HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 04/15/1994PROPERTY OF
FORT COLUNS UTI XMA
AMENDMENT TO FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR
UNDERHILL P.U.D.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
4ev
Finial A, "Id R
AMENDMENT TO FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR
UNDERHILL P.U.D.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
April 15, 1994
Prepared for:
Mel Price
2400 Vajobi Court
Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
Prepared by:
RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 482-5922
RBD Job No. 560-001
INC.
Engineering Consultants
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
303/482-5922
FAX: 303/482-6368
April 15, 1994
Mr. Glen Schleuter
City of Fort Collins
Utility Services Stormwater
235 Mathews
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
RE: Amendment to Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
for Underhill P.U.D.
Dear Glen:
We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage and
Erosion Control Study Amendment for Underhill P.U.D.. The purpose of the Amendment
is to update a previously approved set of utility plans. The owner is currently trying to
obtain building permits for the west side of Underhill Drive. To obtain these permits paving
of Underhill Drive is going to occur to the property line for the Summerhill P.U.D. and a
temporary turn -a -round is to be installed. This amendment deals with the conveyance of
water from the turn -a -round, across the New Mercer Canal, and into the retention basin
south of the canal. Included is the "Supplemental Drainage Report for the Underhill
P.U.D., Phase I", completed by Engineering Professionals in March of 1982. The swale
is also to be used for the Summerhill P.U.D. drainage. The estimated developed flow for
the Summerhill P.U.D. tributary to the pond is 25.0 cfs, which is less than the developed
flow established for the Underhill P.U.D. of 27.4 cfs, see Appendix.
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you
have any questions.
Respectfully,
D Inc. Engineering Consultants
Roger'A. Curtiss, P.E.
1 7Bi1e
Y
Design Engineer
' Other Office: Denver3031458-5526
I
Ll
1
I
I
I
n
LJ
l
S� �o.[ G �-O s 5 IU N1erc�r
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
STA ELEV
0.00 2.00
10.00 0.00 M�^•.� 5
20.00 2.00
'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft)
sE--,6,7-10nJ A -A
0.060 0.0200
ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE
(feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO.
---------------- ---------------- ------
0.20 0.2 0.7 0.15 0.42
0.40 0.8 1.2 0.95 0.47 q I I
0.80 3.2 1.9 6.03 0.52 �y,- 7. c�s
1.00 5.0 2.2 10.92 0.54
1.40 9.8 2.7 26.79 0.58 alg9 �/" {, �- 1141
1.60 12.8 3.0 -38.24 0.59
1.80 16.2 3.2 52.35 0.60 a16o4-33/-3�,2� s
nlofe,; Tti &-- 6 c-i, + � s't- i4 -,'-
�� � �s �n
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
i
1
EROSION CONTROL
I
April 15, 1994
' Mr. Glen Schlueter
City of Fort Collins
Utility Services Stormwater
235 Mathews
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: Underhill P.U.D. Amended
Erosion Control Cost Estimate
' Dear Glen:
This letter is intended to satisfy the City of Fort Collins requirements for an erosion control
security deposit for Underhill P.U.D. Amended. The City of Fort Collins current cost
factors will be used for this estimate.
There will be approximately 0.60 acres disturbed within this project. Using the City criteria
of $1300.00 per acre for construction sites between 0 and 1 acres, and using a 150%
contingency, the total obligation for a security deposit would be:
(0.60 acres) * ($1300.00 per acre) * (150% contingency) = $1,170
An estimate was prepared using all improvements shown on the construction plans using
' current bid prices. The amount estimated was $160 (see attached cost breakdown). Using
the City criteria of 150% of estimated costs, the total obligation would be $240.
' Therefore, the total obligation required will be $1,170
Please call if you have any questions regarding this estimate.
Respectfully,
RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants
::i7JBail/
Roge A. Curtiss, P.E.
