Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Drainage Reports - 02/27/1995
ef 1 � Ott of Final A rived Repod FORT CoiB vrtrt�r�g ®a+e2 Final Storm I?rainage Report for Lot Improvements in Upland P.U.D. Lots 1, 2, 3 and 5 January 1995 Stewart & Associates Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 103 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins, --Colorado 80521 (303) 482-9331 e Ll Li STEWART&O SSOCIATES Consulting Engineers and Surveyors February 23, 1995 Mr. Basil Hamdan Stormwater Utility City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Basil: Attached, please find the "Final Storm Drainage Report" for Uplands P.U.D. for your review and approval. The project was constructed in 1984 and has not seen site development since that time. Rangeland grasses and weeds have overtaken the grading that was completed in 1984. Currently Lots 1, 2, 3 and 5 are proposed for intensified use, commercial/industrial. These uses are consistent with what was originally intended for this project area. All of the infrastructure has been designed and constructed as part of the 1984 design report. The objective of this report is to develop utility plans only, for those lots identified above. Since a single property owner is doing the development on all four of the lots identified, a single report will detail the current design requirements for lot improvements to proceed. The original 1984 design report has technically expired. However, the design report was reviewed and the Stormwater Utility has agreed that use of this report for a design concept is a reasonable approach. All of the current work completed as part of this proposal meets the design requirements of the City of Fort Collins, Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards (1984). Should questions or concerns arise regarding this project during your review, please do not hesitate in contacting our office. Sincerely, Q CJ' Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & .S. President rsc enclosure James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. 103 S. Meldrum Street P.O. Box 429 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 303/482-9331 Fax 303/482-9382 ,1,'Lp1t114t##� �.�p h1. RUTyF. ••�: *: 5028 O I 3 U U VIGI/V/7-Y ZvlA . FINAL STORM DRAINAGE REPORT FOR UPLAND P.U.D. GENERAL SITE: The project area is located in the Northeast quadrant of the City of Fort Collins, in Section 18, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M.. This is located on the North side of Prospect Street (Prospect) approximately 450 l.f. East of the Prospect and Riverside Avenue intersection. The infrastructure for this project was designed and constructed in 1984. This included all mains and services for water and sanitary sewer, along with street improvements including curb and gutter, and the associated storm drainage facilities in the new street, Academy Court (Academy). The property is rough graded, and a cover of rangeland grasses and weeds has been reestablished. No further construction has been undertaken since the time in 1984 when all of the infrastructure was approved and installed. The catchment for Upland P.U.D. is bounded on the East by the Burlington Northern right-of-way, and on the West by the Union Pacific right-of-way. The project area narrows toward the North and ends between the two railroad rights -of -way, while the South end of the project is located on the North side of Prospect. Spring Creek is the conveyance waters for runoff collected in the pipe network from Upland P.U.D.. Areas that drain in a manner other than through the existing pipe network move into the Poudre River basin. All offsite easements exist, and facilities are sized and consistent with this proposal (see attachments for Pitkin-Riverside Outfall). �.I Page 2' Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report Throughout this report, reference to the storm drainage report completed and approved'in 1984 (1984 Report) will be the basis for design elements associated with these individual lot improvements. This project will not be constructing any storm drainage conveyance structures, but will, using the 1984 requirements, match the design elements that now exist. Even though this report has technically expired, the Storm Water Utility has agreed to accept this approach. This same 1984 Report referenced requires detention even though the Pitkin Riverside Outfall project undertaken and completed by the City did not. HYDROLOGY HISTORIC HYDROLOGY "1984" Basin and Design Configuration Summary BASIN A This basin is shown as having three subcatchments, A-1, A-2 and A-O, totaling ± 8.9 acres. A summary table shows how the original design was established: Basin "A" Upland P.U.D.1984 Report Summary Basin ID Area Q10 Q100 C10 C100 A-1 5.4 ac 14.7 cfs 34.6 cfs 0.87 1.0 A-2 1.8 5.0 11.5 0.86 1.0 A-O 1.7 6.5 12.2 0.87 1.0 9 Page 3 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report Sub -basin A-1 Description: This basin from the 1984 Report will experience development on all of lot 1, as shown in the drawing package, and some of lot 2. Flows from the adjacent streets, Prospect and Academy, flow to the existing inlets on Academy. No change to these street flow conditions will result from this proposed development, all flows will be directed into the existing curb inlets. Detention is required in the 1984 Report for this basin and will be included as part of the lot 1 storm drainage design. Sub -basin A-2 Description: This subcatchment is East of Academy and will not be included for any development as part of this current construction activity. Sub -basin A-O Description: West of the Union Pacific R.R. right-of-way is the now abandoned Public Service "Yard." The area is primarily asphalt and slopes to the East toward the railroad right-of-way. The area is included in the original 1984 Report, which suggests that sheet flow from this basin would flow through the basin A-1 detention facility. Field reconnaissance shows no hydraulic connection exists between Basin A-O and Basin A-1 currently. Flow does move North along the railroad bedding toward the 24" pipe which crosses the Union Pacific right-of- way and then to the 48" x 76" RCP elliptical pipe which crosses Academy. This condition will not be modified as part of this proposal. Page 4' Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report BASIN B This basin is -shown in the appendices of this report. The following table illustrates original basin characteristics: Basin "B" Upland P.U.D. 1984 Report Summary Basin ID Area C10 C100 Q10 Q100 B-1 4.7 ac 0.80 1.00 13.2 cfs 33.8 cfs B-2 3.6 0.80 1.00 10.1 25.9 Sub -basin B-1 Description: This basin was originally 4.7 acres and included lots 2 and 3. This 1984 Report sub -basin was not identified for any detention; undetained runoff was to move North to the 48" x 76" pipe installed in 1984. On lot 2 a subcatchment of B-11 3.08 acres will experience intensified usage because of this proposal. Flows from 1.07 acres of lot 2 will be detained in the detention facility for basin A-1 that will be constructed on lot 1. The remainder of lot 2, 2.01 acres, will be directed into Academy where a 10 ft. inlet I-2 "on grade" or a 15 ft. inlet I-3 "sumped," will collect these flows. Lot 3 will be developed as part of this current proposal. Flows will follow the original 1984 patterns, which are undetained and release directly upstream of the 48" x 76" RCP. These flows go into the existing concrete pan which connects into that pipe. Page . 5 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report Sub -basin B-2 Description: This basin will not be modified from current conditions (rangeland grass, sloping Easterly,) as part of this proposal. Grading patterns on adjacent lots will lessen the area of lot 4 to 2.27 acres. Consequently the total basin area of B-2 has decreased. Details of these changes will be described in the "Developed Basin" section of this report. The result is that some area will be added to the original basin C, lot 5. Sub -basin C Description: Basin C, identified in the original 1984 Report, includes lot 5, which is ± 7.04 acres, as shown. This sub -basin will experience development during this current construction activity. This proposal is for an outdoor storage facility that will cover ± 3.91 acres. Ground cover conditions will change from the rangeland grasses and weeds to a cubed recycled asphalt with no binder added to the asphalt. Detention was called for in the 1984 Report scenario and will be included within the acreage identified for this outdoor storage facility. Sub -basin D Description: No change to the 1984 Report design scenerio will be a part of this project. The area 0.90-acres will remain in the grassland cover that has existed since 1984. Sheet flows from this basin go into the 36-inch cmp crossing the Burlington R.R. East of the project area. This is the end of the brief descriptions of proposed facilities and uses in the 1984 Report. Page.6 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report DEVELOPED HYDROLOGY Basin comparisons between the 1984 Report and the current proposal have been shown for basins A-1, B-1 and C. These are the basins to be modified from the 1984 storm drainage design. All design methods used meet the City of Fort Collins, Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards (SDDCCS). The Rational Method has been chosen to evaluate these small commercial basins. Street flows along Academy and Prospect have been evaluated,.. even though no change will occur from the original design. Detention will be included in areas intended for detention, and release rates will be adjusted to adapt to changes to the original basin configurations. This report addresses only the development of lots 1, 21 3 and 5 and complies with the originally submitted July 1984 report .for Upland Industries Corporation, by Arnold H. Niemeyer, P.E., for Upland's Prospect Business Park. A copy of this report has been included in the appendices for your use. No modification of any offsite features will be involved with this proposal. Page 7' Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report General Developed Basin Concepts Each lot being improved in the Upland P.U.D., originally known as Upland's Prospect Business Park, is being evaluated for a runoff coefficient according to the SDDCCS. These ground cover material coefficients are then weighted by area. Times of concentration (TOC) for both the 10 and 100-year storm events will be calculated.