 52.9 4.4 234.92 0.63 17.50 70.6 5.0 355.64 0.64 18.00 90.2 5.6 502.25 0.66 18.50 111.5 6.1 675.92 0.67 19.00 134.5 6.5 877.90 0.69 19.50 159.4 7.0 1109.45 0.70 20.00 186.0 7.4 1371.86 0.71 --- - , C(0.06S + (I2.4)(0.0-c') .s+ (,oova; zo--- -- ----- -- --.. LO' S = 0.00:oal� u5C 0.04. - t, "ExIST�NC�I 1P-Fo��o i N i a» � � � \ Q - ƒ o 2 O O 2 § LU LL U) 6 Z o (-) § ;E j O 2 LL LL O W 2 0 I k } kLL ± 6 / ± � n o a �6 d » g 3 / § § o j \ \ \ 4 \ / J o = _ cu / / u e LU / o w f ? - o c w + k p ® \ LL 5 . # r \ \ E \ r e @ E� ® / ® E a / � \ % p @ $ n « \ § Q o a k / § © fa n m = o _ @ = g 0 6 6 acu r M \ 7 2 % 3 ƒ% a w o d c ~ 2 I %: / m k If / Ix \ .§ 6 / / ƒ E LL R 8 ° k LL k \ E 2 2 k k � R e 0 a -a k 2 � k $ § 0 \ a)§ $ / \ % § E S \ D \ U $ o 2 5 F u EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS 1 0 1 38 ' .1 RWINC. Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 303/482-5922 FAX: 303/482-6368 June 7, 1995 ■ Mr. Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins ' Utility Services Stormwater 235 Matthews Fort Collins, CO 80522 ' Re: Tower Shoppes P.U.D. Erosion Control Cost Estimate ' Dear Basil: This portion of the report is to satisfy the City of Fort Collins requirements for an erosion control security deposit for the Tower Shoppes P.U.D.. The City of Fort ' Collins Current Cost Factors will be used in this estimate. There will be approximately 10.33 acres disturbed within this project. ' Using the city criteria of $500.00 per acre for reseeding sites more than 10 acres, and a 150% contingency, the total obligation of the W.W. Reynolds Companies for a security deposit would be : (10.33) x ($500.00 per acre) x 1.5 = $7748 A cost breakdown of the erosion control measures that will need to be installed is listed below: Temp seed & Mulch (2.08 ac. @ $500 per acre) = $1040 Gravel mulch (8.26 ac.) 135 tons per acre at 6.00 per ton = $6690 Gravel Inlet Filters (3 @ $300 apiece) = $ 900 TOTAL = $8630 Denver3031458-5526 Contingiency = TOTAL x 1.5 = $12945 Therefore, the larger amount, or the amount of security deposit obligation should be in the amount of $12945.00. Please call if you have any questions regarding this estimate. Respectfully, RBD Inc., Engineering Consultants Perry E. Cabot RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION PROJECT: Towne --SHIP S �.U.�. _--------_-__—_ OX"Uticu cvrin n COMPLETED BY: -p• DATE: oz • 13• ,=,s I DEVELOPED SUBBAgIN ERODIBILITY ZONE Asb (ac) Lsb (ft) Ssb M Lb (feet) Sb PS M i (o,S7 (c35 1•0 7R•57 2 3.7b .400 2.0 80.30 3. 2 • 82 3S0 I ' Z 77, 9.0 SOO 8 -75,70 �C�JPL-co 7r) 4 ?r w� -- -=0 . �r AFTE2 G tJS-feA3c-T IO i. ___ 93•(oI 2 94, 47 4 1aLZE taD y OIJSZ E� cT� �} I • �0 4 MARCH 1991 B•14 DESIGN CRITERIA 4' / I 11 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: To\�� slaoP�s �.u.o. STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: P. cpz0-T DATE: 02 �3,c� Erosion Control' C-Factor P-Factor Method -Value Value Comment ' ��cl=F1t T> 1✓S\_>3ps . 1.0 Ili -TEMP, vEG. 0. 45 1.0 r\ j•T0A\V N(yl.-CA O!C•6 I.O _ _tJOT 11J_PAy1=_MEtJ-f A— PpyEtAEIJT d•01 t.C7 \V1TNlh) 3 n,o, OF ONE' T _ QOAO EAS1= �Ci2A\1EL O • O S 1. O PpVENE1J�f ____ MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN (t) BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS I �-S� �yz1t�4 ccrJST. Z 3.710 . � 4 Z.82- 0 .-4 Z CIu_a3.