Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 10/02/2001PROPERTY OF ' r FORT COLLINS UTILITIES final A _ ��,r Report I• FINAL Date DRAINAGE AND. EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR WESTBROOKE P.U.D. SECOND FILING SENECA STREET AND TROUTMAN PARKWAY l • May 26, 2000 i (Revised October.3, 2000) (Revised January 26, 2001) (Revised August 2, 2001) Prepared for. P & B Partnership Mr. Chuck Betters 9 Mr. Dick Pber 6201 Eagle Ridge Court Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970)377.4913 Prepared by: Jeffrey W. Couch, P.E. Team Engineering, Inc. 906 Richmond Drive, Unit No. 2 Fort Collins, CO 80526-5973 (970)207.1970 e Project Number 701.9401 1 January 26, 2001 Mr. Basil Hamden Fort Collins Utilities City of Fort Collins 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing — Final Drainage & Erosion Control Report Project Number 701-9401 Dear Basil: We are pleased to submit this Final Drainage & Erosion Control Report for the Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing. This report is prepared in conjunction with the Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing Final Plat and Construction Drawings and in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Design Criteria. Except for minor backyard flows into the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, runoff from this project is intercepted by an outfall storm sewer which conveys 100 year flows into Detention Pond 247 recently completed as part of the Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. First Filing. Close coordination was maintained with the Sear Brown Group who addressed regional issues as part of the McClelland and Mail Creek Master Plan Improvement Design Analysis. Additional coordination was maintained with Development Engineering Services who designed downstream portions of the outfall storm sewer and now are completing the remainder of the Seneca Street and Troutman Parkway improvements as part of Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. 31d Filing. We look forward to your review comments and feel free to contact me at (970) 207-1970 if you have additional questions. F� Chuck Betters, P & B Partnership 114 East 5th Street Loveland, CO 80537 • Office:970-613-2040 • Fax:970-613-2038 • Toll-free:1-888-404-3612 January 26, 2001 Mr. Basil Hamden Fort Collins Utilities City of Fort Collins 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing — Erosion Control Estimate Project Number: 701-9401 Dear Basil: I am submitting this analysis of costs for establishing an erosion control escrow account as required by the City of Fort Collins. These costs are based on the final erosion control improvements shown on sheet 3 of 10 of the Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing Final Construction Plans. Three alternatives were compared as follows: Alternative #1—Cost of Construction TOTAL ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST AMOUNT 1. Silt Fence 1750 L.F. $ 3.00 $ 5,250.00 2. Straw Bale Filter 10 EA 50.00 500.00 3. Curb Inlet Gravel Filter 2 EA 200.00 400.00 4. Temporary ReseedinglMulching 9 Ac. 615.00 5,535.00 Alternative #1 Total Alternative #2 — Cost to Reseed in Lieu of Construction ITEM QUAN71 UNIT 1. Seeding 11.5 Acres COST $11,685.00 TOTAL AMOUNT $615.00 $7,072.50 The reseeding cost of $6151Acre is provided by the City of Fort Collins for sites larger than 5 acres. 114 East 5th Street Loveland, CO 80537 Office:970-613-2040 • Fax:970-613-2038 • Toll-free:1-888-404-3612 Mr. Basil Hamden City of Fort Collins January 26, 2001 Page Two Atemative #3 — Minimum Cost As per City of Fort Collins Policy, a minimum erosion control escrow balance shall be $1,000.00. Based on this analysis, Alternative #1 Cost of Construction, should be used to establish the erosion escrow amount City of Fort Collins Policy is to set the escrow amount at 1500/6 of the highest alternative as follows: $11,685.00 (Alternative #1) X 1.5 = $17,527.50. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 207-1970 if you have additional questions. Sincerely, letters, P & B Partnership .�ov �n y9Q 16584 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certifications Introduction...................................................................1 Site Desciption.............................:..................................1 Adjacent Land Uses..............................................................1 Drainage Master Plan........................................................... 2 Historic Drainage On-site................................................................3 Off-site................................................................3 DesignCriteria.............................................................3 Proposed Drainage............................................................ 4 Basins AiA2 B, & B2.................................................... 4 Basins CI,C2 & C3..................................................... 4 BasinsC4& Cs ........................................................ 4 BasinsD, ............................................................. 4 BasinsD2............................................................. 5 BasinsW,& W2....................................................... 5 Outfall Storm Sewer........................................................... 5 Erosion Control .... :.......................................................... 6 Conclusion.................................................................. 6 CERTIFICATIONS OWNER P & B Partnership, a Colorado Partnership, hereby certifies that the drainage facilities for the proposed Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing shall be constructed according to the design presented in this report I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and will not assume liability for the drainage facilities designed and/or certified by my engineer. I understand that the City of Fort Collins reviews drainage plans pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes Title 30, Article 28; but cannot, on behalf of P & B Partnership, a Colorado Partnership, guarantee that final drainage design review will absolve the Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing and/or their successors and/or assigns of future liability for improper design. I further understand that approval of the Final Plat and/or Final Development Plan does not imply approval of my Engineer's design. P & B Partnership Mr. Chuck Betters ENGINEER I hereby certify that this report for the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for the Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing was prepared by me in accordance with the provisions of the City of Fort Collins STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA and CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS for the owners thereof. I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others. , Respectfully Submitted, #440/ ZJe . Couch, P.E. orado Professional Engineer No.16584 For and on Behaff of Team Engineering, Inc. FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR WESTBROOKE P.U.D. SECOND FILING AT SENECA STREET AND TROUTMAN PARKWAY This report has been prepared in conjunction with the development of detailed site topography and final construction plans for Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing. It is the intent of this report to address drainage related issues and provide solutions to any problems identified in accordance with the criteria established by the "CRY of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria Manual". SITE DESCRIPTION Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing is located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado or more generally described as being located at the southeast comer of Seneca Street and Troutman, Parkway (See Figure 1— Site Location). This project is proposed for forty-one (41) single family home sites consistent with development completed in the Westbrooke P.U.D. First Filing. The area to be platted includes 11.47 acres and is currently vacant and covered with native grasses. The proposed average lot size is approximately 9,484 square feet The drainage area which includes adjacent street right-of-ways is 15.24 acres. ADJACENT LAND USES A variety of land uses will exist adjacent to the Westbrooke site. The completed Westbrooke P.U.D. First filing sits adjacent to the southern border of this project and consists of 70 single family residences. N SORY �� • .u:v J•.aa \ MKI W f III!It I \• n • A lL_ au W ii• I i L Y _ s r „ i i na `Y�F` 4 A•� Yv .0 w• 3 r I cc co l— • m rs In C011• p I� �; i�f' vN •\v �•3' rtf .ifi i'Sj'-'I ~ '� .�1iy/ "• i I r> rs vii vv4. �'/� nl •y9 it ld `..' it Yp 1. vv\ .r!• 1 F� �IIL•Y•M 5 •� b �J !I, �� Y ` a ^!ti a I 1� colon it sy �••e•wew' S ! 