- Areas offsite where no change will occur as part of this project have not been revisited. On the four lots currently under review, detention is included for those basins requiring it in the 1984 Report, thus, accommodating the existing piped conveyance network. Evaluation of the existing pipe network will not specifically be undertaken. Adequate downstream flow conditions are not available to allow for an accurate hydraulic analysis. However, since no increases to runoff to the piping will result from this proposal, it is understood that the 1984 design is correct in this matter. All points of historic runoff release will be maintained with no offsite modifications under consideration. Storm drainage modification will be undertaken because of the final grading plans for the improved lots. These minor changes will carry through to the new basin boundaries, which are the basis of the hydrologic design. All development activities are restricted to the West side of Academy. Lot 5 is at the Northerly end of the Upland P.U.D.. This lot fronts on the cul-de-sac which is graded to flow into the West flowline of the Academy. This West flowline continues South to the existing 15' curb inlet. Q Z> 2 D U) U_ (D O J O Z U) Q 00 Z CL Z) Page. 8' Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report Summaries of Basins Where Improvements Will Occur Basin A Basin A consists of three subcatchments, as identified in the 1984 Report, A-1, A-2 and A-O. Subcatchment A-1 will be the only area experiencing change. Basin A-O will not be modified, nor will the existing hydraulics associated with this Subcatchment. Noteworthy is an inconsistency observed with information presented in the 1984 Report. Subcatchment A-O was shown as being hydraulically connected to basin A-1. However, field reconnaissance showed no hydraulic connection to basin A-1. Runoff from A-O remains West of the U.P. Railroad ballast. Aerial photography indicates that the runoff moves North toward the existing 24-inch cast iron pipe. Original intent was that this runoff (A-O) was to be collected by the storm drainage collection system described in the 1984 Report. To hold this 1984 design feature, detention release from basin A-1 is reduced to account for a future hydraulic connection between A-1 and A-O. Should there be a connection made in the future, this allowance will provide a means of release, thus not hydraulically isolating that basin. Basin A-1 consists of lots 1 and 2, both of which will experience construction activity as part of the project. The original basin area was shown to include 1/2 of Prospect and Academy, along with 1/2 of the U.P. Railroad right-of-way. The total area shown was 5.4 acres, including 1/2 of the railroad ballast and the street areas. 4 6 Page,9' Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report The new area of this basin will be 6.09 acres. This includes the same 1/2 railroad ballast area but does not include the street half section. The area of this basin has increased because of the detailed grading plan associated with lots 1 and 2. The street half sections have been included separately because it is not possible to direct that runoff through the new lot improvements. DEVELOPED BASIN "A" SUMMARY Basin ID New Area Old Area Q10 WS) Q100 (cfs) CIO C100 A-1 6.09 ac 5.4 ac 16.2 36.1 0.72 0.90 A-2 1.80 1.8 5.0 11.5 0.86 1.00 A-0 1 1.70 1 1.7 1 6.5 1 12.2 1 0.87 1 1.00 11 The weighted runoff coefficient "C" for both lots 1 and 2 combined was calculated to be 0.72. The TOC for this basin, based on overland and channelized flow, was for the 10-year 13.8 min. and for the 100-year 11.0 min. Both numbers were the result of the TOC from lot 1. Rational method analysis results in a total basin runoff of 16.2 cfs in the 10-year event and 36.1 cfs in the 100-year event. Detention will be provided on the East side of lot 1 and on the Southeast side of lot 2. These two ponds will be hydraulically connected without restriction. Pond A-1, on lot 1, will be the point of outlet control as originally intended. This control will regulate release into the existing area inlet. Reiterating release rates are being reduced to account for any future connection with Basin A-O (see the detention section of this report for details). Page 10 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report Basin B consists of two subcatchments, B-1 and B-2, which in the 1984 Report, totaled 8.3 acres together, and 4.7 acres and 3.6 acres respectively. Basin B-2 is generally composed of lot 4, which will not be modified as part of this current activity. This basin will remain hydrologically as it has since the 1984 construction activity. Flows from this basin have been calculated and used to confirm existing infrastructure sizing (inlet I-3). That the total area of basin B-2 will be reduced because of activity on lot 5, in basin C. A further discussion of these basin C improvements will be presented in that section of this report. Basin B-1 will experience development during the current proposal. On the Southerly portion of lot 2, as previously mentioned, surface flows will be directed and detained as part of basin A-1 development. On the Northerly portion of lot 2, no detention will be provided. However, flow will be collected and conveyed by surface means to the existing curb inlets (I-2, I-3) which connect to the 48" x 76" elliptical pipe crossing Academy. The revised B-1 area, based on the detailed grading of lot 3 and part of lot 2, is now 3.39 acres. This again does not include any portion of Academy. This area reduction is the result of the increased area of lot 2, included in basin A-1, and the exclusion of the street half width. Page .11 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report Developed Basin "B" Summary Basin ID Area CIO C100 Q10 Q100 B-1 3.39 ac 0.70 0.88 7.98 cfs 13.74 cfs * B-2 2.27 0.20 0.25 1.54 3.14 w Nua,h: Tnis Dasin will noz De aeveiopea as part of r.nis pro3euL. The runoff coefficient for the combined lot 2 and lot 3 areas making up basin B-1 is a weighted C value of'0.70. A TOC for this basin is 12.1 min. in the 10-year, and 9.4 min. in the 100-year; lot 2 is the controlling subcatchment. Lot 2 will be converted into outdoor storage and will experience a change in cover conditions. This change will be from the current grasses and weeds to a cover of asphalt. This asphalt will be graded generally to the East and North where flow will be directed into the West flowline of Academy. Basin B-1 from the 1984 Report was intended to flow without detention to the 48" x 76" elliptical pipe; this pattern will be preserved. BASIN C This is the Northerly most basin experiencing any development during the current project proposal. Generally, this basin is directly North of the cul-de-sac on Academy. Originally, the area of this basin from the 1984 Report was shown as 8.5 acres, which was identified as requiring detention. The detention being provided as part of this proposal will be proportioned, and release will be in a -manner consistent with what was designed in the 1984 Report. Should cover conditions be modified or land use changed in the future, a t reevaluation of this basin should be undertaken. Page 12 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report Land use will again be for outdoor storage, with the ground cover of cubed asphalt being the basis of the surface change. Experience suggests that a simulation between gravel and asphalt best represent this cover condition. No binder or sealer will be added to the recycled asphalt cubes. The area that will be covered with the asphalt cubes and the existing railroad ballast is 3.91 acres. Basin C will provide detention for this intensified cover condition. In the 1984 Report flows were intended to cross the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way East of the site; this design feature will be maintained. A 36-inch CMP exists which crosses the railroad right-of-way East of the basin boundary. There has not been any reconsideration of the unimproved portion of this basin. Detention release rate proportioning has been used to allow for any future lot 5 improvements. A runoff coefficient of 0.58 was calculated by the existing surface conditions (ballast) and newly placed cubed asphalt. TOC for this basin is 9.8 min. in the 10-year and 8.4 min. in the major 100-year event. Runoff rates to the new detention facility are 10.1 cfs in the minor event and 22.7 cfs for the 100-year major event. Page ,13 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report HYDRAULICS Hydraulic design for the conveyance network is not part of this design report. Only lot improvements are part of this current project. Confirmation of existing capacities have been verified to ensure system function. All of the storm drainage collection and conveyance elements have been designed in the 1984 Report, approved by the City and constructed. Existing curb inlets have been reevaluated ensuring the 10-year flow design criteria, as has the 48"x 76" RCP. Flow conditions in this major regional feature have been confirmed. Noteworthy is that the capacity of this significant structure that was designed and built circa 1985 has 320 cfs of available capacity. This figure is in agreement with the hydrology for the contributing basin. Upland will also be contributing undetained flows in the 100-year major event. Under this condition the ± 40 cfs that Upland contributes will clear the pipe system approximately thirty (30) minutes before the upstream basin peak reaches this structure. The report used to address this regional feature was the Pitkin-Riverside Outfall Report written by the City of Fort Collins. All of the features associated with collection and/or conveyance of stormwater runoff have had capacities confirmed, or flow rates reduced to below the original 1984 Report design rates. Connection will be made from the Basin A-1 detention pond to the Southerly most existing inlet on Academy, I-1 in this report. Page ,14 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report The existing 12-inch pipe will provide adequate capacity for the 2.4 cfs pond release rate. The downstream system has been designed to accept the allowable 6.1 cfs. As mentioned, the 6.1 cfs rate from Pond A-1 was reduced to account for the lack of a hydraulic connection to A-O from the 1984 Report. Direct runoff from basin A-O when a hydraulic connection to detention Pond 1 occurs is accounted for. Pipe capacity is available and only -an orifice plate change will be required at the pond outlet. Two other existing curb inlets will be affected by flows from this proposal, Inlet I-2, a 10-ft inlet on grade, and I-3, a 15-ft inlet in a sump condition. Both of these inlets exist in the West flow line of Academy. Software titled "UDINLET," accepted by the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, was the basis of analysis for inlet capacities. In the 10-year design requirement of the