- 0t2�oiC-0,451i(O,Q�o� +8.25 - ---- -- - - -- _ _ (o.Osl = O. 0 4.5_ 6EGt Usc 2ASitJ� 3 AtJO 4 P>✓� A� L'cp� /_ G�NS�4uC�1cD �/ O'T�1tiwG��-TuEy_\VILL_ 1JOT �E t1JC L i�1�EL7 1tJ -THESE ct U WLN: 1,zDt_Ns L\FZEe_ CAZ)QS�. —� 57 O.OI- E�F. 1 G� -- ��. S•-7 � 3.7(o i MARCH 1991 8-15 DESIGN CRITERIA ' CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ' PROJECT: -f D\'V e �<oPPES P-0.0. STANDARD FORH C SEQUENCE FOR 19 95 ONLY COMPLETED BY;' P. Gt\Bo-T DATE: OZ . 13 • g5 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 95 MONTH J I F IMI�IMI ,I•, I a I.SIC7INIP 'OVERLOT GRADING 'WIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers ` I Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant ' Other RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL ' STRUCTURAL: Sediment. Trap/Basin t Inlet Filters Straw Barriers t Silt Fence Barriers I Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation ' Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other ' VEGETATIVE: ' Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary.Seed Planting ' Sod Installation Nettings/Kate/Blankets Other �iRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY HAI14TAINED BY VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR �TE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON ' MARCH 1991 8.16 DESIGN CRITERIA 43/ ' Table 8B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values. Treatment C-Factor P-Factor BARE SOIL Packedand smooth................................................................ 1.00 1.00 Freshlydisked........................................................................ 1.00 0.90 Roughirregular surface........................................................... 1.00 0.90 SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP................................................................. 1.00 0.50"1 STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ 1.00 0.80 SILT FENCE BARRIER.* .................................................................... 1.00 0.50 ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT .................. ESTABLISHED, DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. B-A 1.00 SODGRASS................................................................................. 0.01 1.00 TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.45(21 1.00 HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE........................................... 0.1011 1.00 SOIL SEALANT....................................................................0.01-0.601•1 1.00 EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS............................................ 0.10 1.00 GRAVEL MULCH Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately 1/4" to 1 1/2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05 1.00 HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH After planting crass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) an.d'adequately anchor, tack or crimp material into the soil. Slope I%) 6 . to 10.............................................................................0.06 - 1.00 16 to 20...........................................................................i.0.11 1.00 21 to 25............................................................................. 0.14 1.00 25 to 33.............................................................................0.17 1.00 > 33.......................................................................... 