1 \ a. I ""°'° °'c' C011w�r\ ` i/ � 1! • v?!.a..ry, a / a.+t~ Ye � / .� •ems ,�. 1 �,r vy �1/,� !•.r �, s I� r-vQ `� 1 N v ..y'r�. \��/ ��t/ v^Ss �_.r �_y___ 'I� I � • �; •� � �_•� •' 1 ` `iY. � YY'/f •'�. � I -_ill l it tf/ 34 wi= L// . aYi1C per._. y j / aa• 1 ' /a o ! •vvtl i wwn. wv gs F7 �M•i11q .00Y•� AJ•f -J-.; 1 HARMONY --ROAD C •..rww.•O•ol !f� M.IOCMr NO SCAIF SITE LOCATION Figure 1 Seneca Street borders the west side of the project and provides access to the existing Webber Junior High and Johnson Elementary School campuses. Undeveloped area to.the northwestwill become a city park and undeveloped property immediately to the north will be developed as singe family units known as the Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal runs a4acent to the east boundary of this project and provides a buffer between Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing and the proposed Pinewood P.U.D. The Pinewood P.U.D. will eventually be developed for commercial uses. DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing is currently within an area recently master planned by the City of Fort Collins. The McClellands and Mail Creek Master Plan was updated by RBD Consulting Engineers in conjunction with the Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. project in.late 1994 and again in 1999. Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing is shown as Subbasin 46 in this report (See Figure 2 — SWMM Basins.) A meeting was held on June 30,1994 between Kevin Gingery of RBD, Dennis Donovan of Development Engineering Services and Jeff Couch of Redpeak Engineering to review proposed master plan changes. Both the Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. and Westbrooke Second Filing P.U.D. will be in conformance with this master plan. It is intended that Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing (Subbasin 46) convey upstream detention releases from the Johnson Elementary School through its site. The initial SWMM Model routed these flows through the proposed Pinewood P.U.D. directly to the east These offsite flows and the flows from Subbasin 46 will now be routed directly to regional Detention Pond 247. (See attached letter dated 6-6-94.) (See Figure 3 — Revised SWMM Schematic.) Pond 247 will provide the necessary detention volume and water quality volume for the Westbrooke P.U.D. 2 t �'� �("• —I•.—_•Ira Vx 4 / .. �{O ' � — �� • ' 1.'J •! V+ CA Go CD v 1 . co ! Zn FI EA I ` 8 I.. - CQ 1 •j �:i �'1. ' ' •+a� � ice. y •� ` m �I I•• arrswY..I • �: -:•' •r. I+rxi« i (�_ � ; �1 � - 'q' . �,•i ,I •, _. / �/ �1 ••1 'I I � I .� MIIr1Y 1 {w\ �•�� ; JR� �� _ ` •-� , '1 //"i\ r • / L ,' of t� II j• ,•' N'. �. 'vy ,li_� l _ �,r r. r�`\. vl ,via {L71J \. ,y�.. W. is tt__ I\ :I 1 �/� ' — 1 '\ -' �v •yr( v r. i 1 jp•• I•'t '� 1l I •'j.. w^'_� •, :,, 1V ` i f�. I is � 11 1 5114K •-'� / r — — � t:,�'•i�....• 1 /•• ;,,,,. � a � .,f F. - �� a I /a f 1- 1 ••� • t ,•I , Ila� YI. q • �. `` j i .j1' ,�2� •i-7. /.I .�11.I: ;11•.•.M• :r' ' • VI :••: • J• 1� (',,�-a 1 ,((l� �, •� '�'t 't' `. :'�.1, 1 � F` Q �'• 1�O !P' • 1 I' '�j- �� .. ..F�` 41 .�' '1 jf1T N, tA • t //�\ i W '(0 +:t,:'yi - .fir = , r.•,:-.;;,.i 1 O �''� ate- _� + r~ 'r. w•r.l.• �� � 1•' .. IIt • t:� � :St, .1 •�I• N ' ',,,a•` /•F•1 _---�I=CAL--`• ��•.• Ftj Na ' I f 1 CLIENT �nit = Tz:ropT 0 nu ime, JOB NO. 1DZ.O- l03 we PROJECT �nM1 lTAIM7 Dw--E CALCULATIONS FOR , Engineering Consultants MADE BY -Bd,DATE CHECKED BY_DATE SHEET 131 OF 77. 11LT - r---t i. nyE I�,lo. 3 vis . :GLUMM s�HGn•AWIV.i ... : . i .. i .. .PL.6DSAIJT�V4.l,A,.E/'�• L111LE.n,_^����. � . I `.2-7B Z47 ; 4-3 49 45 5a ; 719 �.._ i is 260 ,_.._...: ...I ... ,..... .., .. - - --= - --- ---t - -= - - — I I I I I , I 1 . F jWe 3 HISTORIC DRAINAGE On -Site Drainage runoff from the Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing historically ran from west to east and discharged into the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Approximately 33.9 cfs drained directly into the canal during a 100 year event (See Appendix for Calculations.) Off - Off -site flows have historically had little impact on this site since this project sits on the divide between the McClelland and Mail Creek Drainage Basins. The majority of the area to the south (Westbrooke First Filing) drains away from this site. First Filing runoff crosses under Wakerobin Drive and is detained in a regional stormwater facility. Backyard flows from Lots 24-29 and Lots 53-57 run onto this project and are included in the calculations. Flows from the north will flow northerly away from this site to the proposed regional detention facility and will have no impact Flows from property to the east across the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal also have no impact Drainage from areas to the west (school sites) are collected in detention areas along Seneca Street These flows are released via a controlled outlet into a 24" RCP under Seneca Street at a historic Q,00=23.1 cfs. This is the only off -site water which enters the Westbrooke site and this runoff will be conveyed via a storm sewer through the site to the northeast into Detention Pond 247. The Rational Formula has been used to develop all stormwater flows for this project The Rational Method of determining stormwater runoff is an effective way to determine flows in basins less than 200 acres. 3 PROPOSED DRAINAGE A number of drainage basins have been identified as part of the Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing design. A summary of each basin follows. BASINS A, Az % & 62 Basins A,, A2, B, and B2 represent the paved areas within the Seneca Street right-of-way. These flows follow the existing curbs to a low spot adjacent to the school entryway. The street flows from the west'/ of Seneca Street (Basins A, & A2) flow directly into an existing inlet. Flows from the east % of Seneca Street (Basins B, & 62) will be conveyed by the curb and gutter and collected in proposed Inlet A. The existing curb depression and headwall will be removed and replaced by a new inlet at the location of the existing 24" storm drain. BASINS C, C2 & C3 Basins C,, C2 and C3 are the proposed areas west of Westbrooke Drive including Soda Creek Court, Roaring Fork Count and Dry Creek Court. Inlet B collects flows from Basin C2 & C3. Inlet D collects flows from Basin C,. BASINS Ca & C6 Basins C4 and C5 represent the front yards and roof drains from the area east of Westbrooke Drive. These flows are collected by Inlet C and directed into the outfall storm sewer. BASIN D, Basin D, flows include the grassed backyard areas and rear roof areas of lots 32 — 41 in Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing and from grassed backyard areas from lots 53 — 57 in Westbrooke P.U.D. First Filing. These flows run to a swale with a trickle pan along the property line to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. 4 BASIN D: Basin D2 represents the backyard grassed area and rear roof areas adjacent to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal along lots 28 - 31. No flows will be concentrated and all runoff will sheet flow into the ditch from lots 28 - 31. BASINS W, & W� Basins W, includes lots 1— 3 and a small amount of off -site backyard runoff from lots 26 — 29 in Westbrooke P.U.D. First Fling as shown by the topography prepared by RJL Surveys. Basin W2 includes lots 40 and 41 of Westbrooke Second Filing. These flows are directed easterly through the First Filing and are included in the design of the First Filing. (See attached Drainage Map for the First Filing.) They have no impact on the Westbrooke P.U.D. Second Filing. BASIN T, Basin T, is located at the north edge of this project and includes the backyard flow from Lots 25 — 27 and the sideyard flow from Lot 28. The subbasin only includes the area to the south curb of Troutman Parkway. This runoff is overland flow which spills into the south curb of Troutman Parkway and runs to the east While these flows are included in this report, they are also included in the analysis for Mountain Ridge Farm 3rd Filing. The Mountain Ridge. Farm 3ro Filing analysis also includes the Troutman Parkway street improvements as subbasins DATR-3 and DATR-4 as shown in the exhibit included in the appendix of this report All improvements which are necessary to accommodate flows from Basin T, are included as part of the Mountain Ridge Farm 3rdFiling project 5 OUTFALL STORM SEWER The backbone of the proposed storm drainage design is an outfall pipe which conveys developed 100 year flows from the site to Detention Pond 247 built as part of the Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. First Filing. There are several advantages to this design as follows: 1. Flows from this project will not negatively impact the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. 