SDDCCS, the existing facilities proved Adequate. Reference the appendices of this report for further details of this modelling exercise. Basin C. generally lot 5 in this report, will also require sizing of an orifice plate for establishing outlet control from the new detention pond on lot 5. The point of release is the same as what was envisioned in the 1984 Report. Proportioning of the detention volume for the area experiencing the intensified use is being used. A release rate of 5.2 cfs was established for this basin in the 1984 Report for the ± 8.5 acres. This rate will be reduced, however, since only 3.91 acres will be modified and detention constructed. .r Page 15 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report The newly developed allowable maximum rate will be 0.90 cfs. Based on a review of the 1984 Report, one revision to the area was included, that concerning the runoff C used. In the 1984 Report, the historic C value was assumed to be 0.50. This was reevaluated, and 0.20 is now being used. The developed conditions included the cubed asphalt cover for establishing the detention volume. A 36-inch existing CMP crossing the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way will convey the new detention pond's runoff release. Results from all basin modifications are that the 1984 Report hydraulic loadings to existing systems will be maintained or lowered below the design. This is true for the flow into all portions of the stormwater collection system in Academy. The conservative nature of the variable used (1984 Report) in the Rational Method (C=.87 originally, verses C= .72 actual) will reduce the overall volume while maintaining comparable detention release rates. A similar circumstance is true for the 48" x 76" pipe crossing Academy. Basin B-1 originally would have developed runoff at a rate of 33.8 cfs. Now that rate is being reduced to 13.7 cfs in the 100-yr. Again the conservative nature of the 1984 assumptions has resulted in a over -design for the actual land uses being built. Page.16 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report DETENTION Two detention ponds were foreseen as part of basins A-1 and C in the 1984 Report. These ponds will be developed as originally conceived with only modifications to the volumes being required. All release rates will be at or below the 1984 values. This circumstance comes as a result of the current land use proposed, and not because of the design assumptions included in the 1984 Report. For this report, the FAA Method of deciding detention volumes has been used throughout. All points of detention release will be maintained, and easements for offsite surface flows have been previously acquired and approved. POND 1, BASIN A-1 This pond located in basin A-1 will be built to provide a capacity of 0.81 ac.ft. or 38,33 cu.ft. Release from this new detention pond has been set at 2.4 cfs. The pond is located on both lot 1 and lot 2, with a hydraulic connection between the two. This connection is a 10-inch PVC pipe laid at a slope of 0.4 percent. The pond release rate has been adjusted downward, as mentioned, accounting for the possible future hydraulic connection of 1984 basins A-1 and A-0. Originally 6.1 cfs was to be released. However, because of a lack of that connection, the release rate has been reduced. Should future development require passing flow from basin A-0 through the pond, capacity has been provided. ,'N Page 17 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report Grading in the area of the pond indicates a high water line (HWL) of 4928.64 feet. One foot of free board will be provided, and structure openings in relation to the HWL is not a concern to this specific facility. POND LOT 5, BASIN C Again the 1984 report had identified the necessity for detention within Basin C. This pond will be built as part of this construction activity with a release rate of 0.90 cfs. Volume for this release rate will be 0.53 ac.ft. Proportioning of the area being developed (3.91- ac) verse what the allowable historic runoff from 7.04-ac was how the pond was designed. Lot 5 will be the area of construction for this pond and it will release into the existing 36-inch cmp crossing the Burlington Northern R.R. tracks. Because of the planned use on lot 5, that is, outside storage, pond depths will be kept "shallow,"i.e. ± 10-inches. With the grading as indicated on the plans, a HWL of 4933.1-feet will result. An erosion control fabric will be placed for the 15-ft immediately below the pond outlet. This protection will reestablish the historic sheet flow characteristics flowing Easterly to the 36-inch pipe. The 0.9 cfs release rate obviously presents no hydraulic concern so pipe capacity has been recomputed. Page 18 Upland P.U.D. Final Storm Drainage Report CONCLUSIONS The assumptions made in the 1984 Report would be considered conservative with respect to pipe sizing and expected land use. Consequently, this project as it is currently being proposed will not require any changes to the storm water collection system. Detention is being provided in areas that were originally intended to be detained, and flow is being directed into pipe locations identified for that runoff collection. In confirming and detailing the land use and grading specifics, no areas of concern arose either within the project area or on adjacent parcels. At this time we are requesting your review for approval of this report, and plans associated with the light -industrial, the project comprised of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Upland P.U.D. Should questions arise during your review of this document, please feel free to contact Alex Evonitz or myself so we may help in your understanding. Respectfully, . a QXA Richard A. Rutherf rd, P.E. & L.S. #5028 EROSION CONTROL REPORT Upland P.U.D. falls on both high and moderate rainfall erodibility areas, with the entire site being in a moderate wind erosion area. This information is based on the published maps included in the SDDCCS. Though the North 1/2 of the site is in the moderate rainfall erodibility region, the assumption of high erodibilty will be the basis of design for the entire site. Limited lot sizes has eliminated the necessity for wind erosion control. Focus will be directed on the control of rainfall erosion during the periods of construction. Three basins will experience modified use as part of these construction activities. Lot improvements, however, will be the method segregating erosion concerns during construction. This is because some lots may experience development before other lots within the same basin. If the erosion measures identified for each lot are carried out, each lot will be remediated to the performance standards identified for that basin. Seasonal consideration will not specifically be addressed since the construction sequencing will vary. The only implication of this approach is that the seed mix for temporary vegetation will need to account for the potentially differing growing season. Two mixes will be presented, one for summer and a second for fall. Page. 2' Upland P.U.D. Erosion Control' Report LOT #1 The first aspect of erosion control for this lot will include the placement of an erosion silt fence on the North, South and East lot lines. A detention facility is also identified for construction on this lot. This facility will be one of the first elements constructed, allowing for its use as a point of collection of direct runoff. Straw bales will be placed at the outlet of this rough graded pond to protect the existing pipe system in Academy. Footings and foundations will be excavated shortly after the beginning of construction activity. This would allow for exclusion of this area (0.97 acres) from the overall erosion area during the first phase of construction. The second phase will include seeding with temporary vegetation in the detention area and rough grading in the parking areas in preparation for a gravel base course. The stripping of top soil and subsequent placement of gravel will occur in a rapid period of less than six weeks. Placement of the gravel will ensure contractor access during construction. Limited lot size is related to the limited exposure to rainfall erosion on lot 1. The sequence and control methods identified will meet or exceed the basin performance standard for this lot. Page .3 ' Upland.P.U.D. Erosion Control'Report LOT # 2 This lot is a subcatchment for two separate and distinct drainage basins. The Southern portion of the lot will contribute to the detention facility located on lot 1, while the Northern area will flow toward lot 3. On the South, the excavation for the building footings will again immediately follow the placement of a silt fence on the North, South and East sides of the project area. The hydraulic connection between lot 1 and lot 2 will be protected with straw bales at the upstream end on lot 2. These two features will provide adequate protection for the erosion control to meet the established performance standard. Phase two on this lot will include seeding with a temporary seed mix. Providing cover to the Southeast corner of the lot in the detention area will help to provide adequate performance. When the area for parking is stripped and rough graded, the placement of the gravel base material will follow within six weeks. Timing of the cover placement, i.e. temporary vegetation and gravel, in concert with the other structural erosion elements allows the Southern portion of lot 2 to meet the performance standard for the site. Basin B-1, which includes the North portion of lot 2, will be developed as outdoor storage. Hard surfacing with minimal changes in grading will be the primary change in characteristics. Customary with all hard surfacing construction following initial grading, the placement of gravel and asphalt will soon follow. Page 4 ' Upland P.U.D. Erosion Control Report The placement of silt fencing and straw bales will ensure that the performance standards of lot 2 will be met. LOT #3 Boundary protection measures of silt fencing and straw bales will be the initial construction activity undertaken. Straw bales along the North lot boundary will be required to protect the existing concrete pan. This pan connects the 24-inch CI pipe under the Union Pacific easement to the 48" x 76" pipe under Academy and the Burlington Northern easement. Silt fencing will be required on the East next to Academy, while the Southern boundary slopes onto lot 3, eliminating the need for protection. No. detention is part of this lot development scheme, so structural protection is the basis of erosion control. When the silt fencing and straw bales are placed, this lot will meet the performance standard developed for it. LOT #5 Minimal change best describe the construction activity that will occur on this site. Except for the removal of the top 6-inches of soil and the placement of 2-inch cubed recycled asphalt, not much else will occur. The lot is identified for outdoor storage, and a detention pond will also be provided. Following the placement of the cubed asphalt, a small berm will be constructed on the North, East and South boundaries forming the basis of the pond.. Z3 Page ,5 ' Upland P.U.D. Erosion Control'Report CONCLUSION Each lot within the Upland P.U.D. will be brought to meet the standards of performance identified in the SDDCCM. This has been accomplished on a lot by lot, basis since there is some uncertainty associated with the timing of each project. Existing structures have been protected, and adjacent land use will not be affected. Should questions arise, please feel free to contact our office so we may help in your understanding of the design idea. 7_ 4 EROSION CONTROL COMPUTATION FOR UPLAND P.U.D. LOTS 1, 2, 39 5 STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 PH. S. MEL9331DRUM,FAX FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: P.u-L Date: Client: U�LLNJh(_�itF oN-t�r\t`fM�,�� Sheet No. of Z Project: U 1TLI\N-t) -P U . V. Subject: - 7 a. r Na L T�� STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 S. MEL9331DRUM,FAX FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: ALkL Dater 10 Client: Sheet No. Z of Project: Subject: Cn._.) oc_ i I , • fi r_e — I LoY E z- -50 -- - -- -i - ' I -- I I� LLL _. Is�_wz __1 ► _! iI{Ii4 3� -- -- 'D.