0.20 1.00 NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this 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 March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated. (4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation. MARCH 1991 9.6 DESIGN CRITERIA ' Table 8-8 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 down slope length. ' Basin Maximum Slope Length M (feet) . 1 to 2 ..........................................................................1.00 0.50 3 to 5 300 300. 0.50 6 to 8 :1.00 200........................................... 1.00 0.50 9 to 12 120.........................................................................1.00 0.60 13 to 16 80.............................................................:............1.00 0.70 17 to 20 60..........................................................................1.00 0.80 > 20 50.......................................................................... 1.00 0.90 TERRACING ' Must contain 10-year runoff volumes, without overflowing, as determined by applicable hydrologic methods, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. Basin Slope M 1 to 2..................................................................................... 1.00 0.12 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 NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation. MARCH 1991 8.7 DESIGN CRITERIA I. ■ u K Ix 10 CO ki W In EE-I 0 W U 0 14, Fa z H ' 3 C k ' MARCH 1991 O O,D,o9O o tr tr to In to In co o 0o o co 0 •rnotrno,000000 0 tr tr tr tr In in in to In In Qq o 0 CO 0 CO 0 CO CO 0 0 0 o. rnrnrnrnrn0,mo,o,ci . . me o . . . . . . . . . . . . . o tr tr v tr v tr c tr tr tr tr tr In In In M COCOOCODDCOOCOCOCOOCOCOoo O n [a ca O 01 01 Q1 01 01 01 01 O1 O1 01 01 0\ 01 O1 01 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O tr tr tT t7 C' 'cT' tr �!' tr tT tY V' tr er ti' tr tr tr sr tr N COOCOCOOOCOOCO000COCOOCO W LaCOo O 0 m lgr m %0 w ww11-rrrrrnhnhrrooOOOO O 44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . V trtr444vvv4v444444;1;trtr';trtr H cococococococococoWNciocaco00coW Coco W O co coco00co O co N M d' In Ln In tD tO ,W %D t0 t0 r n n r r r n r r n co co co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ot Mt7'�'sr�d'�Q'V'trd'd'tr tTv tr tt t!'tt tr�ar tr tr sr v'd' aoc00000cococ00000000000000000000 o tDONritrtrinlnlnlnt0tDt0tDt0t0tDtDtDtOnrrrhr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . co m tr tr tr tr 'd' tr -1 'C tr tr tr d' tr tr tr tr tr v tr tr sf' tr tr sr tt oc000000000000000000c0o,00oCD0000 O tr m H N M M tr v tr sr In In In N In I11 In In in tD tD tD tD tD t0 n . . ..... ... ... . ....... .... .. r M M tr tr tr tr tr 4 tr tr tr tr tr tr tr'tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tr tr 4 tr cooco00000c0000c0000000coc0000cocoCD O 0%0000HHNNMMMMtT11trtrtrV "Crt4'tntntntnt0%0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . t0 99(4 d'd tr'd't7`d'trtrtrtrtrd'vtrtrtrtrtrti'tr444 cocOOOoo00OOOoODcoOOO co cocococococoODc0O r.0 inNlnncocAooHf-i HNNNNNMMMco) rivvvvv de . . . . . . . . . �In NmmMMM'd'tr tr'c!'d'`0't7 d'tr tr tr tr tM tr tr d'tr tr tr d' ocO000cooOOoocoocoO000000 co 00oocoo W' CL In HCO -IMd In InVD%Dhrr00000000%Ma%00000 O . r. .'r. .'taMT c/I COOtaoDDooCOOOONCOCOCOoca000000000 . O t0 lc1 CO O rl N M 'd' tT In to In t0 t0 tD tD tD r n n h o 0 ou 01 01 . . V' riN N M c4 M M P9 M M r4 M M M M M MCM M