2. The routing of these flows match the regional drainage concept completed by RBD in 1994 and 1999. 3. Detention and water quality is not needed on the Westbrooke site. This need is provided by the regional facility (Detention Pond 247). 4. Potential impacts to the undeveloped property east of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal are eliminated. Figure 4 — Storm Sewer Schematic shows the general layout of the storm water collection system. A UD-Sewer analysis is included as Appendix W. EROSION CONTROL Wind erosion will be minimized by the seeding and mulching of disturbed areas. Wafter erosion will be minimized by straw bales, inlet filters and silt fence. Inlet filters will protect inlets A, B, C, & D. Silt fence will be constructed along the north, east and south perimeters of the site. Straw bales will protect Channel A. CONCLUSION Flows from Westbrooke Second Fling, including off -site flows from the Johnson Elementary School, will be conveyed by an outfall storm sewer to regional Detention Pond 247. The fotiowing can be summarized Do from this report: 1. This site does not exist in a defined floodway or flood hazard area. 2. Historic detained releases (Q,00 = 23.1 cfs) from the Johnson Elementary site will be conveyed through this site via the proposed storm sewer. 3. These improvements are consistent with the outcome of the McClellands and Mail Creek Master Plan revisions completed by RBD Engineering in 1994 and 1999. 4. Detention for this site will be provided by a regional detention facility completed as part of the Mountain Ridge Farm P.U.D. First Filing. 5. Impact on the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal will be greatly reduced. Only runoff from fourteen grassed back yards will flow directly into the canal. The historic Q,00 = 33.9 cfs will be reduced to 10.6 cfs. 6. A 36°, 42" and 31' X 51' arch RCP pipe has been completed through the Mountain Ridge Farm PUD 3rd Filing site as an outfall for this project. This pipe was installed in early 2001 to Manhole S-3 in Westbrooke Drive. 7. . The existing 23.1 cfs from the school area now runs directly into the PV & LC. This flow will be conveyed by storm drain to Pond 247 and the 100 Year impact from the school will be changed from 23.1 cfs to 0 cfs. 8. A small wetland area (less than 1 acre) has developed from runoff created from the school site. This wetland has been determined to be non jurisdictional and will not need mitigation. (See attached letter.) 7. u Balloffet Offices BALLOFFET7 Fort Collins: 9 0-221-3600 & Associates, Inc. San Francisco: 415 922-4575 Wo557--1312010,eE i?U, Z7, Z NA FlLIAJ4 Project Project No. Date T3 T6/Elf 5/Y>1- Client Sheet of fivo� �a.¢i/J/1GE /fFPo.eT Gc m JWC Subject Designed by Checked by 5 E bti E2 5 C/� E. I7 OAJ ELEN-tEiJ T.q✓Ly DETFNTiOA/ p ST//./G /tiLET ('S' (e 13aX� Z`f° 2CP _.... ......_. f, 3G'/2CP h 36° 2GP 36" 2cP !� EXsfil�b IAJLET D //.1LE7-,S EX) stlaj h rh�,s-a.r mA*s-3 1"H5-4t MH-s-S� " rtGP—Z'P "' 2GP _o / �f z" 2CP 7/—a- �Z—•e � F7(iS�ia J 3/, 3 " l 2CP .4R C.L+ yZ" 2CP — /3 I"I-/- s - 7 < o T � vz,"2CP J /t K Sfi�Y /y1NS-8 Z) / S 4- /O " 2 f3 0;C 36 " 9C F-Q /,Ve-C— c /s .4 s' 2 aoX Ex�s�i� i36'� /� 36 2GP /,ak t � n o, �oQ �� . r •� UIJ SFN�E/L �gUgLYS/$ — -�� 56'WE'C no. =O2 Ub sewe'f avTi_ET TG �Q-,t1.9-Ly3 /S TiL�TEN i /a!J 0 y w $ O �O N w a vi vi CV O � o F U w It N n M to N N O - W q dw~ pr �0 �6 6 �6 0 0$ o U a EA .7 U y .• -» o r r r n I r• 0 M t1 M M ri N N N N N N M O w q O S M M- M M O\ O ON O\ 0� O\ M F FUI F I d ti ti W) .Mr .M� .M-i en t M iFw~ W O [tea y VV M M cn M V1 V1 V1 to V1 to en V1 to V1 Vl In V1 \.O 1.. w z cx ca ~o F (, F O to O to O to O to M Wn O v, O v, O to O to O v, O Wn O v, U +r Ad o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y a F o o O tr O O '� O It N O O [r O '�' O �' O O It O It O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o c rA es y F � � Y ai ai c� u u u 3 3 z� 0 U a) V a) A A A A A A A w 0 0 0 0 a' Z 03 U cc$ U Cd cU m U O O O O 0 O 0 O o O O N N � . �. t, F. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 H b w W) O w O ON U � W � O A cl F, � o a� 0 .ti CO d � Od y U v' W .0 cz !! U iY w � y N L� 0 C EN TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF ALLOWABLE STREET FLOII'S LOCAL STREET CLASSIFICATION 36' FL -FL ROLLOVER CURB & GUTTER 71V0 YEAR ,(No Curb Topping; IE: Depth = 39') 100 YEAR (.No SW Topping; IE: Depth = .51) GRADE % THEOR. 2-YR CAPACITY; cfs RED. FACTOR ALLOW. 2-YR CAPACITY; cfs THEOR. 100-YR CAPACITY cfs ALLOW. 100-YR CAPACITY; cfs nin 4q,!q n i id 4n A IA n r'jqn 14 00 17 in 7 R 7: n Ron ^R7 7 in IC mn Iq rl 1d:7 sm 7 -771 n IVA A 7 7 7 n on R'td d;9 IA^d 70 R Ict n rrA A odc 1712— f.0 d 0 cl I R 715 ig no D On Ron 707 10 47 14q Al I An 1 17 IM 11 1 '1 ;n In: A 2rk, It i 'n 0 7 An 10 OR n AM R 79 17,47 -?n 11 :7 O nK 77:7 1799 n RnM a :7 117 0 it on 1107 O C7 77 co 1R R7 17 -)R n ann 9 Rly ')&-)1 1417 7 in 11) ;R n RrA 1 'td An 10 FA d) )n 11)R 7 in ja 7 n 7 1 'fi 0 1) Ln 19LS n 7714G 71Gi7 5n i en 1171 n 76A 10,6917 nA 1060 9 An tL nn n 7,;og in i 77 An -)n R 7 7 14 1 7d 7 7 Rn 1A T) '1R AA 11 114 on IA" n 710In 7A14 /7 7 AM Iq /td n 710-in pq 0 Pq'f �[ R In IQ n )ng in 917 %n 1 'f t ,% d%n I i7 It I no1 7 tn igni n 7 i O 7 i 'f 7 97 7 19 L - q7 L 'f dt 170 w7n: 7 7 07 *)n O 14 on 17 1 0 :9 Rn d37,12n d7 :d '1: 1.9 14 0 -�I R it/ - LoCA I .S-r rv'T -31, Ft f — rL I ZLLove/i _ C L 6- EN�/ioALF�.h��!ir"..: C2beY1; a' FIZ* :',a -ace �{..' / oG` :5A v�Js'h/*LL �L orA:go �Ql(.vwAGC1...::.S. /Z�-l'T_ CA?A.G'r s.-M(:F i 1...GWC75 Rl'F�,c./-;�i1 0%✓ �4s s E :. -TjILe:;- Y2 HAS/- A'.G2rRAN_,.G�ez,! C.�LtvtA7r�. /iv AIlfc- D;k. �4.:�:_.ANA-w'ICc dLr' fUC7;l°L;rp::LLV_.�Nl"..;/Z[:OvcT�ii.✓.F.4ctu2S.;l•4/�t^N "F2vn+. %iG.: '�'�. OF 7i4L�": sGaG G05070.84 • No Text G050713.8A WESTBROOKE P.U.D. SECOND FILING BASIN INFORMATION SUBBASIN DISCHARGE POINT AREA ACRES Al 1 0.50 A2 1 0.26 B, 2 0.50 B2 2 0.26 C, 6 2.63 C2 3 2.10 C3 3 1.97 C4 4 0.46 Cr,4 0.98 D 5 2.03 D2 Sheet flow direct to ditch 0.64 W, Part of 1 Filing 1.29 W2 Part of 1 Filing 0.27 *T, Westbrooke runoff into Troutman Parkway 0.30 *DATR-3 North'/ of Troutman Parkway 1.13 *DATR-4 South % of Troutman Parkway 1.13 *Basins T1, DATR-3 and DATR-4 are included as part of the Mountain Ridge Farm Third Filing analysis. All flows, conveyances and drainage improvements for these areas are part of the Mountain Ridge Farm Third Filing project and are summarized on Sheet 4 of 27 of the construction plans for that project (see attached excerpt). BALLOFFET M Balloffet Offices Fort Collins: 970-221-3600 & Associates, Inc. San Francisco: 415 922-4575 • WE57-/�S/lO0KE U. Z:), Project Project No. Date • T' � T.3 /'iA2 i /./ f/1 S /� l P . Client - Sheet of /�/.VRL Dic �4/Ni4lE /�E?02T - 6C.1''1 .l WC Subject Designed by Checked by /6 04145 5' STo/tiY/ SErvE2 SC/�Efy7.oriG 0 �GoGt/ i-/t07" 1/0NN60a/ ELCtill eii74-,Zy DE7BN7-/O/C/ Z'f„ 0ec a Ex/sr le; /tiLET 2 BOX) - • p /ti1t-E7- /4 36''RCP h 3G''.RCP 36" 2c10 z9'//Zc� emti4d //JC.ET D / /ticEr t3 �XlS M - Si. >" x 3/. 3 • m 146 3 IMP4 5 - It Z'f" ecr / ItGP /0 /0 S //.I Ce T C /O . S I M H- 5- G t) �p S/. / " yz'" 2CP — 12CP �4RCF} � /3 . Ex�s�i� • /N/+5 7 (� ° 4`Z'2CP i �Ki31� MAI5 � m/t s 8 14(?7-E : //V LrT 7b / s .y- /p' 2 f3 aX 11ve-ET C3 /5 4- /S'%1 aV.t- � /.vcCT C /5 * S' � cdoX !76''R • � • � ml+/J/,FuLE L D /n o, r-OQ I • OP 5EWE2 1fv'+LY5/5 /A\ - 113 SEwEC no. T=02. Ub SEW6'le Ov7-CcET To • i9V�9 LIDS /$ TLeTE/a i IOAI WESTBROOKE P.U.D. SECOND FILING BASIN SUMMARY SUBBASIN Area (Acres) TcZ TGm Intensity Discharge Iz (Inmr) I,m_ (Inthr) Qz (cfs) Q,m (cls) A, 0.50 95 5.0 5.0 2.9 10.0 1.4 5.0 Az 0.26 .95 5.0 5.0 2.9 10.0 0.7 2.6 B, 0.50 .95 5.0 5.0 2.9 10.0 1.4 5.0 Bz 0.26 .96 5.0 5.0 2.9 10.0 0.7 2.6 C, 2.63 .61 15.4 12.2 1.9 7.1 3.0 14.2 C2 2.10 .61 13.7 10.7 1.9 2.5 2.4 12.0 C3 1.97 .61 15.8 12.1 1.8 7.6 2.2 11.4 Ca 0.46 .61 10.4 8.0 2.4 8.4 0.7 2.9 Cs 0.98 .61 14.0 11.6 1.9 7.2 1.1 5.4 D, 2.03 .43 14.9 13.1 1.9 7.0 1.7 7.6 Dz 0.64 .43 10.0 7.2 2.6 8.8 0.7 3.0 W, 1.29 .61 5.0 5.0 2.9 10.0 2.3 9.8 W 0.27 .61 5.0 5.0 2.9 10.0 0.5 2.1 T, 0.30 .25 5.0 5.0 2.9 10.0 0.2 1 0.9 WESTBROOKE P.U.D. SECOND FILING SUMMARY OF INLET ANALYSIS INLET SIZE & TYPE CONDITION DESIGN FLOW 0100 cfs THEORETICAL CAPACITY (cfs)(foot) REDUCTION FACTOR PONDING DEPTH (feet) A I 5' R Box I SUMD 1 7.6 1.9 0.80 1 0.8 B 15' R Box Sum 23.4 1.8 0.90 0.8 C 5' R Box Sump 8.3 2.1 0.80 0.9 D 10' R Box On -Grade 14.2 1.0 - 0.6 PONDING SUMMARY INLET INLET ELEV. ELEV. SPILL LOCATION SPILL ELEV. DEPTH AT CL DEPTH AT FL A 106.00 106.50 SE Comer Troutman & Seneca 107.04 0.5 1.04 B 103.80 104.60 SE Comer Westhrooke & Troutman 105.10 0.5 1.30 C 103.70 104.60 SE Comer Westbrooke & Troutman 105.10 0.5 1.30 D 1 104.66 1 105.16 1 SE Comer Westhrooke & Troutman 105.10 0.0 0.44 Maximum Depth at FL = 1.5' Maximum Depth at CL = 0.5' N \ 'ram .r •("Q / ,( o 00 ry 0. JiL-. _ ca Q� / soft V /moo CNV 14% IV � o"S oo. � � � \ ry Yo t o`O � r Q b 4 � %/ h � ' � 46 '1 ♦ � L n on' 2.0 .4% �Q 2.o% 1�6ra� / � r • �,� c� �i Cot -- 2.2� 2.?R GOP /Vo � � h ` \ 30 30 �✓ �' �� HORIZ: 1 " = 60' Su>a91 � mob.. UTILITY PLAN AF • i ^ \ CITY OF FORT COLLINS, APp�dix � BALLOFFET7 FortColli��970-221-3600 & Associates, Inc. San Francisco: 415 922-4575 Gt/E57-/:S/200E U,Z::,, Z L/AJ4 Project Project No. Date P � /3 /'i9.2TNf/15/�FIP Client Sheet of fIAJ.4 4e 2fPaR7- G C. nI -/WC Subject Designed by Checked by /'_/� IiRE 5' STO/l/7�/ SEI.fiE2 SG/�E!'1'7.fr/G �L o kl/ P2 a /Y> >/ pnyN S O AJ LEfyt E/J T.