�'IZ �IsT i-- t- 39,40 S1lZ.VCTUZPcU I Z({ZC I I i ' I PAGE 23 I 0 1 01 m G I I , 1 O• I V 4 U) I tf-) I qq qqq 1 I G I O) O) O) g C C 0 0 0 0 I 1 1 C 1 Ct qzl- Cr CI' Lf) LO L.f) Ln Lf: Lr) 1 1 V I g q q q q q q q q q I I I 1 1 G 103mmm0)rnrnrn0*1(3)rn0)oGo t 1 , 1 O.1 CY Ci Ct C1'v C-C C�-Cl- CI-Lf)Lo U-) , I M I ggqqqqq`qqq ggqqq i 1 O 1 1�q qq O)(nO)O) (nO)O) 0)0) 0)0) m CY)01)171 O1 I I • I 1 O 1 Cr Cr a ct ci-Ct c<t C' Cr Q- �r CC c1'-:I- V �r -ZT C- I 1 CV I g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q I I I I I O I C Cl) Ch to lD LO l0 t0 1� l� l� t� l� I� f, 1� 1� 1� 1� 1, q q q q q q I 1 1 I 1 O 44 Cr* v Ct Cr CCU C1-CI1zl-C'Cr Cr �rcY I 1 .-+ I q q qq qM CJWgWgqqMM W WMWgWMMMgq I 1 1 , 1 O I qN m C1 Lo Lf) Lf) tD tD tD tD t0 tD n 1�^n 1�1-_n nl, nggq I C 1 , . I O I Q. I M RZI- �r ct�-ZZI- Q rr Cr V-�qqll'C Ct Cry V -zr Ct- ct :*' Cd--:I,a' -cl- I Q I I g q q q q q q q q q q q q q 00.00 CO q q q q q q q q q 1 O 1 O 1 LO O N M Ci Cr LO Lo Ln L) L0 Lo t0 to tD Lo to t0 tD tD n 1� ^ n n n I J I • I , O I q 1 MC' 4 CY4 Ccf C-4 C-C C'Ct Ct V CI-CY Ct cY Ct a'ct C'Ct C-� 1 U I I q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q I I I I ^ I CD CY 0),--IN Mf)')C Ct'Ch Ci-Ln LO LO LO Lf)Ln LO Ul LO to LD LD t0 t0 Lo 1� 1 N I I I Z 1 f\ I M M CY Ct V Cr Q- C- C- V -ZT -z:r l C C- -zl- :I- C- '7 CY C- Cr C- Ct C- I �•--� I 1 qq qq qq q qc qq qq gCJgMWq WM WM WMgM I J I O I C <o qO r+rl N N MMCl) Mom' V V -,:I- C- C1- C �r Lf) LO Lo U-) LO Lo I O 1 . , 1 U 1 LD I MMM�ct a-c V V-V C'a'Ct a-�4 l--cl:4 44 Cf a'�CI'Ct •t 1 I q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 1 ♦- 1 I I 1 �C 1 Lf) N U)1, q0) c) N NNNNMMMMMCt V'R:r I O 1 3Q I , W 1 vLo I NM MM MM C` V Vr 3-C ct- V cf CY �-CiC Ci Ci C1'C �Ct'C c7' I I 1 q' g q q q q co g q q q q CO g q q q q q q q q q q 0000 1 Y I W I I O 1 0_ m 1. c o q m - z r Ln Ln to tD 1� f, r� q q q q q q LT (T 0) C C O O O 1 LL. I O 1 , 1 J�r I N C V m M M M M M M Cl) M M M M M M M M M C" M Ln 1 Ln I g q q CO q CO q q q q 00 q q q q q q q q q 0000 q q q CO I tl' 1 O 1 tD LDq C) NrM z3-C Lf) Lf) LOkn LD LO tD Lo nnnl, ggqmm I Cr 1 I I O I -CZI- I ,--I N N Cl) M Cl) M Cl) M Cl) M M M M M (+; fM C) M M M M LM M M M 1 Z I I g q q q 0000 q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 1 Q II 1 F- 1 Lf) 1 .--L Ln n qO C.--1 N(V f•')m M C' V'Ct d-V-to Ln LO t0 tD LD I, 1� I N 1 1 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I M I r -. N N N N M M M M M M M M M Cl) M M M M M L �' -'i M M M M M W I I 0000 q q 0000 q q q q q q q q q q q q q q woo q q q q I U 1 1 1 Z 1 O I re) Nto q O)4= - cli N MM Mc7l C- Cr Ct mod- LO Lo Lf) LO LD tD tD tD I Q I . I 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I M 1 G.- i r -1 r- I.- N N N N N N N N N N N N L V N N N N N N N N 1 C I I q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q I O I I I L•_ I to 1 Ln Ln rn NCM ct Ln tD t\ n 1, C, q qT O) � O) � O) O O O O O O 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W 1 N I O) C O N N N N N N I 0_ I I n g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 1 I 1 1 1 O I ct Ln O M Ln t o q CG O) ' O O O r+ r+ . -+ .-- r N N N N M M M M M M I 1 I 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I N I q CY) O O O O C O O rt •-+ '-I '•+ .-� ,--i ,--I .•-i .--i ,--I •--, .--I .--I r. N .-+ .--I I I I I� I l g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 1 1 I I t U7 1 qNC .l -Lf) nnq O)O)O ONNMMCl) Cl) M 1 I .••a I Lo g q cn cn m O) CT) O) a) m O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 I I I n n 1-I n I� t\ n n n n n g q q 0000 q CO CO q CO q CO 0000 q 1 1 1 1 N 1 O I tD.M CZ) -::I, 1\0) O.•-I N M Cl) Ct -cl- LO LO U-) U-) to LD t0 LO n 1� Lo t0 t0 1 . . I N I CY l0f t\ I� I, co co co q qq q CO qq q q q co q q qq I. . 1 q I I I I )� 1 Lf) 1 (7)O DLO Ilq q1� Il 1� 10 tD LO Ln �-C' MMNN 0)tD Cr.--10)t.0 1 b . . . . , 1 O I O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .--+ .--L ti .--1 0 0 I 1 I Ll 1\ I\ 1` I� n 1l n t, 1\ n n I\ 1\ n n n 1\ 1\ n 1\ I\ t\ I, t� I� I 1 = 1 1 I O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I OC71— I G G G O G O G o o G o o o o G G G G o o G G G G G o1 I v-Un tq OO D I, )LV et � CODM Ln tD lO) L) CDU-) CD LO CD \\\��� CV N M M C- CY Lf) 1 TABLE 5.1 ., 0, STEWART&OSSOCIATES 103 S. ME9331 LDRUM,FAX FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 82 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: ky-Q--Date:- Client: \\ Sheet No. of Project: Subject: Z -c2tr" DT # -- - - - - — 1z� --- J55001�---I -,- --�- Lcyv �.Z. t I I - I 1 I_ i_ I , — i 4 , Z. 1 I i I i i. I! I I i I , I { I I I Rainfall Performance Standard Evaluation Project:. hJb Standanrd, Form A By: Stewart & Associates Completed: f 103 S. Meldrum I Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Date: ID Developed Subbasin Erodibility Zone Asb acres Lsb feet Ssb % Lb feet Sb % PS % SOT 1 H�yN 3.4Z y So o,� — -' 7Z, LoT Z PXkCMA 1,59 3150 0.�5 72,E La 3 'A %A O,gO 29O O, IS _ _ Z, 4 72, z � 1JoTl:'. RSSJ� `htc,N '�ra�N�« E2uD��i��z� ,=��Z- >✓!-��112E Sufi wioDa� wiNo �2�?i3«,r�i HDI/SF—A:1989 I PAGE 26 wo 0.35 wo ff 0 0.25 0.20 LL 0.15 0.10 ©o� 0.05 ESTABLISHED GRASS AND C—FACTORS FORT COWS, COLORADO ............. ............. r ............ ............. ------ ------ ............. ........ ............. ............. ........ ............. . ............. ! T T fi .... i...... ... ............ ............. ........ ............. ......... :.... ........... . . [ ............. .. .............. ............. ............ ................. ............. ......... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .............. .............. ............. ............. .............. ............................ T ............. . ............. ............. ............. ............. .............. ............. .. .... ............ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CE�3 ESTABLISHED MASS MOUND- COVER (7) - FIGURE 5.1 STEWART8&SSOCIATES 103 S. 3 DRUM,FAX FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 PH. 48Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: Date:- l0-14-9LlE Client: UFRLP Jl� <<���-11r?TTti�t�r�� Sheet No. otJ Project: 1:PL At-3 6 Subject: Sew I Ce.»�ac -F-v4 TA"' ! as - {-- - - -Jc' (.__ I.�ZI'L•ff_A�.;.%_�Pttd-` ,U P;�'�t E2 Q I _ - _i�12F'Pf _ I t.,.� .1�t- : �-p,P_ rc? --y w ._' 1_-'_-'I---1_. �-._ ✓ :._�` hC..- I. -�� .. ��I 7 � I , � i � I i f t j ! i � � —..— -- I l. • I _._ I_- I 5 xl l 1� �2 �- . n 1�r,:: �-Ex�t —j-- ii+--�- {. Tt l l •: . I-De7l ` yvm I _.YrRL'�. ..j i i F ,--� �?�; _ ,� eC t-- - i r I I _I_I _} � _I;��s�a,... I_ea.�,�►J c,.��c:✓ � ac _ un_iw?����'+� � ' ; ff Effectiveness Calculation Proiect: L OT Standard Form B By: Stewart & Associates Completed: 103 S. Meldrurn Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Date: (0 ErosionControl—Factor Method Value —F- —Factor— Value 0,50 .00 mil,' Vey I'oo asin K-\ I Wll Area Lac 7- C- .M, OD = 77.5 50 a ?3. AY 45 0 0 t) ---------- .4;5 D) - - HDI/SF—B:1989 2? CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ,.pJtOJECTt 01 `''CAD \ /7T L V Z STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE FOR 19 1 S ONLY COMPLETED BY, DATEt Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measure, will be installed. Major modifications to an approved scdule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer. 1 MONTH 'A OVERLOT GRADING WIND EROSION CONTROL " Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other UIINFALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURALt Sediment Trap/Benin E 1 Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving n LD dZ' ftv Jrl(f Other �Z -BUILC yri I xrwI w•> VEGETATIVEt' Permanent Seed Planting Hulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting exam 0 .f£ tftl H Sod Installation Nettings/Hate/Blankets Other i STRUCTURESt INSTALLED BY CeW%A(,- MAINTAINED BY i VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR — G C i i DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON I i MARCH 1991 s-ls DESIGN CRITERIA i y ® LDt Z coN �TR�I�I i o H 0 -JA STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 S. PH. 82- LDiRUM, FAX FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By:Date:- Client: SheetNo. Z of 3 Project: Subject: Tl� IL IT 67 _ I }} I I I i -f I-Do �! _w i.�! _E w'c I a� ; ��til, �M_ �`f0..�E�CPVrtj7o f2 -- I �03 — - -- -�_ s_� ��=tea..-� �_ i ��.12_ .�,�� _ � � ! _�,z.aa�� . ;�,� ve�� • ?� 'z I. ._. T+11h� ; (I �A'f Z� -T. CA` owe I I -�--� - 4 c.a« ! �c.'u�l_so m S.;.ca►?� S�Uar'� I� T�:t .- 11 i—( —! - --'_ I >4t[a� -p0?_Tt�-I woe-,,ov. of o� -',A is �alul`l u-c nr� o CCu ?2 ! sT12E�i��k'ti - -l✓-ee.�s I �f Ii ! ! i 12J.�D !J 4 S !fir C �IZo�Z�? j I 13nu;n�A,2i 1_ ! _I ,; l Effectiveness Calculation Proiect: OTLMN� `�, (�, Standard Form B By: Stewart & Associates • Completed: ., N,I-j— 103 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Date: IO Erosion Control Method C— Factor Value P — Factor Value Ccmunenis: FA^x Salt o,�j o .. .. GZ t� ec— os I.0 O . oc� I , no rtsSUk.ee (�09� cap.-�tn t P��,�h�. o ► 1.00 I,00 HD I/SF— B:1989 nI STEWART&SSOCIATES 103 PH. S. ME 3D1RF , FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors / \ By: Date: • io- Client: V'�wP'�) Sheet No. J of Project: Subject: ' -1— s.,.