M M M M MM o 00 Do CD o o c0 CO CO o 00,00 o CO CO co c0 O c0 c0 o c0 o o o In rl rl In n o 0 0 H N N M M M tr er v tr tr in In In tD tD tD n r - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r 1 r I N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M f `l M M M M CO CO co co co co co00coocoococococococococococoDoococo . O MNtDc9Dloe-I N N M M M tr v v d' v v In In In In%o to%o%D C'1 O H H ; r• N N N N N N N N N N N -N N N N N N N N. N N o CO CO CO o o CO O o 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 CO CO CD CO CO o CO CO 00 CO 00 In In 111 Ot N M tr M t0 n r n 00 CO c0 0% Ot Ot ON 0% "Ot O O O O 0.0 N a% o o H r1 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H N N N N NN noocaCID 0000woCIO 000co0000000000000 O v In O M In t0 00 c0 01 0 0 0 rI rI rI rI N N N N co, M cl M M M N cOO10000000H1;Hriri444HHriH r-i4 ; 4 H nnco00cococoCIO cococoODcoo00coocococoocoocoDoco In coNCo�rid'innn0001Qt00'irlr HHrgNNMMMMM ri tD CO CO0;0�01010;0:0;01000000000000000 n r n n n n n n n n 1-CO co CO co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO o O t0C'10trhOtOHr4Inin v vIntninIn%0%0%D%DrrtDtot0 rl d too hrrrcocococo00cocococococo00DococococoCOca00 rrrl.rrhrrrrrrrrrrrhhrhhrrhr In OtOdF%Dr0000rrh%D%o%oInat itmmr4NO1tOtrr101t0 O ONN,NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNI-IririHo0 nnn;nnnnnrnnnnnnnrnhnrhnhnn x ` El- 00000000000000000000000000 0&1 00000000000000000000000000 zk. rINM V lntDht0010rINMsrintDho0101nOIc10ln0 av r1e-frleirlrlrlriririNNMM V' V'in 8-4 DESIGN CRITERIA 45/ I 1 1 1 F 1 1 1 u i I 1 1 1 i 1 1 CHARTS, TABLES, AND FIGURES 45 Q .1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF q�/ 5C S F- 20 z w U W a 10 Z w a OJ 5 N w cc 3 O U 2 W Q 1 .5 .1 r �Aj MMM111 AFlIAMANUMM IMMUNE INN FA I E 0 . r,, I I MENIM son �■ r MENEM tea.►a��l��■ri■�r a®��a■■■■�� r/EI.INI��I�® s�MrAM MOVINri®®■�i�������� .2. .3 .5 1 2 3 5 . VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND 10 20 FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. *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 3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRCOG i No Text INTERPOLATED VALUES FOR 100 YEAR INTENSITIES Tc Value 5.00 9.0 5.10 9.0 5.20 8.9 ' 5.30 8.9 5.40 8.9 ' .0 5.60 8.8 8.8 5.70 8.7 5.80 8.7 .0 8. ' 6.00 8.66 6.10 8.6 6.20 8.6 6.30 8.5 ' 6.40 8.5 6.50 8.5 6.60 ' 6.70 .8.4 8.4 6.80 8.4 6.90 8.3 ' 7.00 7.10 8.3 8.2 7.20 8.2 7.30 8.2 7.40 8.1 ' 7.50 8.1 7.60 8.1 7.70 8.0 7.0 81.0 ' 7.90 8.0,• 8.00 7.9 ' ' 8.10 8.20 7A 7..8 / 8.30 ;r 7.8 8.40 7.8 .8.50 7.7 . ' 8.60 7.7 8.70 --7-.7 8.80 7.6 8.90 7.6 ' 9.00 7.6 9.10 7.5 9.0 7.5 ' 9.30 7.5 9.40 7.4 9.50 7.4 ' 9.60 9.70 7.3 7.3 9.80 7.3 9.90 1.2 ' 10.00 7.2 EROSION CONTRIOL NOTES ME TOWER ENCODES MUD. COMMERICAL DEVELOPMENT SIZE UES WITHIN THE MODERATE INURFALL ERODI9IUTY ZONE, ANO WITHIN THE MODERATE WIND EROOIBUTY ZONE. PER ME CITY OF FORT COtLUNS ZONE MAPS, USING THE CITY OF FORT COLONS EROSION CONTROL STANDARDS, THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS SITE WAS FOUND TO Bit 79A4%, REWIRED. ME ACTUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD ARRrvED AT FOR THIS SITE BY USING VARIES EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IS 96.Un THEREFORE COMPLYING WIM ME tO rT OF FORT COONS REQUIREMENTS. ME EROSION CON PLAN DICTATES THAT AFTER OVERLOT GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, ALL DISTURBED AREAS, NOT