¢/Ly DETENT/O.C/ �/ ?ONF? Z`f 2cf _... o ri.vG //1C.ET �S' 2 Sax) 2-Y 2CP o LVC E7- i S' 2 Box) . h 36' 2GP mx s -Z 36" 2cP_ Z9''Rcp (/N //JCEr S i- Si. 7" x 3/. 3• 3� / )4-5-3 1"H5 -5� 2CP A.LCy Lrf"lLGP / Ya" 2cP / NJ • �P� /0 /O S ' /.C1 G.E T C In . S M ff 5- 6 O �p S/. / " x 3/. 3 (LCP Adecl+ • �'Z" 2CP —I /3 C mi+s- 7 o TTT 4�z"2cP � h • At • �c/�TE : /N[ r T D If .¢ IO' 2 f3 a i' /1 36 " "C P • lve-e7- c3 /s I.T l3Ve j li /5 ,¢ s' R BoX 36" RGP 36"ri •• /a /t AIJ14vLE 7,0 r 04 1 OP 5 E W 64 4-u,4- LY 5/ 5 A • =moo SEWE�C no. =Oet 'Ua SElNE/? avTCET rp • /�✓.V D • vvaavvvaaaaaavvavaaaavvaaaavveaaavvvv v v a a av vvavvvvvvvaeaavvavnvvvv a avvv vvaaaaa STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL Developed by Civil Zug. Dept, U. of Colorado at Deaver Metro Deaver Cities/Counties & DDFCD Pool Fund Study vaevnvvnvevvvvvvanvvvvevaavavvvvaaavvv=nvvvvaaaavnnvvvvvvvaaaaavvvaaaaavevavva USER:Balloffet and Associates ................................................ ON DATA 05-02-2001 AT TIME 15:30:43 VERSIONa09-02-2000 *** PROJECT TITLE :Westbrook P.D.D. Storm Sewer *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS RAINFALL INTENSITY TABLE IS GIVEN *** SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS MANHOLE BASIN ID NUMBER AREA * C 112.00 0.00 111.00 0.00 110.00 0.00 109.00 0.00 108.50 0.00 108.00 0.00 107.50 0.00 107.00 1.09 106.50 0.00 106.00 3.40 105.50 0.00 105.00 0.00 104.50 1.43 104.00 0.00 103.50 0.00 103.00 0.75 102.00 0.75 101.00 2.32 TIME OF CONCENTRATION OVERLAND GUTTER BASIN RAIN I PEAR FLOW To (MIN) '------------------------------------------------- Tf (MIN) TC (MIN) INCH/HR CPS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.38 2.67 10.05 7.71 8.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.13 6.11 14.11 6.85 23.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 9.95 14.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 3.67 4.62 9.95 7.49 0.95 3.67 4.62 9.95 7.49 0.00 0.00 5.00 9.95 23.07 THE SHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES FOR RURAL AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION a>10 MINUTES FOR URBAN AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION a>5 MINUTES AT THE 1ST DESIGN POINT, TC <a(10+TOTAL LENGTH/180) IN MINUTES WHEN WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFFn> .2 , THE BASIN IS CONSIDERED TO BE URBANISED WHEN TO+TF<>TC, IT INDICATES THE ABOVE DESIGN CRITERIA SUPERCEDES COMPUTATIONS •** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAR FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION --------------------------------------------- MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET 112.00 0.00 0.00 0.00- ---------------------------------- 0.00 0.00 88.74 NO 111.00 9.74 .15.89 6.47 63.03 92.50 89.63 OR 110.00 9.74 15.31 6.59 64.21 100.10 94.16 OR 109.00 9.74 15.21 6.62 64.43 100.60 94.75 OR 308.50 9.74 15.04 6.65 64.78 103.30 96.62 OR 108.00 9.74 14.63 6.74 65.62 105.58 97.54 OR 107.50 9.74 14.50 6.77- 65.90 105.10 98.89 OR 107.00 1.09 10.05 7.71 8.44 103.80 102.60 OR 106.50 7.41 6.20 9.41 69.74 103.88 100.51 OR 106.00 3.40 14.11 6.85 23.26 103.70 103.01 OR 105.50 5.25 5.93 9.54 50.06 104.56 101.38 OR 105.00 1.43 5.07 9.92' 14.14 104.70 101.90 OR 104.50 1.43 5.00 9.95 14.18 104.66 102.61 OR 104.00 3.82 5.48 9.74 37.23 106.42 102.31 OR 103.50 3.82 5.18 9.87 37.73 108.00 104.24 OR 103.00 - 3.82 3.11 9.90 37.86 106.00 105.10 OR 102.00 3.07 5.02 9.194 30.52 106.10 105.92 OR 101.00 2.32 5.00 9.95 23.07 107.00 . 106.70 OR OR MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER TEAM GROUND ELEVATION SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= 1 SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) WIDTH ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 101.00 102.00 ROUND 24.18 27.00 24.00 0.00 2.00 102.00 103.00 ROUND 26.86 27.00 24.00 0.00 3.00 103.00 103.50 ROUND 29.12 30.00 36.00 0.00 4.00 103.50 104.00 ROUND 29.08 30.00 36.00 0.00 5.00 104.00 105.50 ROUND 32.26 33.00 36.00 0.00 6.00 104.50 105.00 ROUND 20.15 21.00 24.00 0.00 7.00 105.00 105.50 ROUND 20.12 21.00 24.00 0.00 8.00 105.50 106.50 ROUND 35.58 36.00 42.00 0.00 9.00 106.00 106.50 ROUND 24.25 27.00 24.00 0.00 10.00 107.00 106.50 ROUND 16.58 18.00 24.00 0.00 11.00 106.50 107.50 ROUND 33.07 36.00 42.00 0.00 12.00 107.50 108.00 ARCH 40.82 42.00 31.30 51.10 13.00 108.00 108.50 ARCH 40.75 42.00 31.30 51.10 14.00 108.50 109.00 ROUND 40.56 42.00 42.00 0.00 15.00 109.00 110.00 ROUND 40.48 42.00 36.00 0.00 16.00 110.00 111.00 ROUND 42.15 48.00 36.00 0.00 17.00 111.00 112.00 ROUND 40.14 42.00 36.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISTTNG SIZE WAS USED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE CO14MBNT ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 23.1 22.7 2.00 7.34 1.70 8.12 7.34 0.00 V-OK 2.0 30.5 22.7 2.00 9.72 1.84 10.10 9.72 0.00 V-OX 3.0 37.9 66.9 1.62 9.76 2.00 7.57 5.36 1.51 V-OK 4.0 37.7 66.9 1.61 9.75 1.99 7.56 5.34 1.51 V-OR 5.0 37.2 50.0 1.93 7.76 1.98 7.52 5.27 1.06 V-OE 6.0 14.2 22.7 1.15 7.62 1.35 6.26 4.52 1.39 V-OE 7.0 14.1 22.7 1.14 7.62 1.35 6.25 4.50 1.39 V-OE 8.0 50.1 78.1 2.04 8.62 2.20 7.84 5.20 1.17 V-OR 9.0 23.3 22.7 2.00 7.40 1.70 8.16 7.40 0.00 V-OR 10.0 8.4 22.7 0.85 6.68 1.05 5.06 2.69 1.47 V-OE 11.0 69.7 132.3 1.81 13.94 2.62 9.03 7.25 2.05 V-OE 12.0 65.9 67.8 2.73 6.34 2.56 8.91 7.12 0.87 V-OR 13.0 65.6 67.8 2.72 8.34 2.55 8.89 7.09 0.87 V-OR 14.0 64.8 71.3 2.62 8.40 2.48 8.89 6.73 0.93 V-OK 15.0 64.4 47.3 3.00 9.12 2.56 10.04 9.12 0.00 V-OE 16.0 64.2 42.3 3.00 9.08 2.55 10.01 9.08 0.00 V-OR 17.0 63.0 47.3 3.00 8.92 2.54 9.89 8.92 0.00 V-OR FROUDE NOMHER-0 INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ___________________________________________ -_____ SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUDISM UPSTREAM DNSTREAN UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 1.00 103.48 103.38 1.52 0.72 NO 2.00 1.00 103.38 102.88 0.72 1.12 NO 3.00 1.00 102.88 102.45 0.12 2.55 NO 4.00 1.00 102.25 100.53 2.75 2.89 OX 5.00 0.56 100.33 99.15 3.09 2.41 OE 6.00 1.00 101.09 100.75 1.57 1.95 OE 7.00 1.00 100.55 100.00 2.15 2.56 OE 8.00 0.60 98.95 98.09 2.11 2.29 OR 9.00 1.00 100.34 99.99 1.36 1.89 NO 10.00 1.00 100.04 100.01 1.76 1.87 OR 11.00 1.72 97.89 93.45 2.49 8.15 OR 12.00 0.50 93.56 93.23 8.93 9.74 OE 13.00 0.50 93.02 92.01 9.95 8.69 OR - 14.00 0.50 91.40 90.97 8.40 6.13 OR 15.00 0.50 91.27 90.98 6.33 6.12 OR 16.00 0.40 87.49 86.24 9.61 3.26 OR 17.00 0.50 86.24 85.74 3.26 -88.74 NO OR MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1.5 FEET •** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 10.00 10.00 105.48 105.38 106.70 105.92 PRSS'ED 2.00 50.00 50.00 105.38 104.88 105.92 105.10 PRSS'ED 3.00 42.82 0.00 105.88 105.45 105.10 104.24 JUMP 4.00 171.61 0.00 105.25 103.53 104.24 102.31 JUMP 5.00 210.27 0.00 103.33 102.15 102.31 101.38 JUMP 6.00 34.00 0.00 103.09 102.75 102.61 101.90 JUMP 7.00 54.67 0.00 102.55 102.00 101.90 101.38 JUMP 8.00 143.30 0.00 102.45 101.59 101.38 100.51 JUMP 9.00 34.56 34.56 102.34 101.99 103.01 100.51 PRSS'ED 10.00 2.72 2.72 102.04 102.01 102.60 100.51 PRSS'ED 11.00 257.94 156.51 101.39 96.95 100.51 98.89 JUMP 12.00 67.00 67.00 96.17 95.63 98.89 97.54 PRSS'ED 13.00 203.19 203.19 95.63 94.61 97.54 96.62 PRSS'ED 14.00 85.84 85.84 94.90 94.47 96.62 94.75 PRSS'ED 15.00 58.23 58.23 94.27 93.98 94.75 94.16 PRSS'ED 16.00 313.00 313.00 90.49 89.24 94.16 89.63 PRSS'ED 17.00 100.00 100.00 89.24 88.74 89.63 88.74 PRSS'ED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *•* SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FACTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT R COEF LOSS FT R COEF LOSS FT ID FT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 101.00 107.53 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 102.00 107.39 2.0 102.00 107.39 0.90 0.64 0.94 0.00 0.00 103.00 105.55 3.0 103.00 105.55 0.23 0.40 0.18 0.00 0.00 103.50 105.13 4.0 103.50 105.13 1.77 0.40 0.18 0.00 0.00 104.00 103.19 5.0 104.00 103.19 0.82 1.32 0.57 0.00 0.00 105.50 101.80 6.0 104.50 102.93 0.00 1.32 0.42 0.00 0.00 105.00 102.51 7.0 105.00 102.51 0.70 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 105.50 101.80 8.0 105.50 101.80 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 106.50 101.78 9.0 106.00 103.86 0.36 1.32 1.12 0.25 0.60 106.50 101.78 10.0 107.00 102.72 0.00 1.32 0.15 0.25 0.79 106.50 101.78 11.0 106.SO 101.78 2.06 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 107.SO 99.67 12.0 107.50 99.67 0.32 1.32 1.04 0.00 0.00 108.00 98.32 13.0 108.00 98.32 0.95 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 108.50 97.33 14.0 108.50 97.33 0.35 1.32 0.93 0.00 0.00 109.00 96.04 15.0 109.00 96.04 0.54 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 110.00 95.44 16.0 110.00 95.44 2.88 1.32 1.69 0.00 0.00 111.00 90.86 17.0 111.00 90.86 2.12 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 112.00 88.74 BAND LOSS -BEND R* FLOWING FULL VBEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS- OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS R*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=0 MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VBEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL R=0. FRICTION LOSS WAS. ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. HYDRA ******* (Version 6.1) Date 10-20-2000 Page.No 1 Westbrook P.U.D. Storm Sewer: Rational method Design with Hydraulic ... Commands Read From File C:\HYDRA\PB2.HDA JOB REM 100-year design storm REM Data in english units SWI 2 PDA 0.013 24 3.0 1.64 2.0 0.003 RAI 5 9.95 10 7.72 15 6.52 20 5.60 25 4.98 30 4.52 45 3.46 60 2.86 IDF CURVE 10. R 3 A 6 6 6 6 3 a 3 6 6 6 6 6 3 I 8A 6 il 6 6 6 k n 3•a 6 6 li 3 f 3 f, 6 il 6 6 3 a 3 is 6 6 6 6 3 1 6A f, 6 6 3 6 1(2 A 3 6 6 fi ti 3 3 a 6 6 3 n 4.A 6 6 f, fi 6. A 3 A 6 6 6 3 I 6 a 6 6 f, n 3 6 il 6 6 il 2A f, 6 6 f, 6 h 3 6 it 6 6 a 3 3 6 li 6Ift fi 3 6 6 6 f, 0 . * 5. 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. Duration, t (min) PLOT -DATA (Time, t(min) vs. Intensity, i(in/h)) t I t i t i t i t I 5. 9.95 25. 4.98 0. .00 0. .00 0. .00 10. 7.72 30. 4.52 0. .00 0. .00 0. .00 is. 6.52 45. 3.46 0. .00 0. .00 0. .00 20. 5.60 60. 2.86 0. .00 0. .00 0. .00 HGL 1 REM Discharge from existing pond NEW Johnson Elementary Basin I a 0 •+++++ HYDRA, ++t++++ (Version 6.1) ++*++ Date 10-20-2000 Page No 2 Westbrook P.V.D. Storm Sewer: Rational Method Design with Hydraulic FLO 23.1 (Existing Upstream Flow from Johnson Elementary Detention Pond) PIP 10.0 108.0 108.0 103.48 103.38 -24 +++ To = .0 min +++ CA = .0 +++ Link N 1, Flow depth - 2.00 ft,.Critical depth 2.00 ft PNC 0 1 2.5 180 1 SOL 1 NEW Basin Al STO .50 .95 5 Basin Al (Area, Runoff Coefficient, Time -of -Concentration) GUT 640:0 112.0 106.50 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Depth = .82 ft, Val = 5.7 fps, Width = 2.0 ft +++ Discharge = 4.73 ofs, slope .00859 ft/ft• NEW Basin A2 STO .26 .95 5 Basin A2 (Area, Runoff Coefficient, Time -of -Concentration) GUT 330.0 107.5 106.5 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Depth = 1.16 ft, Vel - 4.3 fps, Width = 2.9 ft +++ Discharge = 7.18 cfs, Slope = .00303 ft/ft GUT 10.0 106.5 106.1 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Depth = .72 ft, Vel = 11.2 fps, Width = 1.8 ft +++ Discharge = 7.18 cfs, Slope = .04000 ft/ft INL 1 5 0 0 .5 5.0 .17 2.0 0 0 1 (Existing Inlet) +++ Flow interception = 7.18 cfs, Bypass flow = .00 cfs REC 1 PIP 50.0 106.1 106.4 103.38 102.88 -24 +++ To = 5.0 min +++ CA = .7 +++ Link @ 2, Flow depth = 2.00 ft, Critical depth = 2.00 ft PNC 1 2 4.0 120 1 SOL 2 NEW Basin B1 STO .50 .95 5 Basin B1 (Area, Runoff Coefficient, Time -of -Concentration) GUT 640.0 112.0 106.5 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Depth = .82 ft, Vel = 5.7 fps, Width 2.0 ft +++ Discharge = 4.73 cfs, Slope = .00859 ft/ft NEW Basin B2 STO .26 .95 5 Basin B2 (Area, Runoff Coefficient, Time -of -Concentration) GUT 340 107.5 106.5 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Depth = 1.17 ft, Vel = 4.2 fps, Width = 2.9 ft +++ Discharge = 7.18 cfs, Slope = .00294 ft/ft GUT 10.0 106.5 106.0 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 6 +++ Depth = .69 ft, Vel - 12.2 fps, Width 1.7 ft +++ Discharge = 7.18 cfs, Slope = .05000 ft/ft REM Inlet A INL 2 5 0 0 .5 5.0 .17 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Flow interception 7.18 cfs, Bypass flow .00 cfa REC 2 PIP 32.05 106.0 106.4 102.88 102.56 -36 +++ To = 5.1 min +++ CA = 1.4 ***+** HYDRA +*+**** (Version 6.1) ****+ Date 10-20-2000 Page No 3 Westbrook P.U.D. Storm Sever: Rational Method Design with Hydraulic ... Link @ 3, Flow depth = 1.62 ft, Critical depth = 1.99 £t PNC 2 3 4.0 140 0 1 REM Main Lateral: Junctions 3 to 4 PIP 296.91 106.4 103.7 102.46 99.49 -36 +++ Tc - 5.1 min +++ CA = 1.4 +++ Link 4 4, Flow depth = 1.62 ft, Critical depth = 1.99 ft PNC 3 4 3.0 180 1 SOL 3 NEW Basin Cl STO 5.06 .61 16.2 Basin C2 (Area, Runoff Coefficient, Time -of -Concentration) GUT 660.0 107.0 104.0 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Depth = 1.56 ft, Vel = 6.4 fps, Width = 3.9 ft +++ Discharge = 19.44 cfs, Slope = .00455 ft/ft NEW Basin C3 STO 1.87 .61 12:1 Basin C3 (Area, Runoff Coefficient, Time -of -Concentration) ..i GUT 350.0 105.5 104 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Depth - 1.78 ft,. Val = 6.7 fps, Width = 4.4 ft +++ Discharge = 26.63 cfs, Slope = .00429 ft/ft GUT 10.0 104 103.7 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 , +++ Depth = 1.24 ft, Val = 14.0 fps, Width = 3.1 ft +++ Discharge = 26.63 cfs, Slope = .03000 ft/ft REM Inlet B INL 3 5 0 0 .5 15.0 .17 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Flow interception = 26.63 cfs, Bypass flow = .00 cfs REC 3 PIP 50.00 103.7 104.01 99.39 98.39 -42 ... Tc = 16.2 min +++ CA = 5.7 +++ Link $ 5, Flow depth - 1.58 ft, Critical depth = 2.41 ft PNC 4 5 6.0 135 0 1 HOL 4 NEW Basin C4 STO .46 .61 8.0 Basin C4 (Area, Runoff Coefficient, Time -of -Concentration) GUT 240 105.5 104.3 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Depth = .70 ft, Val = 3.9 fps, Width = 1.8 ft +++ Discharge = 2.42 cfa, Slope = .00500 ft/ft NEW Basin CS STO .98 .61 11.6 Basin C5 (Area, Runoff Coefficient, Time -of -Concentration) GUT 570.0 107.0 104.3 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 - +++ Depth = 1.03 ft, Val = 4.9 fps, Width = 2.6 ft ... Discharge = 6.44 cfs, Slope = .00474 ft/ft, GUT 10.0 104.3 104.1 .016 2.5 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Depth = .78 ft, Vel = 8.4 fps, Width 2.0 ft +++ Discharge = 6.44 cfs, Slope = .02000 ft/ft REM Inlet C INL 4 5 0 0 .5 5.0 .17 2.0 0 0 1 +++ Flow interception = 6.44 cfs, Bypass flow = .00 cfs - PIP 36.00 103.8 104.01 99.10 98.38 -24 ****** HYDRA ******* (Version 6.1) ***** Date 30-20-2000 Page No 4 Westbrook P.U.D. Storm Sewer: Rational Method Design. with Hydraulic +++ To = 11.6 min +++ CA - .9 +++ Link # 6, Flow depth .62 ft, Critical depth .90 ft PNC 4.5 5 6.0 170 0 1 REC 4 PIP 226.0 104.01 105.0 98.19 93.99 -42 +++ Tc = 16.3 min +++ CA = 6.5 +++ Link # 7, Flow depth = 1.72 ft, Critical depth = 2.52 it PNC 5 6 6.0 180 0 1 PIP 67.0 105.0 105.58 93.56 93.22 -42 +++ TC - 16.5 min - +++ CA = 6.5 +++ Link # 8, Flow depth - 2.59 £t, Critical depth = 2.50 ft PNC 6 7 6.0 90 0 1 PIP 203.19 105.58 103.3 93.02 92.10 -42 +++ Tc - 16.7 min +++ CA = 6.5 +++ Link # 9, Flow depth = 2.73 ft, Critical depth = 2.50 ft PNC 7 8 6.0 170 0 1 PIP 85.84 103.3 100.6 91.9 91.47 -42 +++ To = 17.1 min +++ CA - 6.5 +++ Link # 10, Flow depth 2.59 ft, Critical depth = 2.49 ft PNC 8 9 6.0 90 0 1 PIP 58.23 100.29 100.10 91.27 90.98 -36 +++ To = 17.3 min +++ CA - 6.5 +++ Link # 11, Flow depth = 3.00 ft, Critical depth = 3.00 ft PNC 9 10 6.0 180 0 1 PIP 313.37 100.10 92.5 87.49 86.24 -36 +++ To - 17.4 min +++ CA - 6.5 +++ Link # 12, Flow depth = 3.00 ft, Critical depth = 3.00 ft PNC 10 11 5.0 120 0 REM Outfall Link: Junctions 10 to 11 PIP 100.0 92.5 89.0 86.24 85.74 -36 +++ To = 17.9 min _ +++ CA = 6.5 +++ Link # 13, Flow depth = 3.00 ft, Critical depth = 3.00 £t PNC 10 11 3.0 180 2 END END OF INPUT DATA. i 1 8 • U • ****** HYDRA ******* (Version 6.1) ***** Date 10-20-2000 Page No 5 Westbrook P.U.D. Storm Sewer: Rational Method Design with Hydraulic ++* Johnson Elementary Analysis of Existing Pipes Invert Depth Cover Velocity --Flow-- -Solutions- Link Length Diam Up/Dn Slope Up/Dn Up/Dn Act/Full Act/Full Load Remove Diam (ft) (in) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/9) (cfs) M (cfs) (in) 1 10 24 103.48 .01000 4.5 2.4 7.4 23.10 102 .48 24 103.38 4.6 2.5 7.2 22.62 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Length - 10. ft Total length = 10. ft •** Basin A2 Analysis of Existing Pipes Invert Depth Cover Velocity --Flow---Solutions- Link Length Diam Up/Dn Slope Up/Dn Up/Dn Act/Full Act/Full Load Remove Diem (ft) (inj (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/9) (cfs) M (cfs) (in) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 50 24 103.38 .01000 2.7 .6 9.6, 30.28 134 7.66 24 102.88 3.5 1.4 7.2 22.62 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Length - 50. ft Total length = 60. ft *** Basin B2 Analysis of Existing Pipes Invert Depth Cover Velocity --Flow-- -Solutions- Link Length Dian, Up/Dn Slope Up/Dn Up/Dn Act/Full Act/Full Load Remove Dian, (ft) (in) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (cfs) M (cfs) (in) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 32 36 102.88 .00998 3.1 -.1 9.7 37.41 56 102.56 3.8 .6 9.4 66.65 . 