F
UNDERHILL P.U.D. AMENDED
EROSION CONTROL
COST ESTIMATE
EROSION CONTROL ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
COST
Hay or Straw Mulch w/
Temporary Seed
0.15 Acres
$400
$60
Straw Bale Check Dams I
1 Each
1 $100
$100
"1'DLal = ;;PibV
+ 150% Contingency = $240
� C)
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
PROJECT: `' , u, , ,N�,C STANDARD FORM A
COMPLETED BY: W & DATE:
DEVELOPED
ERODIBILITY
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
Lb
Sb
PS
SUBBA§IN
ZONE
(ac)
(ft)
(feet)
M
(;)
TbleB
i
GI
MARCH 1991
DESIGN CRITERIA
I
i
I
G
1
I
1
1
1
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY: TS DATE: .¢- /C) --1¢
Erosion Control C-Factor
P-Factor
Method Value
Value
Comment
As P ina..I't
04
rr%01e-
e�
J, BL
const�r-"
alnd_
s
e
b's
BASIN (%) IBASINJ (Ac)
CALCULATIONS
I 79.7/ I 4- S d• 1 z a-c-re-s — A s PLol+ Pava�*..e&--
- 4 A$ a o, -j E 5�e to li s1.�- niv� grass
$+r1x-0 Ubw-rief' et'}ie.n
"' D,GO acres barL so4�6 am
ase:� 6 gi
D.I?.(,61)l1•v�+Q W�10*s�vj/+D./D(t e�c.
�,d � _D.t2f►.o�(,e�+1�.08(,o)l•a) �D.000g�
L7)"G�e� = s�,.4.. �o > 7 q,�•�o
4 K,
' MARCH 1991 8-15 DESIGN CRITERIA
'
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
PROJECT: �V1i
V�1 II �• V• u• AML
STANDARD FORS C
SEQUENCE FOR 19 ! _ ONLY COMPLETED BY: 7--T(3
DATE: 4 /4 - c/Q
'
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
M01;TH
OVERLOT GRADII:G
GDIt-I Pt-
WIND EROSION CONTROL
Soil Roughening
Perimeter Barrier
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
—�
Soil Sealant
Other
RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL
GTRUCTU.RAL:
'
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters
Straw Barriers
'
Silt Fence Barriers
Sand Bags'
Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
Asphalt/Ccncrete Paving
'
Other
VEGETATIVE:
Permanent Seed Planting
�-
Y.ulchina/Sealant.
Temporary Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/Hats/Blankets
Other
STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY MAINTAINED BY
(VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR .
,DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON
MARCH 1991
DESIGN CRITERIA
O mal000
0 vv00tn
0 g q co q q
O a1OO M000000
O v v v v L1 UA u u1 to In
C cocoggcocococococo
O co m C10 a1 a1 m a1 m 01 a1 C1 O OO
. . . .
O Ill CCC C C C C CC C<' In In In
CO) cococo'cococococococoClgcococo
0 r co ca co a1 a1 o at M C1 a1 Cl C1 C1 a% a1 a1 m a1 m
. . . . . . . . . . 0.
. . . . .
O. CCCCC. C'V' v C CC-V v v V'v CvCC
N g q q q co coca co co co q q p co g co co co q co
O 0MC01D%0% 10rrrrrrrrrrrrcoco coco coca
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O O v v v v v v v v v.0 v C v v v v v v v v a v C C C C
0 H co cocococococogcocococo0cococococococococoDocococo
9 O coNMvInInIn17a1D1o%o%orrrrrrrrrrcococo
p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a o Mvvma -Wvvavvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvcv
O cocococoCOcogC0cogCOcocoCOcoqqqcocoCOcocococoCO
U
O 1DONMCCInInInm%o% %D%D 'U% cotflcolOrrrrrr
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . .
co co M C C C C C C C C v C C C C C C C C V'C C C C C C C
.Z c0 co q co w co co co co g w 0 q w q co co co co -co co co co co co co
H
a O V mHNMMCCCCtnInInInInNlnNltl1D%0%D%0tD%Dr
a .. .. ....