LOCATED WITHIN A BUILDING PAD, SIDEWALK, OR ROADWAY/ PARKING LOT AREA SHALL HAVE A TEMPORARY WGETATION SEED APPLIED PER ME SPEOFICATONS CIY£N ON THE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN (INCLUDED IN ME BACK POCKET OF MIS REPORT), AFTER SEEDING. A HAY OR STRAW MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED OVER ME SEED IN TIE AMOUNT OF 2 TONS PER ACRE, MINIMUM. THE MULCH SHALL BE ADEOUAMLY ANCHORED. TACKED, OR CRIMPED ONTO ME SOIL PER ME METHODS SHOWN ON THE DRAINAGE of EROSION CONTROL PLAN. THIS INVOLVES AN AREA TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 2.08 ACRES. AFTER ME INSTALLATION OF UNITES, Al AREAS ON WHICH THERE MLL RE PAVEMENT, CONCRETE. OR A BUILDING 91ALL HAW A GRAVEL MULCH/BASE COURSE APPLIED AT 135 TONS PER ACRE THIS MEASURE INWLVES AN AREA TOTALLING 8.26 ACRES. AFTER ME INSTALLATION OF CURR INLETS AND SIDEWALK CULVERTS, THICK SHALL BE FILTERED WITH CONCRETE BLOCKS. 1/2' WIRE SCREEN AND COARSE GRAVEL (3yi ACCORDING TO ME DETAIL SHEET OF ME UI UTY PLANS, THIS INCLUDES ME SAME AREA ABOVE, AS TOTALNG 8.26 ACRES SEEDING CHI REIN 12 a 5ne<In me Rates of s <p+kdm eedy MaciNy w IN,.W to odM a estatlMnmw^\ o/ mdNN1i. OF Am marl If Iv Tonalf Nq,lNlin mtl/u Cow not 10mi mhLBu, Aide be e,eo •Ain o pennnw-0 dTMAd qou ,M beef AN d tuwvofy upar . or mat ow. tows," y, l MN P wa/ nee Ndw Rate Nobel Color... •� Ootw.ol 111 or HAY y, Ut - w d1 ev/we evRw f¢ , y Ile ro pd<sw/avm 5 ae�Is ulwt COPS � ceMm <mndra (.o, A Fwnwy Did iatso meet - SWNq Cof , I N ley fN W For w ny,A Bad AT least I of the PMy all b Aim )i W dM ", . men ^o G.®•. nw Fed d ^doom N HNNNNN Sean t v® Nw— NmyyNi m " mdbut I amMtlR•. 'Y to Ir•,rg w .we. nµwlx ..eFnes may No, owImm worm Is holi smty I NO xd1 v svm w4+. Coor den} "a st of atIwev� ver n.ae their meow �No be yap pot emir. T� II. Al mat b ay Or lones dial IS No mavN to ue •w by We of oennM fol ow ",ow n<%Iw l Tod• NO �ONNN n Alb dww'ie Cod iempmey/fi+ IN) the Ms rat. Mn no IF toe roe AI le M, E pe Ip n <✓�et M N n es u m - PF DAIS MRdxlu ippryRytr/tl1uW SCALE 1'=50' Alas aw m.sus (M) a NwuRw lee M Hela•i Coop CM w rl areal N to m ufdel.rcrs wove m, M - Fa a Me Iel v Am to the 11 t4 - M 33i IiN. Ta b epd �"A'S AmSol 2 Ax v N. eon. pe foes a m . real 1 SM - p! yes, � 1 j�11�1 At o xo Of, oINLET - at of va`m re, yes xe I�IIS.1` ® EXIST. CURB (C1_2) _ EXIST MANHOLE ""No (MM 3A) [ DEPRESSED 26 LP 24' CLASS at RCP STOW BALE SILT BARRIFRI CURB ; \T\\\ for 12' TYPE 1R bI 462 LF OF SILT FENCE CURB INLET FOR \ \ \ �t 10 YR. STORM \ vv _ _ _ _ _ — — /`EXISTING !Y \S \ \ lEXISTING70' / OR 3) INLET r jj META1 All 'L r' 15' CONO 5 OUL RT •. S! IN �* o To I J ) L all o O O l0\ L_-= I 4r ME SIDEWALK � I e, out 111Me9111 b LBeff 3. CALL UTILITY MO ATION CEM OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 534-6700 � CALL 2 M B DAYA N AMANI£ B6OIF YM M1 WB M OUVATE FM M WIBiM OF lAW�AD 1FA61 ululEa MMF DreAWN — PEC KWGiAM DEvcnm rrHEacD A"PR01Ery MAY 199 OB8-015 pAIE PROFCL NC. TIE M EXISTING MANHOLE „4' gNOSgPAN • an EAST HORSETOOTH ROAD O TIE EXIST. STAB IT I tl' OROSSPAN �' PROPOSED STORM SEINER if INLETS -- -- - EXISTING STORM DRAIN EXISTING CONTOUR (1' INTERVAL) �42-� PROPOSED CONTOUR Z BASIN DESIGNATION l,6AAC BASIN. AREA .I. BASIN. BOUNDARY AQ DESIGN PONT —� ROW NRECTON H.P. MICH POINT LP. LOW POINT of AVERAGE STREET SLOPE PROPOSED CROSS PAN j V STRAW BALE SILT BARRIER n GRAVEL INLET FILTER