-, Co,,DF, x na. -Sr,— ,c a, --- - SZa>> i s --- . - P,E. aDI.�ca,i�� ._I. �_ I--' 'IZ _ $JI IDhJ (,!_ - ,I (--%.'x(r}S INCIJ�, •.>(� ZC i I ( C4(tS,c I } i I I i I I s CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE �3OJECTt ^ STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE FOR 19 ONLY COMPLETED BYt f'1�^Q. DATE: 1—Z(p' Irj Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measure, will be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer. YEAR MONTH M OVERLOT GRADING WIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other UIINFALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters �1 Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other VEGETATIVEt* Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary SeedPlanting Sod Installation Nettinge/Hate/Blankets Other A Effectiveness Calculation i'U��% �, (�, Lo i 4 3 Standard Form B FBy:S(ewar(&AssocjatesCompleted: S. Mcldrum Collins, Colorado 80521 Da1e: Ip Erosion Control C— (~actor Y — Factor Couuncnis: Method Value Value Br�� soic, P� e e 1.00 p �0... CtaM Se4 • OCR I , DO RSt��lt�� C) 1 .Op e .'ice I'oo r- (lT r�C2 1 •0 C� ,rj C7 S��2st) t2 �i 1 .Dn 50 m ?.S. 7z,7 % ?S OV61 O 1t p c� HDI/SF—B:1989 3`� CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE OJECTt r_ STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE FOR 19 /? ONLY COMPLETED BYt A1r�. DATEe . 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 now schedule for approval by the City Engineer. .. , . YEAR z i MONTH OVERLOT GRADING WIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative methods ' Soil Sealant Other RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURALs Sediment Trap/Basin . Inlet Filters Straw Barriers .. Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving , Other VEGETATIVE:* Permanent Seed Planting Hulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettinge/Hate/Blankets _ Other Effectiveness Calculation Project: Ut�LPaJ� �. (� •> , Standard Form B By: Stewart & Associates Completed: 103 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Date: / Z'/ Erosion Control Method C— Factor Value P — Factor Value Comments: V.,i O Ct2A�ec. 05 I.oO 'tbp� IOU 1.00 ew-fI-sso-,-q, 0 0 St�T 1�.crL I. -Do 0,50 ►& l� I -Do On HDI/SF—B:1989 PAGE 24 , Table 5.2 C-Factors and P-Factors. for Evaluating EFF Values. Treatment C-Factor P-Factor BARE SOIL Packed and smooth . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 1.00 Freshly disked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.90 Rough irregular surface . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.90 SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.50(11 STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG. 1.00 0.80 SILT FENCE BARRIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.50 ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT. 0 `O1 1.0.0. ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS. . . See Figure 1.00 SOD GRASS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 1.00 TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS . . . . . . . 0.45(2) 1.00 HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE. . . . . . . . . 0.10(3) 1.00 SOIL SEALANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01-0.60(4) 1.00 EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS. . . . . . . . . 0.10 1.00 HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH A O After planting grass seed, apply mulch at a rate ot 2 tons acre (minimum) and adequately anchor, tack or crimp material into the soil. Maximum Slope Length ( % ) (feet) 1 to 5 400 . . . . . . . . 0.06 1.00 6 to 10 200 . . . . . . . 0.06 1.•00 11 to 15 150 . . . . . . . . . 0.07 1.00 16 to 20 100 . . . . . . . . . 0.11 1.00 21 to 25 75 . . . . . . . . . 0.14 1.00 25 to 33 50 .. . . . . . . . . 0.17 1.00 > 33 35 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 7.4 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. An BASIN CONSTITUENTS FOR UPLAND P.U.D. BASIN A-1, LOT 1 & LOT 2 BASIN B-1, LOT 2 & LOT 3 BASIN C, LOT 5 in. STEWART&SSOCIATES 10 82 93 DRF , FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 PH.Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: / Date: i�-5 1 `( Client: Sheet No. -L- of Project: Subject: PFtSorJ Co..;��� r, -t Loy p,, _�--`�?�rr _iucc,)Ai { I_ i 9 i } ! i 2D0( QjiO s4 -� �j.1,e- I - tw'Bnc.cerb!i_ I _ � I I -- t)D P___—_ _ _ L\2A t I Z( _70. I , � --I_ i_.� LII� I -I - I I It i STEWART&ASSOCIATES 10 S. MEL9 DRUM , FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: ^Q- Date: 10 Client: 1���!°.v-�l� Sheet No. Z of Project: Subject: Compopcc� 'EN LaT �)a . t3ASA QS Ilk _j v'7.��°5 � I -- - - - �� T. _ Coo U 1, STEWART&kSSOCIATES 10 S- MEL 3DIRUM,FAX FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: _- Date: `i Client: Sheet No. � of Project: U LkyJ> >. -. Subject: -_JkSt ►� �,�i oti�e. r5 �3� Lot �o . 19 �'� 2�!zC��� ��5�, I--1-. --!--j_F C-_ o V- _ - - -- ----- I)C ( I I I I I I 1 �I- --� - --.----�--- 55.E-��'•- ---- -�o-�'�-'... � I i'I;�►1 .I -.►pill I I ti � -- - - I i STEWART&&SSOCIATES 103 PH. . ME DRUM, F31 FAX4O 9382 COLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: Date: 10 - 12 14 Client:y\'t CJ�N T7 "Pu -') Sheet No. of Project: Subject: &i-AogaS 0117,� - I_ - �s�•� -'�-�—?--- �,«- i ; �i�r � D �-l� as 4�ow- -T ��Ps:, � C ,BASIN -2 tau, _. �G��� .� 0.13L - - � Bns�u-._.LB�Z__�--►mow--!- ! i A�zA I -'--i - --- i I , I I � I I lii I i � '16 s aQi rA 3 a E O ° m a m coo G O O G 000 O C 7 U 0 S Z / V co 0 5cc: SL vi t Y 3 L' 0 O C. E 0 0 m a U O c b m Q N T O Ill STEWART&ASSOCIATES 10 S. MEL 3DRFM, F48O2 9 COLLINS, CO 80521 82 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors ' l By: � Date:- 9-30-4 Client: �eF2o(-t — Sheet No. __of Zi Project: �1� (_ihP�6 Subject: SA'S;w �Pt(Z�Soty TO Oat-4 L��I r (o. Ek�oizt '{ - -- - —I DI — -- ! ' 8-7' A' - �I� ' - — - - - I.12 2.. ' .� D, I.o I _ _I . -Y _��i �-ev�_ �!PCZ�I,zII C-�Ir z, I A ��. -_\.S i_,�- >cLli!i w��l�vI �Ityyl� _Slc��Pw. �i_�b._wi ��E�C+�rIsST1.i �.!a�? ._ ! RC\�uS��ve9 ! v�.r;�Si �I .ar•?c.Q �cl LLa,6 _-.__�•'1 Lam!! �� �.. ! I ..J __ _! ! I I , 1 i _ IL M.1 1-- !o�t �:,! !z� f -���� f•��-��1 ,. �.,.�?s,- lob ����..;�, � � ��� �!�� �•�� i Is TIo D�( Fi.�.t Alli�_I'�!�t... 36—S,# �. vs --� lElbTl�s—I�fW�ZAi$�(2 -! IYLI Up 4�!+C�FiC. !-j _ �,.1z+13s_c /v�. ��L_ Irs.¢c �orlA-c! .. !P w ! 9 _ �1? � I_ (•`� 7lt7 ! f. __ !—�_ � HZS . � IS I.-`( �'41�r1'C�I ` �J \'M�'w `�-i�__. C'�•n•�F,� kf-CS Dom' � � ��.P� �� � !� (,l .l) k.✓`,i1 —i---�---!—�il.�Ct,�iJ�S.I _ I��i j.o� ! �T---I-II ..�{_ i Rj--�-��Z1�•--! `'� ! tai� Z �l-�-Z -'T a"['P` ( (- P?e;�E`1%�i I t S� ^�J , ��-% .I. p�- .. � W _.!-._t �7olT-1 B-�j �IZifi'f✓ I. ���-+�,�-n ie�-!f�� i o�N ,•wl(.C, �C J ---I{-- ! %�Y-�•I L ('-t]:.. 1 I/-� I�-'>��r IC. (. h-�_I. b I _ %tit(. (.. i .A I �`/L.0� 1�� Q. C<} 1 i Gti ! �_. �vGi 16F TrY!•S ;.�1-t ����rie _ iv!6C C. T! Z+ �.` 5) !pr •���wCrco I ! ! , _. � !_ � I . � �'�. "� 0 2, �,\a,� ljRs! v.. I A -1 I R;cw-r� ! u_4rt� � �J.,�-!�/� �✓ �.— (-L:((.L j"'�•,\a% V,.LQ�I I ..mil I!tCi I. O{1, rr— ! ! if L,o STEWART&SSOCIATES 10 82 9 3DRUM,FAX FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 PH.Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: t�t� K- Date: Client: r--)Sheet No. Z of Z Project r, Subject: S ca, t QC c' .� j' iLt)�� �3�Zsloz ITIo:� .poAs!�--lS -I . )t��� �I_ 11le�_i_- V� �►"` �!_1�.t�. _ f`^� ;�,te( .NoS I. I Ic� � STo'e'v-:(5.-�+�� -'S[b2w`��A��wt�_.�_ i.I�€c-I._�}�SRcs �_ io1-TFt/!�i i0� I t� �4,-c- i a�.� C�JStYJCT�.7 � _. _T�(,l'.,_...� t� I _��_ "Q ' �I�-t �i t �v 1a2,��� j 1� E3 II�t � r1�S.u,✓t¢- I _ , t- --If—�4jAS1 Y'—' Wlll.,� l_ �� - CSL. JAR. 1-�-�!'iPy�i • / -`TI V ITI,; VA -- I z ?_ aC�. ii�i�---QASI.:►� __' 1 I I GIo i 2vzT m tF --�-. f��SZ..t� er- I �Ic _ - I('`�T- I Z �I _ Pc l- �J�' i..o : I . i 3 I l�i.e% •>� � J : i0 —t—i— _�>C� (� ZI I�Z�i_ _l�I111-iu•..�_f}h5. i�_�IN.I I -11-� _—�� �1�".�'!�'i ��4e..<3i�^� - I -�-- -GsI- 1 _—.If�.l 1 I. _ .�40 :.e+� .I -'jam-Ctt�nv if'la0s��' A p IZ �. } <S �t�—; Vtt►lSOL__ �CAti�'t�t.s':,o., t.W7l�i l-'.� 11;-�t ��'L� 2i:�t�r��J . — — -� N.w�- (. i IwIt• �soe-� j11 i i.v Str>cll��v=� c` S�12Ai--rI:`n<+' 1-�; Su02.,tS"il� ( ! I c '1u er �o ,1?.Ya._- LL-1 -naE _ low_ _S 1 M4 HYDROLOGY OF THE DEVELOPED UPLAND P.U.D. LOTS 19 29 39 5 t0 L cz 0 r U) 0 cz _U (z U`^ . U) W C O cz L ^� W U C A, �--� `t— O N E to m 1 T 21 cu C co O N I 'a"t � N tn. O C N` U acni E p ) :o p c `c U) coo O Z o m a: fj) a N v (O O C N y C L (n < o 7 O Q p N � N * N 0 ��j rn0 d 3 T c a(D > Tm�O p m N II F cN U M H � 0 O cn 17. EL ca 0- Z) J U- (C C i U- L RS C co U) 01 U STEWART&kSSOCIATES 10 82 9 3DRFM, F48O2ROT 382 COLLINS, CO 80521 PH.Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: III Date:- `'-%' T4 Client: �P- fit+ - &TTMA O Sheet No. of Project: Qb I?- . u . o . Subject: L)Q\, cV cc�z=-� L&T -4-4- Rk_�OoFF �JkTZ-7:1 . 9A--'10 i !-!'1 III --L �� -t— I ' i I III 1 --- I I 1 0 L 0 Z g CL cl STEWART&kSSOCIATES 10 82 9 LDiRUM, FAX FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 PH.Consulting Engineers and Surveyors , ` - By: +�� Date: -`�-SS Client: C���Cott- t r3TT�o Sheet No. of f Project: ('�/t�CVii� - Subject: lZ SlR� E71,,�S ..:s=z CT ii s, :4�{5 2& LIA { oo I I i x,_F.-_ 10 �3o�f io 1vi� { ACA�E��( �Z STR�fT: 2(, WOE X Z2oG•�. _ �i.ZO �F u Tic¢-t } _ #._ I . 1 i _ i .A + k Cv� ) /z S1`�aa�= _.w�Oe ?�? G•�, i= (� ULx) s ! �0 1�xrza I v I STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 S. 82-9 3DiRUM,FAX FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 PH. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors , \ By: LK-L Date: j —`r - �S Client: CAE Z 01-\ - F-ha Mf,Q Sheet No. Z of Z Project: Cl I:�4_k b Subject: -to DV 5�1'0I 10 tn,T�' ._-- I T - z i -3 Al; CIS-1 as ! i, y , 1--1 7 Z'-- 3 Isl coca I { - i { r— i a�1 V%A-CT ! JS.. F12J.�_•.-I_._�Z � S ' i ! i ono s. .