O r MMvvCvaVvaV�vCvvvvCvvvvvvvvv
U Coco wwwWOW cow ggO=W wwwwmm0w Ocoq
H O OlOgOrirlfVNMMMMvvCCVCcvInlnlnlnlDlD
a
O t7 MMrlvvvvvvavvvvvvvvva vvavvv
w COgCacogqqqqqqqqqqqqqqcoqqqqqq
4 W' 'oInNlnrc0000r-IrirlNNNNNMMMMMCCsi'CC
1 O o\o . • • • . • • •
co In N M M M M M v!r C C v C C v CC C C-C vC-Kr CCCC
co co co co co co co co co co q co co co co co co co co co co co g co co co
W U) W
�-]O W In rlcorlMvtoIno%Drrrcocogcococomm ,o00000
0 aC NNc4c4 c4 C1 t4c4c4 c1 r4 M M M M M M M M M MC V CCC
H ,Y 0 co g co co ca q co co co co co co q co q q w co co co co co co co co co co
Q, O%DInco0riNt'1CC.InInInOo%D1DlDrrrrcoco coa1m
H. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V] C .. r{ N N M M M M M M M M Cl M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
co g q w q q co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co t0
W
U In rirllnrgOorINNMMMCCCCCInInIn101DlOrr
M ri N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M. M M� M M M
w w g q 0 q 0 q q co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co
O O M N 10 co M 0 H N N M r9 Cl. V C C C C C M In In In 1D 10 1D 1D
w . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M ar-iH H V-INNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
L1 gtic3CJcocaCDtocoC3gC7WcogqCJqqqqqqqqq
a
In N 1. MN M . . l7 r r r.b c. co0 . MC1 M M M0 0 0 0 0 a
!-� N GlOOHr-IriHr-1HrlHr1HHr-IrirlriririNNNNN N
�Q'i rCO COgggqqq[O CO C'JgggCOqqqqqqCO W [D CJ
w
2. O ClnO MlnlDgco01.000rIrlrirlNNNNMMMMMM
W' N ba10000000rIrfr�ririrfr4ririrlrlrlrlrl.irlrS
FL r r g q q w 0 q 0 q q q 0 q w q co co co co 00 co co co co co
In w m H cr In r- r- co c% c% o o r-4 r4 r-lr-4rINNNMMM MM
ri 'V gq(14c; ClmC1a1Coo 00o00'0000000000
r r r r r r r r r r r co cD g q co N q q C0 qqqq q q
O %D CI O Cr o or-(NMMC VIn 0 to In lDw '1D 10 r_r 0 ID%D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ri d'lDi�rrrcot0coggcotacocococococococococoqcoco
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
In c,ovorgcorrr oQ%DInvCco) MNNm%ovriLl V
O ONNNNNo(No NNNNNNNNNNNNN,He irirl00
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
x
o0000000000000000000000000
O t7 H o 0 000,000000000000000000000
razes riNnvO NwMOriNMCIn10r moon on 0 m 0
w W v ri � ri rl ri r♦ ri ri rl ri N N M M v C N
ra
MARCH 1991 8-4 DESIGN CRITERIA
' 0.3
1
� o.z
0 0.2
H
' 4
W
p O.V
1
0.1(
1
� 0.01
0.00
MARCH 1991
Y
Figure 8-A
ESTABLISHED GRASS AND C-FACTORS
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
0 za 40 60 80 100
ESTABLISHED GRASS GROUND COVER (%)
8-8 DESIGN CRITERIA
Table 89 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"'
STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ 1.00
0.80
'
SILT FENCE BARRIER.................................................................. 1.00
0.50
ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... 0.01
1.00
ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. 8•A
1.00
SODGRASS................................................................................. 0.01
1.00
'
TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.45''.
1.00
HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE........................................... 0.10"'
1.00
'
SOIL SEALANT.................................................I...................0.01-0.60"'
1.00
EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS............................................. 0.10
1.00
'
GRAVEL MULCH
Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately
114" 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 olantino crass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately anchor,
'
tack or crimp material into the soil.
Slope (°%)
1 to 05.............................................................................0.05
1.00
'
o" to 10.................................................................•............0.06
11 to 15.............................................................................0.07•
1.00
1.00
16 to 20.............................................................................0.11
1.00
21 to 25............................................................................. 0.14
1.00
'
25 to 33....................................................... .
1.00
......................................:..................................0.17
> 33 .0.20
1.00
NOTE: Use of outer C•Factor or F-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by
docvmen,aton.