NPDES PERMIT NOTES, GONSTRUOTIVM oeAMUMIf SEDJENCE .JR IB_zs_ arty... your. P. CA80T x«923-.su_ Holy nntmttn u •. pneWtr lo p� m comma If esar Ared m,egwn Ne 916Y_L.MY YEAR laboyl W oramr Bv.owc M IAININ I. LA Is to x101L Sher P1,,uw how o,n«wWmIN Oil an Set Suddlot STRUCIRRAL w b prool FAR late. SON. hural sit Nee, myonford Scol SIR, Ban, Sek oblu —nwljCn�. eo.twMICH SI C IIEO BY MAnfwlm By VIDGETATIONMOULCHINGcamAcrm Door SOM.TOLD oWry By CITY M FORT cgwxs For I. SNL DESURIPTION 11 J. BMPS FOR SNOWICAMIF 0 L<I RAVE DY". d T - g P HJ < o ENDS, And sat 'NO BAR ♦ J t ,Yudm Eww'wm CmNote' q the Me .e p_ Te warned t d pp p. Met•�Ide on "Ng sp th Fravembon ,•t 1�<^e ry Yontransition, avemmt r go uJ -flp9 \tl g C n9 r o Im ga god waste c m�l I eat ou x I a m< area e m wn<na to en, 1 a 1 an oOS p MV, ,a - 09 y. mMenr<r the u e Body •o whet song Y whole t F e w. Asphalt e Rol c D. pefu w IOU. - 'm. '« ylcynedis NouJ Cat songbe mel.nm ey-^oifeufe v. za M «ones !ne Ngaegb m< eb m, the wl p enNuroad \ eadrop a and GOY. L x z e Ne Maex I Ald Erne JpnY m eemm ee tam ^q Only a orr site zm per m CF, Air Ford Corry, e m son« me NI^D Feu Il death FIN tlI mwd Merb o/ cpprovFNgoN .R In< -n e< oot the site o d curb in m dp M1 .r.:``1 Wbb Md \ J allellFinal nonm. �N.,w >"��lep to eermw<n 1pe ap lyem 1 r Wmp w re<m lld. ee StNfr file Mulled ueoe and g..y.m e gifFµ M tlel Beanef of WR rotor Sore . FINAL s eLz W D tE TdR TER MANAGEMENT Some E ke t \ \ 1ce t If xmw g p nwr 0e 1 tons 9 Coffee Ml• f. OTHER commas. p. No 1 l p t -YeuJ p 1 qgllo, or " flow, ff'" the object shboupab 1 1 dispose 1 ^ 4 -' p p 4 Coll, l II p iew R•e t y CNN Ig paten Nei umM Stoll A pOff-Site tn. A e « vl ns enter Ina trickling J - `ee p •wren net J tees ce t t0 the IdeeA Should aav q the ,le. J JM e tracked Rn CTNY in O t F A. S, R e d e e to After non-ppee,tel Wy, I,wtlodY r theporyCache w 9 or^ p 1 1 e La meo l Rat he B, w, Ikn r ae e R' Re, g m pn fl al Ikd ppM to mL k yuua N offs e, SISPITCANON AND MAINTLINANOU. pIWY mm ass, of ime sture be a r 9 ,ANGTOaa ..0e . tD m, D. -snwLA Dgelm conl.d per (this }wy clotwoe or the cDRs ronforal warm . --- 4945 X IENAHYT _._._1-- ANCHOR SIGN IAI NI940 .'..."/FILL MST-vPNCYWOE- �- YBETOND. f/2'E%GAN90N��-� TE A� f `y IF. JT ere-J - 4896 Ilr _—i __ Fig, t— _. T _ � 5 (PTO! 2 6! T CONC. 0% ORCRETE a ANNEL 0 0 R CUL DEFT O SON0.011 fl/ft STRIKE 1/2' DEEP LATERAL SEE SEC BFFI ONiRd.UNITS O 12' IAIJLI 4930 I ANTPLO 1/2' EXPANSION ad �S x F®r DO g A z LIATERIA1. by { ICI on a�- ON I VI to lx -- At -.-- - WIM WI os '1f i ' ur �••�i HIGH SCIF ITE HYDROLOGY In,- / 3 AREA C 0Oyy Oo 14M1'-6' • 2'-0'- (cc) (A (%) DOWEL INTO 6.57 1 0.74 1 MIS 1 50.1 EXIST. SLA3 Engineering Cansultelits 2w swN Wei NMI Fail i `oM A*, SRY a. 04 C Inc . FAR comp. ands, smn n w. cou-staeonl m/Adz -ten lI- TOWER SHOPPES P.U.D. FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 100 YR. OVERFLOW CHANNEL PROFILE ec\ No C City of Fort Collins, Colorado F.F. t)y'pspY PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED M lial COMM. BLOC. 2E1E- GROSS APPROWD : �<otor of Lo&wbg Oak -EXISTING GRADE CHECKED BY: -Tt akr k EeMeRAkr 08B[T Oak a1= 4' CHECKED BY: �gnter bury Dal = cfa 1't Ol. 51 Nor ry S - 0.8No 0.80 f CHECKED BY: _ lvvw A Recreeuov d. O1m+33S No 69.90 B do = 0.04 CHECKED By. ILOW CHANNEL, A dim = 1.03' 3 CHECKED By. - Osl SHEETS I SHEET DRAINAGE & EROSION 1 8 3 CONTROL PLAN