4 297 36 102.46 .01000 3.9 .7 9.7 37.38 56 99.49 4.2 1.0 9.4 66.71 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Length = 329. ft Total length - 389. ft Length = 329. ft Total length = '389. ft *+**** HYDRA ******* (Version 6.1).**+** Date 10-20-2000 Page No 6 Westbrook P.U.D. Storm Sewer: Rational Method Design with Hydraulic *++ Basin C3 Analysis of Existing Pipes Invert Depth Cover Velocity --Flow-- -Solutions- Link Length Diam Up/Dn Slope Up/Dn Up/Dn Act/Full Act/Full Load Remove Diam (ft) (in) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/8) (cfs) M (cfs) (in) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 50 42 99.39 .02000 4.3- .5 14.1 58.82 41 98.39 5.6 1.8 14.8 142.28 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Length = 50. ft Total length - 439. ft *** Basin C5 Analysis of Existing Pipes Invert Depth Cover Velocity --Flow-- -Solutions- Link Length Diam Up/Dn Slope Up/Dn Up/Dn Act/Full Act/Full Load Remove Diam (ft) (in) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (cfs) (8) (cfs) (in) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6 36 24 99.10 .02000 4.7 2.5 8.0 6.44 20 98.39 5.6 3.5 10.2 31.99 7 226 42 98.19 .01858 5.8 2.0 14.0 64.29 47 93.99 11.0 7.2 14.3 137.15 8 67 42 93.56 .00507 11.4 7.6 8.4 63.96 89 93.22 12.4 8.6 7.4 71.67 9 203 42 93.02 .00453 12.6 8.8 8.0 63.80 94 92.10 11.2 7.4 7.0 67.70 10 86 42 91.90 .00501 11.4 7.6 8.4 63.29 89 91.47 -9.1 5.3 7.4 - 71.21 11 58 36 91.27 .00498 9.0 5.8 8.9 63.09 134 16.02 27 90.98 9.1 5.9 6.7 47.07 12 313 36 87.49 .00399 12.6 9.4 8.9 62.96 149 20.83 30 86.24 6.3 3.0 6.0 42.13 13 100 36 86.24 .00500 6.3 3.0 8.8 62.25 132 15.09 24 85.74 3.3 .0 6.7 47.16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Length 1090. ft Total length 1529. ft *(42^ Round Equivalent Pipe for 51.1^ x 31.3" Concrete Arch Pipe) c • ****** HYDRA ******* (Version 6.1) •**** Date 10-20-2000 Page No 7 Westbrook P.V.D. Storm Sewer: Rational Method Design with Hydraulic Hydraulic Gradeline Computations Down- Hydraulic Link stream Gradeline Crown Possible Ground Super- Manhole Loss $ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Node 4 Elevation Elev. Surcharge Elev. crit.? Depth Coef . 1 1 -108.11 105.38 - Y 106.10 N/A 4.73 .51 2 2 106.19 104.88 Y 106.00 N/A 3.31 1.08 3 3 104.55 105.56 N 106.40 Y 3.13 .50 4 4 101.48 102.49 N 103.70 Y 5.00 .51 5 5 100.80 101.89 N- 104.01 Y 4.99 .69 6 5 99.28 100.38 N 104.01 Y 4.99 .99 7 6 96.51 97.49 N 105.00 Y 8.19 .58 8 7 100.36 96.72 Y 105.58 N 6.24 2.21 9 8 97.98 95.60 Y 103.30 - N 6.08 .12 10 9 96.70 94.97 Y 100.29 N 4.52 1.97 11 10 93.98 93.98 N 92.50 N/A 4.48 .26 12 11 89.24 89.24 N 89.00 N/A .00 .00 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 88.74 88.74 N 89.00 N/A 3.00 .00 Terminal Hydraulic Gradeline Ground Loss Link 8 ----------------------------------------------------------- Node 4 Elevation Elevation Coef. 1 0 109.38 108.00 1.50 6 ----------------------------------------------------------- 4 101.20 103.60 1.50 NORMAL END OF HYDRA a .... .. ..... lye/ . a 5 , 0 3301 -T 6 .75- 3Y0�' .... ...... 0,110 an le t Ifo, Y44 1.7 76 63 11 fe, f ......... go, Yard f Vad 5ficef ..... 0, 1 vie, .... - -.2"JO ------ -14 let 70' Y4rW - - ----- --- Ti le f Yard 5-70' Cali fku/ agile c,� P,,.,, vw c'9;1fl#d steer cackiad flvc�. fv PVLLC dwif--- /V -0, ..61 70 I't --0 fo 04 Olt) SoJ 641655 ------- ------ -- -------- - .. ...... ...... ..... . ....... . .. ....... ---------- ------- Ov, . . ......... 0 / f. onn az = . Cf c = 1• o l•9s �� g� -5 0 f hay _.. _ ___ .. __. _ . ...... -- -- _ - _._. __ . _. _ _... - . ............... ._`_ 9S.Sieet a � 3.7 AaW i zs) �.qs) (o: d) (9,7 to = (i 17 -__ JUL- -fan lo Acffj . X 1.0)) 170 .... . ..... . ------- . .......... ... .......... .... 1/3 ... ......... J. ZN )c 7P .... ....... .. . .. . .. ............. . .......... .... .. . - ... Mal 11,7 IN - ------ (0,337f)(�)),OYJ ql, - --- --------- ... ... ---- ------ 1,93 Ate, . .......... ... . ..... ... ... . ........ .... l Sao - ..7�/iir _ .. C�5 .... ...... - ------ ----------- --------- crs . ........ . . . ..... . . -------- - ves- -- -yam= l �7 �l i (. �1 xl® tl7r� lh) _ �• �7) �99) �i�:038� � 1/- . /, 0'/3 R7 01- (A x 12,61617d) C ,y G )ll.� 1,97� ZZ r fj yi Acyej c 0 olwn (o x /.a)) 7d 7 7 oil f) Ilt 0) In, q HIM Jof RA 70 Ale. o OrO _ La CL, 0A, 2-77---fel—C 31 G gas loi 1 � Tit _....1187 of - (V n 1,°)) .LIO) 7) �i/lR�1Mil .. Z - c4m, 1 -. HBO ..... .l $ ! - 7 .... lilr,• = s flop .... 1-5/_ _ .. Tc_ = ToW _/197 (!-( - (iY3 xI,a)) (%����=.._._..�j,811(0•S�tr)(s•99Y) _ _=_.._.... ? y..M�K _. To lyl� _.Cf.. C...T A_....= (l-o- y3)_(1,9)(to3) _._...Quo-..= (1-1s). (y3) (7.a..�,03 J ..._ _ .._........ _.._......_._. r� u _..�flblYl .. ...W�... _.. _..._. ���G._.._- ..� Zl i�C,�'f1.. _....0 O., L� J _. T��- so 1� WO Fltfl- /it fo_...lot rl .... .. .... Awl .. ........ ... .. ... ...... -- - ---- -- ----- ...... - - ----- ------ . ... .... ...... ..... - - ---------- --------- ...... ,no_. ----- ------ ---- ---- Srbo/ Alff f 0 :w 13.J --LL ............... ...... . ..... 0, - 0 . L-(5 f[ow 4r lo. 6 cf s < 33,1 c(i s S o cis..__.. c{3 CBZ) .... 7.. 6 cs _ .� . _ ._.._... _ -.-Sump . _ CU�d,i�.� . R�ducC ..�r_ -.. _ B... _ 71 : OK 5—mef.____.. acry /._foo -- Use. / (so Fyvle sz) �,<<r ,b b►•1P _ _ ..... B- _.. loo/.C_ I�%PJJ.{velY _ DCfv - yl/PJf Sr� _ . /2,fs _C)....._._ �l- CS...�(3�. f Y ? ��5: A �=.... D cQQ // r y_!!+F_._Co•�O�l OA_._...... /�PduGr/oq...h?c __...15- _r°l o. s..... _ Y _.= �i 7) -. _ ...._. dowa6(e..4 0 R ..fr.. 4roo._. ._% <.. 91..._..O%�... _.......... 1.0 12 5 10 4 9 1I 8 3 10 6 .inlef C' 9 0 4 2 — In ref b " .7 0: 3 �. 8 W _ 1.5 (L .. y o .6 L�41Exomplej z 1.0 Z Part a1.0 _ � z 9 5.5 o .8 W 5 = z .6 7 u" .4 z 4 W 6 z 4.5 z 0 ,3 w 4 t 0 2 0 .5 cz z z � r z '3 W 3.5 W W 4 a 0 0 I w W U. U. .08 .25 3 0 c .06 0 3 = x 0 Z c� c� U. W W m .04 D: .25 = 2.5 = .2 a .03 a } 3 a .02 0 2 a _ 2 V a .15 01 o IS L U 0 O • --- -- — -- -- Ya Q 1.5 .10 • a=2° h 1.2 • Figure 5-2 • NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF�CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2" Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph • MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA *************************************************** ***** FHWA URBAN DRAINAGE DESIGN PROGRAMS ***** ***** ROADWAY DRAINAGE DESIGN ***** *************************************************** DESIGNER: Jeff PROJECT: Wesibrooke POD 14J 6111 INLET NO.: D DRAINAGE AREA: 2.63Acres Cross -Slope Composite DATE: 10-08-2001 PROJECT NO.: 701-9401 STATION: 0+00 DESIGN FREQUENCY: 100Years ROADWAY & DISCHARGE DATA S Sx n Q T (ft/ft) (ft/ft) (cfs) (ft) 0.004 0.035 0.016 14.20 16.21 GUTTER FLOW W Sw a Eo d V (ft) (ft/ft) (in) (ft) (fps) ----------------------------------------------------- 1.17 0.083 2.00 0.193 0.62 3.05 INLET INTERCEPTION Inlet Type LT L E Qi Qb (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) -------------------------------------------- ------ Curb-Opening 20.26 10.00 0.700 10.02 4.17 -------------------------------------------------------------------- �o�f & wrll Bypass -XI,fit D 1 dw fa 7k7tf 8 Alf q2 Maws arP �� Uc�►{t� by -�► tef V 1 (63) 0.77 t 37 z.F� fl' .. ......... ..... . ----------- ------ -- .... .. ... .. WP 7.20 . . ......... ---470" . - - . 