+ti aF_.caL�Mti; ��Ttci44 �C`� � Wtt;c�� (CP-vsSt3� I ! ! S-7, 55C- s I. !I r_ _ I �_ i { v�D � j A, ap \S A So t'_,''JPis i (+a aST, i; v I`t85r IJpnia CaLnerQ_D U) C O d cz U_ O C U Mn o � � (z Ua e o ��vcoo � U) -��cn< C a� `O Q p N o C C�o31�0 \ O C > TOD II � OQ m .V.. fA IIF-9) 4 , L 0 (z LL I— V) }/ O ^C` W y U R C i O U O 0� T m C O ,a VD .F W ci 0 E 0 _0 cc U ` O ^�^ O W't 0- imm 0 c C o 0 L E L O vJ Z U- Uc C i U- L cu C cz CD cn w 0 O Z N 0 N N No Text DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF 5C 3C F- 2 0 z w U w CL 10 z w (L 0 5 w U) 3 0 U 2 cc N Q 1 NAM /� Sol �� ��■ ■■1� ' . oil / �W"� � �■■►I� I��Mw■■■/� �F�MfA IAINWIN N■■NN� ►��MW� I/■ I�� m■■ ■� :'���D:I�CCmBilliCC .2 .3 .5 � 1 ,IS 2' 3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING"UNDEVELOPED" 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 CONTROL DISTRICT L.t DETENTION DESIGN INFORMATION FOR UPLAND P.U.D. BASIN A-1 BASIN C �z DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept., U. of Colorado Supported by Denver Metro Cities/Counties Pool Fund Study Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Colorado ;USER=Stewart and Associates -Ft Collins Colorado .............................. EXECUTED ON 01-10-1995 AT TIME 11:31:31. PROJECT TITLE: Upland P.U.D. Pond #1 **** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 6.08• RUNOFF COEF = 0.72 ***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY -DURATION FORMULA IS GIVEN I(IN/HR)=CONSTI*H1/(T+CONST2)^CONST3 ONE -HOUR DEPTH (INCHES)= 2.60 CONST 1 = 28.5 CONST 2 = 10 CONST 3 = .786 ***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = 2.4 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .95 AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 2.28 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. �3 ***** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE MINUTE INCH/HR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ------ ---------- 0.00 ---------- 0.00 ---------- 0.00 ---------- 0.00 ------- 0.00 5.00 8.82 0.27 0.02 0.25 10.00 7.03 0.43 0.03 0.40 15.00 5.90 0.54 0.05 0.49 20.00 5.11 0.62 0.06 0.56 25.00 4.53 0.69 0.08 0.61 30.00 4.08 0.74 0.09 0.65 35.00 3.72 0.79 0.11 0.68 40.00 3.42 0.83 0.13 0.71 45.00 3.18 0.87 0.14 0.73 50.00 2.97 0.90 0.16 0.74 55.00 2.79 0.93 0.17 0.76 60.00 2.63 0.96 0.19 0.77 65.00 2.49 0.98 0.20 0.78 70.00 2.37 1.01 0.22 0.79 75.00 2.26 1.03 0.24 0.79 80.00 2.16 1.05 0.25 0.80 85.00 2.07 1.07 0.27 0.80 90.00 1.99 1.09 0.28 0.80 95.00 1.91 1.10 0.30 0.81 100.00 1.84 1.12 0.31 0.81 105.00 1.78 1.14 0.33 0.81 110.00 1.72 1.15 0.35 0.81 115.00 1.67 1.16 0.36 0.80 120.00 1.62 1.18 0.38 0.80 125.00 1.57 1.19 0.39 0.80 130.00 1.52 1.20 0.41 0.80 ----------------------------------------------------- THE REQUIRED POND SIZE _ .8058708 ACRE -FT THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 100 MINUTES cc N DETENTION POND BASIN A-1 HIGH WATER LINE VOL. = 1/3 (AREA ABOVE) (DIFFERENCE IN COUNTOUR ELEV.) 2. FOR THE REMAIMDER OF THE VOLUMES BETWEEN CONTOURS (SECTION 9.2) VOL. = DEPTH/6 (A + 4AB mean + B) 3. HWL= (VOL. REQ. —VOL.LOW CUML)*6/(AREA LOW+4*AVG.AREA+AREA HIGH) ORIFICE SIZING ORIGINAL DESIGN DATA 2.40 = Allowable Des. Release Rate cfs NOTE: 1. HORZ. PLATES WILL BE PLACED 6' 22.30 = Flowline Orifice Elevation ft BELOW GRATE 0.65 = Orifice Coefficient Cd 2. VERT. PLATES WILL BE PLACED 6.34 = Avaliable Driving Head ft AT PIPE FLOWLINE 11 VERT. SQUARE PLATE f�> STEWART&ASSOCIATES 10 82-9 3DRFUM, FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 PH.Consulting Engineers and Surveyors / By: Dater 10 - 13-67Client: Ur(-AQZ� -Vl{-SL--JSheet No. k of f Project: 11,, � Subject: t-tt 5-�2-� C ���o�=r- uf-�5i � LoT f\ l t �� !--- --+- 1 3• � _,dc.. _w�«. cXc�tzlck:��. 1_:Ir—��s� ��r f i I II I I i I,� I► � I 1 ;; I I -- I ----- I 1 -- __ } -- i DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept., U. of Colorado Supported by Denver Metro Cities/Counties Pool Fund Study Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Colorado USER=Stewart and Associates -Ft Collins Colorado .............................. EXECUTED ON 01-10-1995 AT TIME 11:34:01 PROJECT TITLE: Upland P.U.D. Pond #2 **** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER = 5.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 3.91. RUNOFF COEF = 0.58 ***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY -DURATION FORMULA IS GIVEN I(IN/HR)=CONSTI*H1/(T+CONST2)^CONST3 ONE -HOUR DEPTH (INCHES)= 2.60 CONST 1 = 28.5 CONST 2 = 10 CONST 3 = .786 ***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = .9 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .72 AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = .648 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. 41 I ***** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE ------------------------------------------------ RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE MINUTE INCH/HR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ------------------------------------------------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00, 0.00 j 5.00 8.82 0.14 0.00 0.13 10.00 7.03 0.22 0.01 0.21 15.00 5.90 0.28 0.01 0.27 20.00 5.11 0.32 0.02 0.30 25.00 4.53 0.36 0.02 0.33 30.00 4.08 0.39 0.03 0.36 35.00 3.72 0.41 0.03 0.38 40.00 3.42 0.43 0.04 0.40 45.00 3.18 0.45 0.04. 0.41 50.00 2.97 0.47 0.04 0.42 55.00 2.79 0.48 0.05 0.43 60.00 2.63 0.50 0.05 0.44 65.00 2.49 0.51 0.06 0.45 70.00 2.37 0:52 0.06 0.46 75.00 2.26 0.53 0.07 0.47 80.00 2.16 0.54 0.07 0.47 85.00 2.07 0.55 0.08 0.48 90.00 1.99 0.56 0.08 0.48 95.00 1.91 0.57 0.08 0.49 100.00 1.84 0.58 0.09 0.49 105.00 1.78 0.59 0.09 0.49 110.00 1.72 0.60 0.10 0.50 115.00 1.67 0.60 0.10 0.50 120.00 1.62 0.61 0.11 0.50 125.00 1.57 0.62 0.11 0.51 130.00 1.52 0.62 0.12 0.51 135.00 1.48 0.63 0.12 0.51 140.00 1.44 0.64 0.12 0.51 145.00 1.41 0.64 0.13 0.51 150.00 1.37 0.65 0.13 0.51 155.00 1.34 0.65 0.14 0.52 160.00 1.31 0.66 0.14 0.52 165.00 1.28 0.66 0.15 0.52 170.00 1.25 0.67 0.15 0.52 175.00 1.22 0.67 0.16 0.52 180.00 1.20 0.68 0.16 0.52 185.00 i 1.20 0.70 0.17 0.53 ------------------------------------------------ THE REQUIRED POND SIZE _ .5333686 ACRE -FT THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 185 MINUTES (,g DETENTION POND BASIN C HIGH WATER LINE VOL. = 1/3 (AREA ABOVE) (DIFFERENCE IN COUNTOUR ELEV.) 2. FOR THE REMAIMDER OF THE VOLUMES BETWEEN CONTOURS (SECTION 9.2) VOL. = DEPTH/6 (A + 4AB mean + B) 3. HWL= (VOL.REQ. —VOL.LOW CUML)*6/(AREA LOW+4*AVG.AREA+AREA HIGH) 33 05'- HWL POND ORIFICE SIZING ORIGINAL DESIGN DATA 0.90 = Allowable Des. Release Rate cfs 32.30 = Flowline Orifice Elevation ft 0.65 = Orifice Coefficient Cd 0.75 = Avaliable Driving Head ft NOTE: 1. HORZ. PLATES WILL BE PLACED 64 BELOW GRATE 2. VERT. PLATES WILL BE PLACED AT PIPE FLOWLINE 11 VERT. SQUARE PLATE 11 No Text HYDRAULIC DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR UPLAND P.U.D., LOTS 19 2, 3, and 5 Ilk =---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING j DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER:Stewart and Associates -Ft Collins Colorado... ....................... ON DATE 01-06-1995 AT TIME 08:05:15 *** PROJECT TITLE: Inlet I-1 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 1 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 5.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.50 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 1.46 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 10.38 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.33 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.39 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.20 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 10.89 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.10 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.10 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.10 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.10 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 1z i ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- UsER:Stewart and Associates -Ft Collins Colorado .................... ON DATE 01-06-1995 AT TIME 09:22:27 *** PROJECT TITLE: Inlet I-2 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 2 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = STREET MANNING N = GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: 10.00 22.64 0.65 0.57 0.88 2.00 0.016 1.50 1.17 WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 15.44 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.43 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.18 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.50 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 15.00 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 5.17 (cfs)= 7.96 (cfs)= 4.55 vm)o (cfs)= 3.41�1N�Y'vS-3 (cfs)= 7.96 (cfs)= 4.40 (cfs)= 3.56 -2; ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------ TTQVV anA nccnni ai-oc-Ft !`nl 1 i nc !•nl nraA^ ON DATE 01-06-1995 AT TIME 09:31:44 I ** PROJECT TITLE: Inlet I-3 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 3 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. i GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: 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)= 0.50 Note: The sump.depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = STREET MANNING N = GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 0.40 2.00 0.016 1.50 1.17 16.75 0.46 2.24 2.92 50.00 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 35.69 (cfs)= 6.52 (cfs)= 6.52 (cfs)= 0.00 (cfs)= 6.52 (cfs)= 6.52 (cfs)= 0.00 'rim N N L`cL v m �c ccna ��imLni•N 0)LG CV CD tt) OCMMQ OaO CGTT 0 ¢_ 0Z o I o Z I cm o T T O F T T corn 3 L`a�iXa `mnonun�, CU IT CM a1 Ln N w 0) ri 0 Ch CL) T Q o o o o Z E CQ G _ d a rn E mO tmq CD ffi a c c O a) d > J L)a u'a U N M ` /< I.i. C_ C_ V C A M >N �j d Q N dN NV �[ cr) `O>J _ o s 0 S C ON CV) y c c c E c E E � I I 0°'ww o O o E.r., m Oda�b w tea= w c cQ N T N C cmC> �' E E¢ O O T A `cl T V T V 1 O r t�ao+i VJ L1 aa)i CD � fa°+i 0)i Vi ccoo0 a)) Co EL � Q Z T I N I C9 I C) L CL � X Z Z Z c d a>i I C O i o� O J LZ �D �j N N M a) N O v C L La n N L6 'OCa w N > > L � o 3 Y Y co co U co am a) o. a 'a « r � O Z F- 0 Z 0 z r- z o c o< co >.,.o II II 0 LO 4-a C43 ci CZ C). cz LLJ 700 C.) .. z 0 N cz C). L. CWL CZ , C,4 3 U) LLJ LLI 3: _j CL a- LLI 0 0 Z -i -i Z U) U) LLI W C) Fn Eo- 11 11 11 LO C) a co LO LO 0 C\l CM 6 C=i c; LO 0) rn co D c (13 cl) 1�- 00,4i 1. rum-)! �6; + cact) ccd\ol (Cnir. (0 t r r` t- n .r` N ico M. Lo T7 r` co CO co' CO N CD a N co 0+)' IT-.: LO 0) m Ca cq .CN N N M Co Int, IT .75t, LO "Al f 0. C\l ID r- Lo 0 wNININ C9 ce) CV CV) c 4 It aLL 000000000.00 0 1—. C\l CV) qt tq Iq P� cq P� 0 0 C\i C\i,(\i N N C\j N N, c4j -C 0 LL U cz 0- r N N O cz 0CL °' O O �aUcz fac° N CI)� Il n u v u ^, i L0 (Z 0 _ O O O O O O O ^, W }� V/ cz �L 1� U Z 02 O U <a L c) cu c I- CL co cz >% o D U) o U' I W C cA O z a) .