'
(1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading.
J
(2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 114, 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.
u
' MARCH 1991 8.6, DESIGN CRITERIA
1
i
V
i �-
1
1
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAINAGE REPORT
for
UNDERHILL P.U.D., PHASE I
1
1
1
Prepared for:
' City of Fort Collins
1
March, 1982
1 -
Prepared by. -
Engineering Professionals, Inc.
2.020 ;,irway Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
80524
(3u) 221=3 60
i
V
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION
introduction
Basin Description
Major Drainage System
Hydrologic and Hydraulic
Analvsis
Recommendations
Appendix A
-i-
PAGE.
1
1
2
2
3
A-1
'
I. INTRODUCTION:
'
The drainage study for the Underhill P.U.D., Phase I, was
prepared in conformance with the latest edition of the
'
City of Fort Collins' "Storm Drainage Criteria" manual.
Throughout the planning and design phase of the project,
'
meetings have been held.with city staff. Said meetings were
held to assure that proposed drainage facilities and the
'
multi -family development, in general, are in compliance
and are compatible with the existing major drainage system
and the future major drainage system as proposed by the
canal importation study.
' Meetings have also been'held with Glen Johnson and Shawn
Hoff representing the Larimer County No. 2 and the New Mercer
' Ditch Companies respectively. The requirements of the respective
ditch companies have been reflected in the design of the P.U.D.
'
II. BASIN DESCRIPTION: -
'
The first phase of the.Underhill P.U.D. is bordered on the
north by Prospect Street,
on the south by the New Mercer Canal,
on the east by the Bridges P.U.D., and on the west by Sonora
'
View Estates. The first phase contains approximately 4.2 acres.
The site currently has some farm outbuildings on it but the
'
majority of the site is pasture. Approximately two thirds of the
site slopes easterly to northeasterly while the remainder slopes
southerly into the New Mercer Canal. Slopes range from approx-
imately 1.7 percent in the easterly direction to 10.0 percent
in the southerly direction.
'
Offsite
runoff contributed to Phase'I is negligible. Runoff
'
on Prospect Street continues in an easterly I direction in the
borrow ditch. Approximately
1.2 acres from Sonora View Estates
west of Underhill P.U.D. drains ina sheet flow fashion to the
'
westerly line of Underhill.
'
The Underhill P.U.D. is zoned P11P. The first phase will consist
of 47 units.
multifamily
III. MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM:
' The Underhill P.U.D. is located within .the canal importation.
drainage basin. :accordingly, the major drainage basin study
' titled "Diversion of Storm -slater Runoff Through Irrigation
Canals from Mulberry Street to Spring Creek fort Collins,
' Colorado", Volumes I and II, and prepared by Resource Consul-
tants, Inc., is included herein by reference. The existing
' 100 year floodplain is not specifically delineated in the
canal importation study. However, although the exact limits
' are not known, it will occur below the New Mercer Canal.
Therefore, no construction of units will occur in the third
phase pf Underhill until either the canal importation improvements
' are constructed or a detailed hydraulic investigation of the
floodplain characteristics is made to assure that proposed
' structures meet minimum elevation requirements above the flood -
plain.
' As indicated on the preliminary drainage plan submitted with the
Underhill master plan, the final drainage system will be desicned
' to discharge into the canal importation improvements. Three
detention ponds will be used to discharge into the major impor-
tation canal at the 2 year historic release rate.
IV. HYDROLOGIC and HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS:
' The hydrologic analysis for the first phase was accomplished
using the Rational Method as delineated in the City's Storm
' Drainage Criteria Manual. The results of the Rational Method
analysis are summarized as follows:
u
Rational Method Parameters
C T
i
a
Q
Allowable
Design Storm
c
Gutter
Capacity
(min)
(in/hr)
(acres)
I (cfs)
(cfs)
2-Year
Developed
0.65 11.0
2.52
4.8
7.9
9.5
100-Year
Developed
0.65 11.0
7.02
4.8
27.4
28.7*
* Curb full at New Mercer Ditch Crossing
-2-
The analysis indicates that no storm sewer is -needed for
the first phase. Detailed calculations can be reviewed in
Appendix "A" included herein.