1 -1 ---- ........... Ld �4� f Iz 0 zy ol?7 fps...:. Westbrooke P.U.D. Bottom width ZL ZR Slope Manning # ' 3 4 4 .015 .03 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q Depth Area Velocity Froude QC TW Tc cfs ft ft^2 fps # cfs ft psf ------0-91------0 -1------0-39------1 0 -21------0.67------0-58---===3=8 0====0.094 1.38 0.20 0.76 1.81 - 0.71 1.75 4.60 0.187 2.87 0.30 1.26 2.28 0.73 3.45 5.40 0.281 4.92 0.40 1.84 2.67 0.74 5.69 6.20 0.374 7.55 0.50 2.50 3.02 0.75 8.48 7.00 0.468 10.81 0.60 3.24 3.34 0.76 11.85 7.80 0.562 14.74 0.70 4.06 3.63 0.76 15.83 _5.7 rzl�� ,eit,td e. t SIC/J C'r2rT 2l r} ) 7.. o. t7 v•i D.66 - S' C - S0 kipfg Itodl rd aj 0 Table 8-1 lists several gradations of riprap. The minimum average sae designation for loose riprap shall be 12 inches. Smaller saes of riprap shall be either buried on slopes which can be easily maintained (4 to 1 minimum side slopes) or grouted if slopes are steeper. Grouted riprap should meet all the requirements for regular riprap except that the smallest rock fraction (smaller than the 10 per- cent size) should be eliminated from the gradation. A reduction of riprap sae by one sae designation (from 18 inches to 12 inches or from 24 inches to 18 inches) is permitted for grouted riprap. Table 8-1 CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP %of Told Weight SnUNertttanthe stonesme dsot Pip apDesignation Given sae (ipounds) fatehes) 70-100 as Class 6 tt 50-70 35 35-50 10 6 2-10 <1 70-100 440 Class 12 -50-70 275 35-50 85 12 2-10 3 100 1275 Class 18 50-70 655 35-50 275 18 2-10 10 100 35W Class 24 50-70 1700 35-50 665 24 2-10 35 t dso= Mean Particle Size. At least 50 penerrt of the mass shall be stones equal to or larger than an dinummon. tt " we 4 to 1 side slopes or grout rock H slopes are steeper. Table 8-2 summarizes riprap requirements for a stable channel lining based on the following relationship: VSo.17 (dso) (Ss-1) = 5.8 in which, V = Mean channel velocity in feet per second S = Longitudinal channel slope in feet per foot Ss = Specific gravity of rods (minimum Ss = 2.50) dw = Rock size in feet for which 50 percent of the riprap by weight is smaller. The rock sizing requirements in Table 8-2 are based on the rock having a specific gravity of 2.5 or more. Also, the rock size does not need to be increased for steeper channel side slopes, provided the side slopes are no steeper than 2h:1 v. Rock lined side slopes steeper than 2h:1 v are not recommended. Table 8-2 RIPRAP REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANNEL LININGS tt 0 to 1.4 1.5 to 4.0 4.1 to 5.8 5.9 to 7.1 7.2 to 82 RodkTypett No Riprap Required Class 6 Riprap Class 12 ROW Class 18 Riprap Class 24 Riprap t Use S, = 2.5 unless the source of rock and its densities are known at the time of design. tt Table valid only for Frauds number of 0.8 or less and side slopes no steeper than 2h:1v. 60 MAY 1884 8-18 DESIGN CRITERIA June 6, 1994 Mr. Glen Schlueter Stormwater Utility City of Fort Collins 235.Mathews Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Westbrooke 2nd Filing Dear Glen: I have reviewed the preliminary design analysis completed by RBD Engineering for the McClellands and Mail Creek drainage basin in conjunction with the Mountainridge PUD development. I have also reviewed this information with Mountainridge PUD engineer, Dennis Donovan and with Kevin Gingery of RBD Engineering. We have expressed concern with this report as it relates to the routing of flows through the Westbrooke 2nd Filing site. As the report now stands, drainage flows from the Johnson Elementary School (Basin 280) and from the Woodcraft Homes project (Basin 44) are routed through Westbrooke 2nd Filing. This is unacceptable for two reasons: 1) In order to allow this runoff through our project, we would have to secure easements across private property to the east. Our initial discussions with this property owner relating to Troutman Parkway have at best been difficult and he is not willing to work with anyone until his project is in progress. Construction of this rather long outfall would also be very expensive. 2) We were approved on a preliminary basis showing that our drainage outfall would flow to the north into proposed detention pond 278. Our discussion with project developers, Bill Neal and Gary Nardick, were very positive and they have verbally agreed to provide easements for this outfall. They also indicated that it would be possible to incorporate our detention within pond 278 and we continue to work with them on an agreement to utilize material from the proposed detention ponds as fill for Westbrooke 2nd Filing. Although Dennis Donovan originally expressed concern with adding any additional water to detention pond 278, my continuing conversations with Kevin Gingery of RBD have been on a more positive note and he has indicated that this change could easily be accomplished. Mr. Glen Schlueter Stormwater Utility June 6, 1994 Page Two The intent of this letter is to formally request the City of Fort Collins to modify the "McClellands and Mail Creek Master Plan Improvements Preliminary Detention Pond Design Analysis Associated with the Mountainridge PUD Development" to divert flows from Basins 44,280 and 46 into detention pond 278 rather than through Basin 45 to detention pond 247. This will allow us to continue with the Westbrooke 2nd Filing design as preliminarily approved and will allow us to complete agreements with the Mountainridge PUD developers to utilize pond 278 for detention. This clears the way for shared completion of the construction of both ponds 278 and 247 and, ultimately; the use of excavated material for fill on Westbrooke 2nd Filing. Since both projects are in progress, we would like to make these changes as soon as possible. We will meet with you at your convenience to review this matter as you feel necessary. Please call me at 498- 0272 should you have additional questions. Couch/P.E. Redpeak Engineering 2061 Huntington Circle Fort Collins, CO 80526 cc: Chuck Betters, P & B Partnership_ Bill Neal, Wheeler Realty Dennis Donovan, Development Services Kevin Ginery, RBD Engineering Attachments File FJ MAIL CREEK BASIN, DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 1987 100-YEAR STORM (FILE: MTRD100.DAT) REVISION OF PREVIOUS HYDROLOGY TO INCLUDE MOUNTAINRIDGE PRELIMINARY 4/15/94 ""• PEAK FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENSION DAMS sk/MM hs"I fs CONVEYANCE ELEMENT PEAK (CFS) STAGE (FT) STORAGE (AC -FT) TIME (HR/MIN) 206 60. 1.8 0 36. 203 56. 1.8 0 36. 205 17. .1 1.6 1 10. 207 15. .1 1.4 1 10. 204 82. 2.2 0 38. 201 107. 3.1 0 40. 202 15. 1.2 1 22. 200 192. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. 49 327. 3.7 0 46. 280 59. 2.1 0 38. 25 157. 2.9 0 40. 24 51. 3.2 0 44. 23 318. 3.9 6 40. 48 341. 3.3 0 48. 44 279 666� Lt 2.0 .1 1.5 0 1 42. 8. F T 222 s24. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. y/� ! IOw I (OP) JAW4 F14,*JA 185 59. 1.7 0 36. 50 46 492. (671 5.1 2.0 0 0 48. 36. fkv f(OA veil i(OO 22 72. .1 29.5 2 28. 364 107. 1.0 0 38. 278 129, 1 17.11 1 4?. POND 278 IOO Yk WSEt- = 50 99,03 45 156. 2.9 0 40. 221 160. 2.5 0 38. 21 22. 1.3 2 36. 399 5. .1 4.9 2 22. 365 97. 1.0 0 38. 247 43. .1 42.8 5 O. POND Z47 10oY/Z WSEL= S095.9j 20 169. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 38. 368 56. .8 0 36. 370 121. 3.1 0 36. 369 95. 2.1 0 42. 367 57. 1.4 0 44. 366 83. 1.6 0 40. 320 61. .1 3.6 1 10. 372 66. .8 0 38. 244 256. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. 373 123. 3.4 0 40. 371 149. 1.8 0 40. 254 - 72. 1.0 0 36. 19 61. 1.5 1 12. 28 45. 1.7 0 36. 287 113. 2.5 0 38. 40 63. .8 0 42. 362 98. 1.0 0 36. 104 1T. .1 12.1 2 12. 243 272. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. 36 116. 1.1 0 36. 107 78. .1 1.5 1 6. 32 165. 1.2 0 38. 29 109. 2.5 0 38. 27 163. 2.9 0 42. 375 43. 3.6 0 52. 374 84. 1.1 0 40. 38 201. 2.6 0 36. 43 31. .1 17.6 6 40. TROUTMAAJ Pn qw- POND 321 78. .1 1.3 0 48. 0 Final Hydraulic Design Report Regional Detention Pond 278, McClellands & Mail Creek Basin Fort Collins, Colorado. August 2000 Pw SEAR•BROWN *E FOLLOWING CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS HAVE NUMERICAL ABILITY PROBLEMS THAT LEAD TO HYDRAULIC SCILLLATIONS DURING THE SIMULATION. 12 13 14 15 22 31 33 41 42 43 44 47 48 50 51 84 100 101 102 103 04 105 107 205 207 230 247 261 272 278 �79 290 320 321 J399 831 IL CREEK SIN, 100-YEAR STORM, DEVELOPED, COND IT IONS 1998, DETENTION POND 278 VISED 28 JULY, 2000 SB (ddh) FILE: MCMAILSI.DAT PEAK FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENTION DAMS *** CONVEYANCE PEAK STAGE STORAGE TIME ELEMENT (CFS) (FT) (AC -FT) (HR/MIN) 1 1154.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 15. 10 1154.2 5.1 1 15. 11 1089.3 5.6 1 5. 12 1075.1 7.3 0 50. 13 8.. 0 50. 14 80303.6 4.3 0 50. 15 621.6 .1 1.5 0 50. 16 620.2 3.5 0 50, 17 3.7 .1 0 45,. 18 43 43.7 1 .4 0 40. 19 91.2 1.8 1 5. 20 207.1 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. 21 39.1 1.6 2 50. 22 39.4 .1 38.4 2 40. 23 300.8 2.6 0 40. 24 268.2 6.7 1 0. 25 225.0 3.4 0 40. 26 64.3 1.6 0 40. 27 26'.4 .7 0 40. 28 26.6 .5 0 40. 29 88.5 1.0 0 40. 30 2. (DIRECT FLOW) 0 . 31 1 26.6 3.0 0 35 35. 32 209.5 1.4 0 40. 33 189.8 .1 20.5 2 20. 34 47.3 . 0 40. 35 307.0 13 1 0 40. 36 143.5 1.2 0 • 40. 37 79.4 .5 0 35. 38 236.5 2.8 0 40. 39 443.7 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 4 7. .9 0 '4. 41 22.44 .0 1.6 2 0 0. 42 87.2 2.7 0 40.--� / D �n� 43 37.1 .1 29.9 10 45. �✓o(rT / ?+r�< 0 35. 45 r5.,� .7 2 20. 47 48 49 50 299:4 505.6 186.5 506.0 4.4 3.1 2.9 3-3 0 0 0 0 40. 45. 40. // / 45 .G/f�A �7YtiT ��&5/H9 51 200.6 .8 0 35. 84 5.3 .1 5.3 2 10. 100 1051.9 .5 24.5 1 5. 101 1094.5 .5 4.7 0 50. 102 145.8 .1 16.1 1 25. 103 307.3 .1 6.7 0 50. 104 22.5 .1 16.0 2 25. 105 52.3 .1 7.5 1 20. 107 99.7 .1 2.4 1 15. . 139 389.3 3.6 0 40. 185 69.2 1.8 0 40. 200 215.4 4.9 0 45: 201 154.7 3.6 0 . 40. 202 27.4 1.5 1 0. 203 67.9 2.0 0 40. 