� 0 a o o 160i c '0 io 00 N N OO O O 0o0000000 �J 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uuiouiouio�nouio U F ♦-r NN0M 0:,0-V IN 0 w SPILLWAY / WEIR DESIGN Weir Equation Q = C L (H) ^ 2/3 Q (cfs), C (weir coefficient), L (crest length, feet),,H (energy head, feet) See Table 704 in this Report for C factors _ 5 = Weir Length H (feet) 3.1 = Weir Coefficient (C) Weir Shape Spilway Pond #1 Design Flow 2.4 (cfs) Depth of flow H (ft) Flow Over Weir Q (cfs) 0.25 1.94 0.26 2.05 0.27 2.17 0.28 2.30 0.29 2.42 0.30 2.55 0.31 2.68 0.32 2.81 0.33 2.94 0.34 3.07 T' CR�ES� ll`f-1111 —=n1 '- 4-c)L6.6I- SPILLWAY / WEIR DESIGN Weir Equation Q = C L (H) ^ 2/3 Q (cfs), C (weir coefficient), L (crest length, feet), H (energy head, feet) See Table 704 in this Report for C factors 5 = Weir Length H feet 3.1 = Weir Coefficient C 4� Weir Shape Spilway Pond#1, Lot 2 -1 i Design Flow 2.4 (cfs) Depth of flow H (ft) Flow Over Weir Q (cfs) 0.25 1.94 0.26 2.05 0.27 2.17 0.28 2.30 46 0.29 2.42 0.30 2.55 0.31 2.68 0.32 2.81 0.33 2.94 0.34 3.07 CRtiST Mali µ �F gil l it i� 1 4928.64 '4 SPILLWAY / WEIR DESIGN Weir Equation Q = .0 L (H ^ 2/3 Q (cfs), C (weir coefficient), L (crest length, feet), H (energy head, feet) See Table 704 in this Report for C factors 5 = Weir Length H feet 3.1 = Weir Coefficient (C) (( Weir Shape Spilway Pond #2, Lot 5 Design Flow 0.9 (cfs) Depth of flow H (ft) Flow Over Weir Q (cfs) 0.10 0.49 0.11 0.57 0.12 0.64 0.13 0.73 0.14 0.81 0.15 0.90 0.16 0.99 0.17 1.09 0.18 1.18 0.19 1.28 aKe w_ ®49a-5.fl�. K-r,, 5. LOVELAND STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL TABLE 704 WEIR FLOW COEFFICIENTS SHAPE Sharp Creste3-- Projection Ratio (H/P = 0.4) Projection Ratio (H/P = 2.0) Broad Crested w/Sharp U/S Corner w/Rounded U/S Corner Triangular Section A) Vertical U/S Slope 1:1 D/S Slope 4:1 D/S Slope 10:1 D/S Slope B) 1:1 U/S Slope 1:1 D/S Slope 3:1 D/S Slope Trapezoidal Section 1:1 U/S Slope, 2:1 D/S Slope 2:1 U/S Slope, 2:1 D/S Slope Road Crossings Gravel Paved COEFFICIENT COMMENTS 3.4 H 21.0 4.0 H21.0 2.6 Minimum Value 3.1 Critical Depth 3.8 H 2O.7 3.2 H 2O.7 2.9 H20.7 3.8 H21.0 3.5 3.4 H21.0 3.4 H 21.0 3.0 H21.0 3.1 H21.0 O 0 0. •. ... w u JJ �+ u DCG.CC OF fy6MCOGCMCI w ' ADJUSTMENT FOR TAILWATER WRC ENG. REFERENCE: King Brater, Handbook of Hydraulics, McCraw Hill Book Company, 1963 -739- L?'o r. REFERENCED REPORT 1984 FOR UPLAND P.U.D. UPLAND'S PROSPECT BUSINESS PARK FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DRAINAGE STUDY July, 1984 Upland Industries Corporation 3350 Peoria St., Suite 105 Aurora, Colorado 80010 303/340-1065 AZ A Suosidiary cf Union Pacific Corporation Planning & Development City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 �l pi :r, InC�aU�u> i;�;f C'Vf airYi -' Peona S'r:et Swie 105 to H001!) .!��; !:J 1065 July 5, 1984 Re: Upland's Prospect Business Park. To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed herewith please find the drainage study for Upland Industries Corporation's proposed Upland's Prospect Business Park. The subject property is located on Prospect Road between the Union Pacific Railroad and the Colorado and Southern Railroad. This report is prepared in conformance with the City of Fort Collins' published storm drainage design criteria and is submitted for review, comment and approval. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Arnold H. Niemeyer, P.E. Land Development Engineer AHN:sr Encl. 02 Ott9oDo a •r ..n� J k` ' o V�sor00 0� July 5, 1984 INTRODUCTION This report is prepared by Upland Industries in conformance with the City of Fort Collins' requirements for the development of Upland's Prospect Business Park, a proposed industrial and commercial develop- ment. The subject property is located in the City of Fort Collins, and is generally bounded on the south by Prospect Road, on the east and northeast by the Colorado. and Southern Railroad, and on the west and southwest by the Union Pacific Railroad. The site contains ap- proximately 20 acres and will be developed as commercial, warehouse and storage, and possibly light manufacturing sites. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this report is to generally determine the impact with respect to drainage of the development of this site. More specifically, peak runoff quantities for the two-year historic, ten- year developed, and one -hundred -year developed storms have been calculated to determine storm sewer facility requirements. These values have also been used to determine grading and -detention re- quirements. METHOD OF ANALYSIS Hydrologic analysis of this site has been accomplished by use of the Rational Method. Basin Runoff is determined by use of the Formula Q = CCFIA. Where: Q ='Runoff (cfs) C = Runoff Coefficient CF = Frequency Factor I = Rainfall Intensity (in) Composite runoff coefficients were calculated for each basin based on railroad right-of-way, landscaped, and paved areas. These values were used not only for runoff calculation, but for the time of con- centration. Runoff coefficients for the historic condition were assumed to be 0.5. Since this site was previously used as a lumber yard, a considerable percentage of the area has been previously graveled and this was taken into.account in this assumption. Detention ponding was calculated using the procedure presented in "Airport Drainage", prepared by the Federal Aviation Agency, and also found in the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control Manual. Discharge runoff has been limited to that of the two-year historic rate, except where otherwise noted. 9� -2- STUDY AREA AND'DISCUSSION The study area, as described in the Introduction of this report, is divided into four small drainage basins. All basins drain generally from the Union Pacific railroad tracks on the .west to the Colorado and Southern railroad right-of-way on the east. These basins are desig- nated A, B, C and D. Upstream offsite runoff is limited to a portion of the Public Service Company site draining to Basin A. and a 24" cast-iron pipe draining to Basin B. The Union Pacific railroad tracks prevent off - site drainage at all other points. Historically, Basins A, B and C are part of the Spring Creek_ Drainage Basin. Basin D is a part of the Poudre River Drainage Basin. Future City of Fort Collins drainage projects will bisect the Upland property carrying runoff from these major drainage basins to their respective discharge points. Since the Upland_ property is situated at the downstream end of the Spring Creek Basin, detention pondinq_wou probably no e �required due to the small time of concentration for it basins; however, since i is no yet known w en this project will be ,-detention ponding will beprovide in an g wi e storm project is completed. this Site_ Tn some it such time as the major A more detailed description of each basin is presented as follows: Rasin A Basin A is situated adjacent to Prospect'Road at the southernmost end of the project site. Historically, this basin receives offsite runoff from the Public Service Company site to the west and drain to a sump area on the Colorado and Southern right-of-way. The entire basin,_ including offsite, generates approximately 9.3 cfs for the two-year historic storm. For purposes of determining runoff for the developed condition, this basin has been subdivided into three sub - basins; O-A (offsite), A-1 (area west of Upland.Drive), and A-2 (area east of Upland Drive). Rather than'discharge the runoff from this basin to the sump on the right-of-way of the Colorado and Southern Railroad as historically occurs, Upland proposes to extend the proposed storm sewer in Prospect Road northerly to intercept runoff from this basin. This will, however, require upsizing of the proposed 18" RCP to a 24" RCP. The City of Fort Collins intends to begin construction on the Prospect Road Widening Project in 1985. Until this project is com- pleted, Upland will continue to discharge runoff to the Colorado and Southern right-of-way yTT `means inlet at design point 2 proposecinlet in Prospect Road Propsec is construe e . of a temporary 24" " RC_P from the inlet at point 3 t will be installed and plugged unt 0 Jor � 0 - 3 - The release rate from Basins O-A, A-1 and A-2 will be limited to 14.3 cfs. Runoff from Basins O-A and A_-1 will be detained to release only 9.3 cf- by means of a parking lot detention pond The actual release rate of the detention pond will be 6.1 cfs with 3.2 cfs being und_etained in U land Drive The proposed detention pond will have a capacity of 28,545 cubic feet to accommodate a required detention of 25,520 cubic feet. Discharge from the detention pond will be by means of a Type D inlet. Inlets at the lowpoint in Upland Drive will intercept street flows. Basins A-2 will also be detained. The release rate will be_ limited to 5.0 cfs. Of this rate, 3.2 cfs will be undetained street flow. Available ponding for Basin A-2 will be 8,788 cubic feet. Required detention is 6,600 cubic feet for a release rate of 1.8 cfs. Basin B Basin B is situated in the center of the subject property and drains generally from the Union Pacific railroad tracks on the west to the Colorado and Southern railroad right-of-way on the east. Historically, Basin B-1 (2.5 ac.) has no offsite runoff and drains to a 36" cast-iron pipe under the Colorado andSouthern tracks Basin B-2 (5.7 ac.) receives offsite runoff from an existing 24" cast-iron pipe under the Union Pacific tracks. In discussions with Mr. Phil' Waite._of the City of Fort Collins, it was determine t at this pipe does not have the ap city to carry aLl of the runoff from the up- stream rainage bas.1ZL and t at offsite run ff from this area shou 1d be considered to be the capacity of this pipe assuming a reasonable head- water situation. Assuming that ponding occurs upstream of the pipe to an e eva ion of 4,933, and that there are no downstream obstacles to create a tailwater situation, this pipe can carry 34 cfs. The dis- charge from this pipe and the channel which transports.this runoff j across Upland's property are part of the City of Fort Collin's proposed Spring Creek Outfall System. A-40' wide easement and a channel section will have a capacity of 340 cfs (the City's one -hundred -year design flow) will be constructed in the developed condition. In the developed condition, the discharge from Basin B-1 to the existing 36" C.I.P. will be eliminated. Runoff will drain to Upland Drive and flow northerly to the low point in the street. Basin B-2 will also drain to the street and flow southerly to the same low point. Flows at this point will be intercepted by inlets on each side of the street. Street flow capacities for this basin have taken into account both sides of the street since there are no contributing areas on the east side of the street. Flow from the inlet on the east side of the street will drain directly into the proposed 30" RCP under Upland Drive. Flow from the inlet on the west side of the street will drain by means of a 24" RCP westerly into the proposed drainage channel. The proposed' 30" RCP under Upland Drive i§-desiQneda to carry 41.7 This will l include 34 cfs (offsite) and 7.7 cfs (two-year historic). NSf�� s ,(_0 G° SST 1 off. 2q 5 ,q(I - 4 - A culvert will be installed under Upland Drive to discharge off - site and onsite runoff from this property. This culvert will be designed to carry 41.7 cfs. This will include 34 cfs (offsite) and 7.7 cfs (two-year historic onsite). In discussions with the City of Fort Collins, Upland has been informed that when the Spring Creek outfall is built, no detention will be required for this basin due to its proximity to Spring Creek. It appears that the peak discharge for this basin will have passed before offsite runoff from the existing 24" C.I.P. becomes a factor. It is, therefore, felt that any detention required can be accommodated in the oversizad drainage channel. This will be a temporary situation until such time as the Spring Cree ou a is built. Basin C Basin C, like all other basins, drain from the Union Pacific tracks on the west to the Colorado and Southern right-of-way on the east. This basin has a two-year historic runoff of 5.2 cfs. I receives no offsite runoff. It is anticipated that very little, if any, grading will occur on this area. It is likely that this area may be -utilized in the future for outside storage of materials. If this occurs, paving will not be required and the basin may be con- sidered to remain in the historic condition. If this site is developed as a commercial or industrial site with building and paving, detention ponding will be required. A detention pond with a capacity of 60,900 feet would be required to limit the runoff.from this basin to that of the two-year historic storm. Basin D t�? �" _�� Basin D is situated at the norther ? n most tip of the project site and contains only 0.9 acres. This basin drains to the northeast. Due to the size and configuration of this basin, it is anticipated that no development will occur other than a possible.landscape area. Since there is no anticipated development for this basin, no detention will be provided. Conclusion All calculations involved in this report are included in the Appendix. The flow rates and detention ponding requirements deter- mined in this report have been used as a guideline to design storm sewer facilities in Upland's Prospect Business Park. 9J 5 - This report is submitted to the City of Fort Collins for review and approval. Prepared by: rnold H. Niemey r, P.E. r �- v'� a '• - t. a •, 916 i APPENDIX No Text SHEET NU. -OF JOB N0. BY DATE moo / 7" r o A /'� c% �/ P�7' r - ■■■n ■nn■ n ■■EMEN / n■� r MIC-W M n ■■■■■ME ■■■■■ En■nM_r �= L �■■�■■■n■n�nn■n MEN ■■■■■EA/MML SEMMIURVA ' - +- MEM■■�■■i■MO■■iii■■O■■■■■n®■ ®��■■■ii■n■i■■■�iia■ ■■nnn■■ IE MIN ■ MENEM 'L�) Z:- SHEET NO. _ OF UJS�/ eSS �G'r� JOB N0. r BY DATE -17 /iir7F' � Co.-�Ge�'I7i�o_ r"io/J �a�?-J�Cl�7'O/7S BROKEN ■■■■■ ■■■■■� M■■■■■■■ ■M■ Emmommommommomomm■■■■■■■ ■■MEMO■■ I,■■■■■■■■� Q - ■r PAR �AF91n■m■■■■M■■m NEWEE■M ■i■■E■■■■■■■■■�■■ ml .0Nrl■rit�"■� • �r ■■■■ EOM , .■� MEN No Text SHEET' NO. _ OF JOB N0. I BY DATE o% rC�-clo MEN Illom � im■■■■■■■■■■wr,'� IMEMISM ■■ ■■■=Fimmm �■ �r�►�■■MEN - m■rr■■■■■■■IF I c EMEME CI-- i I e �i• ' � I 1 -- i i I Ocll I 7,//11a 1C' c / — SMttl (lu._W. � JOB NO. BY DATE 0 roll /D �./ r- s`` /D.� u r . �T'a r r� c' •� %7a ,/.� �n ✓;.� ni ■■■■■MEME ■■■® ■■■i■ii■■■■■ ®■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■. o■ _ on vim ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EME ■■�� ► ,, ■■■■■■■■■■■ FARE, : "!rFMA .■■■■■ ■■ I t i 1 ! 1 I �� j �' i/ J � � I�L� ✓L I i i ! I — � IN� ii ' � '1111' o ii11Cm HIM i � ii CiIII �fl� uu i�ul�0iu�iiCi' Mill III ■�� .0 �n�� i i �� I III I . �81111.111111111111111111111111111111 ®61111i11111111111l1Hill 1111111111 . l�81111�1111�1111 �il�llllllllllllllll �011N�1111�11111��1�1111111111111111 �81��� 11�11111�1� 5�1111111111111111 _ . ®81�,.. , �,�1111111111111111 �� . - 1111-1�1��.If IN 111111111111111 11 Hill • 10l1111111111111111111111 �1111 111pi11 111111111111111111 i 11n POUND lIII iiNiiiiliillillill 1111�IIICO 11 III 111111O 1119�1111�i111111�1111111111111111 91111@1111111111E11�111111111111NO . ®Olilll�llli11111��1�1111111111111111 ®01O 1111111111111111111111111111 �1111 1111111111E MEN 111S11HIM �01111111111111111111111111111111111 �01111111111111111111111111111111111 ®HIM 1111III 111Hill 1111110111111 ®0111111111111111111�11111111111111 ®01119111lilllllll 1111 11UNN n 5 i I I 1 5A DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL INLETS Q CULVERTS A;�� �a,�a�,;�y — z17/a) eas;7 180 _ w,o00 From BPR. 168 8.000 EXAMPLE 1) (2) (3) 156 6 000 0•42 Inch" (3.5 foal). 6. 6. 144 5,000 0. 120 cfe 5 4,000 Fes• Hat 6 s. 132 0 fan. 4 3,000 (l) 2.3 o.e 5' a. i 120 (2) 2.1 Ls 2,000 (3) 2.2 7.7 a' 108 t 00 1n feet 3. 96 1,000 1800 . 84 600 2. 2- // 500 72 400 2' Cn t w 300 Z N � 2 60 v 200 / H 1.5 Z — Z W 0 54 i Q \' o w 48 / 0 100 =34� 80 f>: a Q v 42 60 IL1.0 1.0 ILL 0 in 59 HW ENTRANCE in SCALE 0 D TYPE Ir 1.0 cr 36 w 9 9 ►- ' w 30 (1) 34aore edge with 4 3.9 < 33 hoahell 0 a 20 (2) Groove aM with a W 0 30 hoog.an x 8 8 (3) Groove and •� 27/ projecting 10 8 T 7- 24 7 I 6 To gee •cola (2) or (3) project ' 2f i' 5 horizontally to $gala (I), then . 4 ase *freight inclined line throallt 0 end 0 ecaiee. of ra*arle as .6 3 illustrated. 6 .6 IB 2 � IS .s •s L.5 Lo For design, use charts and nomographs 12 in chapter t0. FIGURE 4-2 INLET CONTROL NOMOGRAPH EXAMPLE IL-15-68 Denver Regional Council of Governments 95 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL INLETS 9 CULVERTS 150 10,000 I{8 80000 EXA)MePLE (I) (2) (3) 156 { �� D•ft Is"" 11.t fwt) { 6. 144 5,000' o•110Its 5, 4,000 H. {• 5. 132 w 4. 3,000 It) 2.5 M. 5' 4. 120 (t) t.1 7.4 10{ 2,000 in t.t 7.7 4. 3. •D I• tat 3• 96 1,000 {00 ( 3. 11Lo 54 600 / _ p- 500 72 400 x 300 ♦ / 1.5 k 1.5 a / 1.5 {0 v 200 r _ 0 54 0 ¢ W 100 _ 40 / a 80 J z 4t o HMIsCALE ENTRANCE c 40 p TYPE t 10 ~ 36 W f W 30 I) {**we ad" win 3 33 D..e..Ir c < f t0 (t1 M..•. �N •1f• c 30 twN1nII = { M•IKUN .. 1E .f .f !7 10 1 .7" 14 { .7 { To «• NU• (2) M (3) M•INt tl 5 Mrls«tely to 64414 (11,tk" 4 ••• •tr•lftf 10611"4 il« nro"6 D «. O N•1••, of r««f• « ,e 3 u1..tr4fN. is ... t IS 5 .5 1: HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL FIGURE 10-10. 11-15-68 ! JOB N0. BY DATE 4Sin/ MME �i1l�i% �/ � �Ni=mil • • L�/J� J i �' � 1•o d 'l !i�llll� i I . I �•O�oI 94-siec o!o I -e' T ; S 6� + 3,7 3l Z .c4S { ; i No Text ' JOB NO. BY DATE 17 �S A,/ 4 —Z DE i 'eE,A1 Ti O1-/ ■ A i r- • . �� i I ' i102 • ���• j�• •' •UZI•A r1 � MUMMA 42 f u , I 8 J IG ✓1 DI ;S %/ 0.Sii�'GT SHEET NO. _ OF _�tJs(/If°SS /-k JOB N0. • BY DATE ■ nnn 1 w� nnnnn n nnnnnnnnnn nm�i noon ''r . nnnnnnnnn�nW •' • nn - �nnnnnanun�nnnnnnnnn �nnnn • noon • • �n non . FA�n►r�IQi'�' w J �� r • NAP ! -b I I I r i i i v? '� I .•ram i � i � JOB N0. BY DATE I I J 4 d, a. V3 Y& I 6,, dP �a i -r'e? 4-- I I ! t I I I r n t Vo VV ! iS I I�Ilillll I II IIII r i!ii�� oW 15� I t I ie44se , r? Ad l i� l l l i l I I I I j'j l i l i I! I i i l i i•! �! -- va j 1.71 1 1I ! I rtT—f I i 17, o I I I I I Zcb i l 1 153 ! ha .i I z I I m! I I 4o �— I i it I I( I I i I W • I Ind I i I I I i zi col !! q b I I I Isd I o f ! I I 1 ! d dob i i 4�oiJ -- !I/ do I I iz., I ' X &V I I 1 1/ * 6 i i i I I I ha t l 1 I f iz ! of i i� l Po. I 5194b Y• i t i l l) 1 i( I I I i Zb 1 1 1 1 i i i I I I I i !! ;! lili!IIIII Illllil!II lt;:;. !iiil!!III Illfllliiillll?i�+ ii!��Ilitli! �I!!ilillii i I If ! i � I I I � j � i � ! ! ! • f! I ' I I i i I i• I I I I : . 1 • . � i i � ' 1 I : I I _ � I ' Ind SHEET NO. _ OF �c.li'I i1 eSS CP K./ P/" JOB NO. • BY DATE For/4'et.1 co �nnnnnnnnnnnnn nn nnnn ;�'7�. nnnnn �n nnnnnnnnn _ / n Iy • n i nnnnnnm -�mm�mm ;,I Sf-I tt 1 NU. _ UF- JOB NO. BY DATE 17 (fa /O MEMO HMO���� _ am Ed E�r� m1 II J ! ince o ; rU rj 0 A4-1 10d+ -1 f- S-io' of- �cfa Its' /�P7[' '4 ��tr�t ,rlaJ�a! �I �6i�� = /%.4 •! i I I i� �� 1 I�� 1 1' � 1 I ' 1 1 I • 1 i I 1 • I 1 � •_� � � � t I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 No Text REFERENCED REPORT FOR PITKIN-RIVERSIDE OUTFALL UPLAND P.U.D. 101 alloil IAV ,li\Ti '1 h Ail ]$ ��310N] — Cup L IL OF e = Jf 1'- n W y 8 ti s W f nOlS a: CK LS 1'L tSa a W. �J LIJ���C� E aE FIE NO$tl]17G r F V -FI-7' s W City of Fort Collins calculations J for Pitkin Riverside Outfall May 1985 �t1F E I F I IL no] I[B2 $ n j `f if V JL Lin TR&T, Wlob� �e, '�re, YVI i rC �zc�e LA Foujyfl ?a r� 5-3)-85 Ufa �e"l�'rniYb2� h �4roQ�2P� �t� �� y2L� �®rW v �o fie, ur i by 5l�;loll,Inc, (TAyl Glark,) 6 �- 0Y, o; C r� - L� fed L d �C, a-y� ' � P z,r rz; n � m , 1-3zs;vi sI 47, , Sec; c6k, Cu+�2i) CjC"3 &A 64km 4 • YO -r4LJ Acres = o• i3o2 �oWtPoSi� _ i �, �i-�vue �"o C�vr'�rod ':IG,OO = L • 3D 3 � Cu P.Y �rC I �,y„ C6+UMP1�'RF ��"ih li4'�' M -fjJYlM- 04W-SlDEF 9#39J SPR1n1(yr GAL, _-SIN AREA = .1302 SQUARE MILES �l LENGTH OF DRAINAGE PATH = .625 MILES 3 3 ( I CE 111 I (r4 TJ i DISTANCE TO THE CENTROID OF THE BASIN = .303 MILES oto00 ) AVERAGE SLOPE OF BASIN = 1.2 % IMPERVIOUS AREA = 61 % y.L: 0-91 Ct = .284666 Cp = .549259 Qp = 264.872 CFS Tp = 12.8677 MIN W @ 50 = 14.7468 MIN W @ 75 = 7.66832 MIN CriME UNIT HYDROGRAPH (MIN) (CFS) 0 0 5 119 10 214 15 228 20 137 25 107 30 80 35 53 40 26 45 0 VOLUME PRODUCED BY 1 INCH OF RAIN OVER BASIN.= 6.944 AC.FT. VOLUME OF UNIT HYDROGRAPH = 6.81692 AC.FT. DIFFERENCE IN VOLUMES =-1.83001 $ 111 i 100 YEAR DESIGN STORM . PERV.AREA= 39 8 LMPERV.AREA= 61 8 .39% 61% TIME INC MAX DEP EFF EFF DEP LOSS EFF EFF TOT.EFF PRECIP INFIL STORG PRECIP PRECIP STORG PRECIP PRECIP PRECIP MIN IN. IN. IN. IN. IN. IN. IN. IN. IN. IN. 5 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.02 15 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.07 20 0.14 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.08 0.08 25 0.25 0.04 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.24 0.14 0.14 30 0.42 0.04 0.07 0.31 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.40 0.24 0.36 35 0.75 0.04 0.00 0.71 0.28 0.00 0.04 0.71 0.43 0.71 40. 0.31 0.04 0.00 0.27 0.10 0.06 0.02 0.29 0.18 0.28 45 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.10 0.16 50 0.13 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.08 0.11 55 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.06 0.08 60 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.05 65 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.03 70 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02 75 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.02 80 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.02 85 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 90 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 95 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 100 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 105 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 110 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 115 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 120 0.01 0.04 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 TOTALS 2.89 INFIL 0.50 1.61 0.63 0.10 0.14 2.65 1.62 2.24