Neither the New Mercer or the Larimer County No. 2 Canals are
willing to accept storm runoff. As a result.of this requirement,
a meeting was held with Mr. Mauri Rupel and Mr. Bob Smith of
.the City's engineering staff, and interim drainage improvements
were delineated to retain storm runoff until the canal importa-
tion improvements are constructed. The retention criteria suggested
by Mr. Smith was that the.retention pond be capable of storing
runoff created by one and one half 100 year, 3 hour design storms
from the developed first phase. Due to the nature of the soils
south of the New Mercer Canal (sandy silty clay with distinct
sand and gravel layers) it is our opinion that stored runoff will
seep away rapidly.'The following table summarizes the calculations
for required retention volume:
Description Volume (Acre -Feet
100 year, 3 hour Precipitation' 1.24
Infiltration Loss (0.31)
Detention and Depression Loss (0.12)
Net Volume 0.81
Volume Required = 0.81 Ac./Ft. x 1.5 = 1.22 Ac./Ft.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the results of the drainage study summarized herein,
the following recommendations are made
A. Do not include storm sewer in the first phase of the
Underhill P.U.D.
B. Slope Westbridge Drive to Prospect Street for a short
distance to assure that storm runoff on Prospect remains
on Prospect.
C. Construct an interim retention pond below the New Mercer
Canal in the approximate location proposed for the detention
pond in Phase III as delineated on the master plan. The
capacity for said pond shall be 1.2 acre/feet.
-3-
A-1
I
I
0
I' h
rri
Le
3
Re r 6 -f j
e, C
14
0 k 3 = 975,
o o
o 6s 14L
14-o 0 0
k 44 = 4-1 2,3
2 4 X z 0
x 60 3&0
600 x 35.9.E
x 5-0
3
D. 19 In xx 3.0
I'S
)
0,31
0
12
4 c
. 3 1 Z -t- 0 • l D _ O. ¢ �C -fT
lie ✓„
d
o,43
f^t �—
77:
2 iS -1
_ ° - -
A; 0 Oe
L
r5'- = / 57, C)
15. LI) = f LI)
n
x Jf 3 X 'o. 0
c �s
Z-36
36
37S
L, 0,0
-40
I
WEST PROSPECT ROAD
-
r'
FLOWLRIE OF SWALE
-� p---- - COMPACTED FILL r j I I
♦ :°
a I,I 1 1 I
NEW MERCER ARCH CULVERT
b _ JI a: =o.aw
z
z 1`'
' -- -Vm=Hat•
2.T mP
SLOPE-2.00R
01,,-27.2 ON;
DRABS LINED SCALE
SECTION A -A LIMITS OF GRADING TO BE
SEEDED PER THE CRITERIA
OF BECTON 11 OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS STORM
DREMNAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARD
Bg E
EXISTING CURB CUTS TO BE RELOCATED
WERE
WHERE NECESSARY, NEW CURB CUTS TO
BE ADDED.
LEGEND
PROPOSED CONTOUR
-- DIRECTION OF FLOW
r DRAINAGE BASIN EMUNDARY
100 YEAR HIM. FOR POND
.TB,BL PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
-MA) EMSTING ELEVATION
STRAW BALE BARRIER
LIMITS OF NEW ASPHALT PAVING
a _ ____ __ __ Ld
• PI EVSTOEflRE NYDRART
4' PVC UTILITY E
PROPOSED BUILDING SITES _. 3'
4 G IR
_I YJGi. SEVER SEANCE
0 NEC M
I I
I
)
I I,
r �f
a
III d!��' F wAn_nya Y T
1{ I
llS R
i" -
4-
II �
/` 1P k L
i
/ IEMPDM1,NYTURN
UN
6- CLASS 6 BASE
BOUNDARY LINE OF FURORE ! _
SUMMERHILL P.U.O. i
k WRIER SEWER
WA ER IT
W\mvisommisms
EXIST. WATER AND SE
UNES TO BE ABANDOF
AT THE MAINS IN UND
PER SUMMERHILL PUD
1�3 - M•.PVC
--YWE
FOR. TELEPHONEIE
AND CABLE I�
a PVC SE'M.N
MA T "
( WRIER BE
LACES MAY BE
RITTER F PN LP,
ASPHALT Pi
GP CURB Is Our
_--_�___
R
-a8f J�T
NEW MERCER CANAL
QIw
= 27.4 CIA
J
I
E n
m�e
REl£NTW VDLlBIF =
1.2
TO EIII = R.D
-
PDND SURFACE AREA
Y ELEV. III = L5 AC.