204 98.7 2.4 0 40. AVI loci filthy 205 38.2 .0 1.6 206 74.7 2.0 207 40.0 .0 1.5 208 98.7 (DIRECT FLOW) 210 1101.3 (DIRECT FLOW) 211 1149.1 (DIRECT FLOW) 221 199.0 2.8 2. (DIRECT FLOW) 230 30 237237.4 .0 7.5 243 376.1 (DIRECT FLOW) 244 326.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 245 369.6 (DIRECT FLOW) 247 41.3 .0 46.1 254 86.4 1.1 261 59.3 3.5 1.1 262 3. 21.5 266 7373. .4 1.55 270 68.6 4.4 271 272 155.6 223.6 (DIRECT 7.7 FLOW) 278 1 .0 29.0 279 23.z 1 2.7 zau - 2.9__ 287 107.8 1.8 2 290 90 68..1 68.6 5.0 8.9 300 80.3 (DIRECT FLOW) 301 80.3 (DIRECT FLOW) 318 1. 319 15656.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 320 81.2 .1 3.9 321 91.6 .1 1.5 3.1 (DIRECT FLOW) 362 62 114114.8 1.1 364 134.2 1.1 365 124.0 1.1 366 138.3 2.0 367 68.1 1.5 ` 368 67.3 .8 369 115.0 2.3 370 143.2 3.1 371 220.0 2.2 372 .8 .9 373 15656.1 3.5 374 101.3 1.1 375 50.4 3.7 378 636.8 (DIRECT FLOW) 379 149.2 1.3 399 5.0 .1 6.5 831 15.4 .0 .3 NDPROGRAN PROGRAM CALLED AM 0 55. 0 40. 0 50. 0 40. 0 55. 0 50. 0 40. 0 40. 0 55. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 50. 2 5. 0 40. 3 25. 0 5. 3 15. 40. 40. 30. 5. 5. 15. 20. 5. 50. 35. 40. 40. 40. 40. 45. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 40. 50. 40. 45. 40. 45. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 S. PLATTE CANYON ROAD LITTLETON, COLORADO 80128-6901 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: October 30, 2000 Mr. Jeff Couch TEAM Engineering 906 Richmond Drive #2 Fort Collins, CO 80526-5973 RE: Westbrooke P.U.D. 2Id Filing, Fort Collins, Wetland Determination Corps File No. 200080744 Dear Mr. Couch: Reference is made to the above -mentioned project located in the SE 1/< of Section 34, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, Larimer County, Colorado. The wetlands at this site have been reviewed in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material, and any excavation associated with a dredged and fill project, in waters of the United States which may include ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, lakes, ponds or wetlands. It is apparent that the ,.wetlands at this location have developed as waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity. Therefor, these wetlands are non jurisdictional. Based on the information presented, any work, which may impact these wetlands, will not require, a Department of the Army (DA) permit. Although a DA permit will not be required for the project, this does not eliminate the requirements that other applicable federal, state, tribal, and local permits are obtained if needed. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please call, Mr. Terry McKee of this office at 303-979-4120 and reference Corps File No. 200080744. Office Gii7 HILL AND HILL ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALDEN T. HILL A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (ime -19m) FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 ALDEN V. HILL P. O. BOX 421 BRETT M. HILL 160 WEST MOUNTAIN AVE. TELEPHONE (970) 482-MM F FAX (970) 482-76M November 16, 2000 Mr. Steve Olt The City of Fort Collins Current Planning 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company . Project #3-90H Westbrook P.U.D., 2nd Filing Final PUD - (LDGS) Dear Mr. Olt: Please disregard our last comments submitted on October - 17, 2000. The Ditch Superintendent, Ed Wendel, has talked with the engineer, and the Company's concerns regarding the drainage from this development have been taken care of. If you have any questions, please let me know. Very truly yours, Cam"` v ` Alden V. Hill AVH:skd Enclosure PC: Mr. Willis Smith, President Mr. Ed Wendel, Superintendent Jeffrey W. Couch, Engineering Chuck Betters, B & P Partnership, Owner (aldaJpv&IxJOIt Itr) - RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION PROJECT: Wes far Fai F 1, STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: af{ Coud DATE: sZ$'If DEVELOPED ERODIBILITY Asb Lsb Ssb Lb Sb PS SUBBAqIN ZONE (ac) (ft) ($) (feet) M M �IoJer4te I�Zy �90 1.1 7U c CZ 13,c ��% C51 °I1 021 MARCH 1991 C 8-14 DESIGN CRITERIA EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: ulps 6r06 Zn / p1% U, STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: Jiff Coat DATE: 17 Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment W 1 mi c4 f f ipP [00 0 0 FrisF Tmp(#Vr01141 Cevfr C1-61f 0. qr 1.00 En f Iri SI'f (dz.If �trirs) 6rav4l 1=,I os 1.00 0. 80 sec %oa�Wa1S 0.0J i dQ �I•j Aufs) tYry�i MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN ($) BASIN (AC) CALCULATIONS Rd p1 781 Caps Wb T 7PM p Piq y C�o,p f o k� /fit#j im m eJI a fe y will 0.47X X t- - u, zy W611W edr C f = (I - • 3y (40)) x too = 8Y I 7f•Z . IS OK MARCH 1991 9-15 = DESIGN CRITERIA CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PROJECT: l�/P51`!<%CAKt plP. Z,7I STANDARD FORM C 5EQUENCE. FOR M,.ZC01ONLY COMPLETED BY: )Pff C6uc"I , DATE: ej%0 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 I oDDf 2DD1 MONTH I O I N I P I I F I M I R I M I T I T 14 I S I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I OVERLOT GRADING �. WIND EROSION CONTROL i Soil Roughing Perimeter Barrier I I Additional Barriers I I Vegetative Methods - I Soil Sealant Other RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL I STRUCTURAL: I I Sediment Trao/Basin I I Inlet Filters - I Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers -- I Sand Bags I j Bare Soil Preparation I I Contour Furrows I I Terracing I I Asphalt/Concrete Paving) I Other - - VEGETATIVE: I Permanent Seed Planting) Mulching/Sealant ( I Temporary Seed Planting) —+ I Sod Installation I I �Nettings/Mats/Blankets Ij Other i I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY MAINTAINED BY VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF.FORT COLLINS ON HDI/SF-C:1989 t� WESTSh OOKE P. U O. 7st FILING NA 1, ALL DIERLOT WADING SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SLOPE BE m 2 WADING ARWNN FOUNDATIONS SHALL PROVIDE FOR A MNMIIM MIT I WGIC BE D5 Rd THE FIRST TEN (10) FEET AWAY FROM THE FOUNOATCN. ] THE LOWEST MINT OF THE FOUNDATION WALL SHRLL BE PLACED A MINIMUM BE M' BELOW THE FHSIEO gtADE. • AU OKMOT WADING IN EXCESS OF EIGHT (B) INCHES GRAVEL BE PLACED IN ACCORDANCE NEED THIN DATA SHEET 790. 5. THE GRADING AWO TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATIONS WERE CALCULATED BASED ON A MUNDANE •O M SOBUILDING FOOTPRINT SETBACK 20' FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LIRE, VARIATIONS TO THESE ASSUMPTIONS CAUSED BY gV DIFFERENTON RN ONL LARGER BUILDING FOOTPRINTS WILL NEED TO SE CER9PIED B fOCOF FHC UND MEP ELEVATION IS THE MINIMUM REWIRED FOR PROTECTION T. THE(MINIMUM FUUNDATON EAPMED ABOVE THE FINISHED WWALL. SE BACKYARD GRADES AND DDEYAR0 SWALES - 2R S 1 / j7 Isl JOHNSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOR B�, as _ 2•- POP � \ XHF 1 /1 15 wE' ` i xHP l 1 /I x IDS , t2 :I FENCE AND MIDDLE PAN DETNL R 16 `l0i N20' GROIRED " RIPRAP HAD 010-12 GRAPHIC SCALE BI rLar r t Inch At dB EL YA It 10 PLAN APPROVAL PLEASANT VALLEY AND LAKE CANAL APPROVED BY: LIST OF REVISIONS DATE 0.26 LEGEND On SENECA STREET 2 MANAGE BASIN BWNOARY n- �__- DRAlxncc eAsx DEslcwnox/AREA DATE 10/1 r "XjElP 1107B ♦ I w DIRECTOR BE FLOW SCALE I'-50' MESON w •D'x sD' CHECUSCO SRN *00 y rypcpL TYPICAL BUlI WNNE E CHECK JLW ' I U —.I -i 'I ,..�...pN J iO.P lms DEEP BE FWxpAiC11 , 25 _Lil X IYz � LOl CORNER ELEVATION r� I � pRCWSEp STORMYMFP/YANXgE I I 8 < Al m;_; vRwoYD/ExlsnNc INLET Jr q Y -tos-/.ADS' vRroossD/trlsnxc cwiaR R O 26 �� � I ' - � � NET reucE r NUT ENTER —SII I i m STRAW BALES �ASRl1R 1 PENDING AREA IIIL' 'W dj0 �I 27 _ � GWRapW LOCATION \ < 114 Q Emof Sln n•1 9Le 5C. o 80lan - _-- - - •RI � I 2 Bas-5054sosa J OFTEN: 270-613-20" Ee.: EVENTEND M-40lose 4-361 r-wn: �em.eeI e,Hd,,4.,H.ml INLET!.. III M IJ EEuT EEwr°• JFS GRd snp f II L wn=bly VAR cIty WAR, n '., mA NEED;9Ix Ie lI EIN IA IN IJI JIA IS Q MOW z= MLOA,OPEN J .. "FAT:r°`nE _ a R•I.m . : M — W IIIt M. ANN s Z D: W w ..— — IN V vE1J16 d UNPLATTED—"., n'w.N, II::^Y W < �WYNNE © HIM � a ' ��l� RATE �fES�Omt � mf �I7• EWIM _ -. _ ------- -...—_ a `1 x. : Ia .AREAIIV � METAILEE.. Q < mTIAY0In.WLR:M P,TMaI FEET 0 m wi[suwnlm ANrFm rc nTTa GS Iss w wvsoclym m (D � y'.. N I u.Nm sm. mu SEE> wwww"F31. .1 lu w`v AA,NF PI � W u1. mLIMA. ANS�e u. NAIMI IN WNEW.w � ,,. �... -.MA UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL J +°� "°° ^"""� m < ^ ^' mm'm` ^'m•mA CITY OF FORT COLLINS. COMP ADO 0 m°""`w.aY`��INNAVAmlmr wI•m:°..°°'y APPROVED' . m°.I u A.. 1 .um Gl1 Faduwr Mt• O wm�ra °SEA 5. ANAVAAV CHECKED BY �1 — y®ny W y . •• •-.Ir p am a" + END, WLALA, Meter and leeteeetew UUllty 0.M c EST ® m CHECKED BY A Blnrmeeter SRI ogle rA I .9 m....• ma & ••,°_ _•,.•- I••.. PROJECT NUHBER - CHECKED BY T01-GMt LL •• •I• Dark. end Reemetlolt ale w er.�....: wI .F=.. an VA. 'I u.mu` . .w••••==s`';.':m CHECKED BY SHEET NUMBER ..a.•.a .•w y —. _®.— CHECKED BY