PROPER Y OR
CURB. WTTER.
EA4MEXr uK
AND SAEWALX
DISTANCE VIRIES
pSi
♦ (OHMS) PIISEIED
gs
M S
HT Y NYXTPX METER
W FACE OF DID
2.
RL COVER It STEP BOY
CO
1/Y ABOVE /ALRCENT GROUN
EMMETT I
MAX.
IL
5
IF REWIRED
�CCIIPONATION STEP BS MAX (WE MPREPRANE
W,aMETER AT DETUL)
BOX
WATER MAIN NxW STOP
GENERAL NOTES
I. FOR 5/4NCx AND NW SEANCES USE DIRECT rM AS SIg
i FEW 1 1/2 RCN AND 2-INCH SERVICES. INSTALL MM TAPPED TEE AND CCMPCMAMN STEP AT TIME OF
CONSTRUCTION OR USE A TAPPING SADIXE
J. LOCATION CP CURB BOX AND METER PIT SHALL BE ACCORDING TO ARRAIGNED UTILITY DRAM OS,
♦ CIDIS GUARANI FOR MAINTENANCE SHALL BE THE WATER MAIN, CMPLFATICN STOP SERVICE
PIPING UP TO AND INCLUDING ME CURB STEP ONN@5 RESPONSIPUTY OHALL BE FROM WAR
STOP (0.UD G THE WRET COUPLNG) TO ME BUILDING
5 NO COMMANDS SHALL BE K10MED BEMEEN CURB STOP AND MEMO SETTER.
G A CF SPAR! DE TrPF N CwPER FROM CORPORATION STOP TO 5-FEET PAST METER PIT (MINIMUM)
r�
HIMPH TYPICAL SERVICE DETAIL
� 2M
OA: ff
APMISTWUH s
Rxr Ir aC
(4IRA154WPIE0)
LOW
(IWRPIVE
AN, r OOKI6TE iINERICK, EACH 3imn� r um+ a<
, MgIMED GRAVEL
SCALE 1'=50'
L LIO In•
IINK
°
DIKE
V°A GENERAL NOTES:
1, KrfR III TO BE SUPPORTED BY 2 - ,UNGTNS
OF 1' PON PIPE SEIRrm TNRWp EYES AND 4T ATOP
ED, BY CONCRETE B.C/GXS
PRECAST p MIS METER PIT NOT GE NDITALIm IN ANY STREET
CONCRETE ALLEY PARKING AREA OR CRIVEWAY,
MANHOLE
1 LANDSCAPINGeWIn
(GRIPS NO . , ENS. EIG) 10 BE
WNW KMEEREEPIT,
3
�•$
A. GROUND SURROUND 11 METER PIT SAID YC£ AWAY
FROM UD.
S. NO PLUMBING CONNEC TONS TO BE MADE IN METER PIT,
S. W SPRNMIWMER CIDENS TO 6E AT (FAST 5 FEET FROM
METER PIT WALL ON TIRE WRET DOE
i. TRINE CHANGES AFTSR METER PIT RETALIATION SIVll
REWIRE THAT ME OWNER USAGE METER MT COMER To
3
ORWr XHGCXaT 1/2•S ABOVE FINAL GRACC
BEFORE BACNDWNG
t`♦ STANDARD SETTING FOR
IT 1-1/2♦ & 2' WATER METERS
OF5
TB
BF9WE0
GHECI(ED
NOV. 1993
6
APPROVED -
DATE
PRINECT NO
-
Engineering Consultants
UNDERHILL P.U.D. AMENDED
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
eCAI
cPELiS
GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITY
AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN