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 - 04/07/2004
Stantec Consulting Inc 209 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins CO 80521-2603 Tel: (970) 482-5922 Fax: (970) 482-6368 s tanitec.com StantK • / �ilf% � e Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study Youngs Creek Subdivision Fort Collins, Colorado September 2003 0 ' Stantec Consulting Inc 209 South Meldrum Street ' Fort Collins CO 80521-2603 Tel: (970) 482-5922 Fax: (970) 482-6368 stantec.com $tanteC ' September 8, 2003 Mr. Basil Hamden, P.E. ' City of Fort Collins Utilities Department- Stormwater 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Youngs Creek Subdivision Dear Mr. Hamden: i We are pleased to submit to you, for your approval, this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Youngs Creek Subdivision (formerly Prospect Creek Development). Your review comments from our previous submittal have been addressed herein. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. ■ R pectfully, thong . Wtllkomm, P.E. ' Project Engineer Sear Brown ' Certification I hereby certify that this report for the preliminary and final drainage design of the Youngs Creek Subdivision was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) in accordance with the provisions ' of City of For�rm Drainage Design Criteria for the owners thereof. w State of Colorado No. 33774 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' DESCRIPTION PAGE ' I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION I B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I H. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. HISTORIC DRAINAGE CONDITIONS 2 ' B. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 2 C. SUB -BASIN DESCRIPTION 2 ' III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS 3 B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 3 C. HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA 3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ' A. GENERAL CONCEPT 4 ' V. STORMWATER QUALITY AND EROSION CONTROL A. GENERAL CONCEPT .VI. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 7 B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 7 ' REFERENCE 7 ' APPENDIX Vicinity Map Rational Runoff Calculations ' Inlet Sizing and Street Capacity Hydraulics Storm Sewer Design .Water Quality Control Pond Design, Sedimentation Pond Design & Pond Storage Rating Curve Riprap Design Swale and Drainage Pan Design Erosion Control t Variance Letter Request to City of Fort Collins Excerpts From Floodplain Modeling for Youngs Creek Subdivision 1. ' FINAL DRAINAGE STUDY FOR YOUNGS CREEK SUBDIVISION, ' FORT COLLINS, COLORADO GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The proposed Youngs Creek Subdivision is a single family and multi -family residential development located Southeast of the intersection of Shields Street and ' Prospect Road in the City of Fort Collins. This is an in -fill site bounded by Prospect Road to the north, Landmark Apartments and Seaman Subdivisions to the west, Sheely Subdivision to the east and a vacant lot is to the south. The site is within the ' Canal Importation Basin. Spring Creek is south of the site and south of the vacant lot. The legal boundary of the proposed development is located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. The project site is shown on the Vicinity Map in the Appendix. B. Description of Property ' The. Youngs Creek Subdivision contains approximately 3.06 acres. Presently, the property is vacant land and has been used as pasture for horses. The Canal Importation Channel crosses the southwest corner of the site draining from northwest to southeast. The site generally slopes from northeast to southwest. Topography on the north side of the site slopes at approximately 10 percent to the southwest and ' decreases to 5:0 percent as it approaches the Canal Importation Channel. Site access will be provided by an extension of Hobbit Street, which currently terminates at west lot line in the southwest corner. ' Three muli-family units are proposed for construction on the north portion of the site. Four single-family lots each with separate living units over the garages are proposed ' on the south side adjacent to the Canal Importation Channel. A Water Quality Control Pond is proposed south of the Canal in. the southwest corner of the site. Access to units will be provided by and extension of Hobbit Street to the east and a private drive to the north. II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS ' A. Historic Drainage Conditions ' As stated previously, the site is currently vacant land vegetated with grass. The site drains from northeast to southwest and runoff is intercepted by the Canal Importation ' Channel. The north side, slopes at 10 percent from Prospect Street decreasing to 5 percent near the channel. Offsite runoff enters the site along the east lot line from Sheely Subdivision (comprised of large lot, single-family homes) and vacant land ' further south. Property to the west generally drains south to the Canal Importation Channel. The existing site topography and historic drainage basins as they currently exist are shown on the Historic Drainage Exhibit in the map pocket at the back of this ' report. A. Major Basin Description This site is located within the Canal Importation Basin. The Canal Importation Channel transects the site and is the downstream -most section of the Canal ' Importation/Fairbrooke Channel of the Canal Importation Basin. The drainage area is described in the report entitled Floodplain Modeling For Prospect Creek Development (Ayres, 2002) which references the most recent Canal Importation ' Basin Master Drainage plan (Anderson, 2000). The 100-year design flow in the Canal at the west property boundary is approximately 778 cfs. The resulting water ' surface elevations are 5009.3 and 5008.6 at the west and east ends of the site respectively (Corrected -Effective model). Please see excerpts from this report in the Appendix. Applicable portions of the report have been included in the Appendix. ' B. Sub -Basin Description ' The Youngs Creek Subdivision has been divided into four major basins, which generally follow the property boundaries. The off -site land east of the site was divided into two major sub -basins. All sub -basins are shown on the Proposed ' Drainage Map located in the map pocket at the back of this study. Onsite Basins ' Basin A is composed of seven sub -basins that drain south then east. Runoff is conveyed by drainage swales, pans and street curb and gutter. Flow is intercepted by combination type curb inlets located in a sump on Hobbit Street and enters a water quality pond before being released to the Canal. 2 ' Basin B is a portion of the single-family lots and sheet flows to the Canal. Basin C is a small, undeveloped area between the water quality pond, the vacant lot ' to the south, and south Hobbit Street. This basin will sheet flow south as occured historically. ' Basin D is primarily the.Canal area but also includes the south portion of the southern most multi -family unit and the west edge of the site. Runoff is conveyed in a concrete drainage pan from north to south adjacent to the west property line. All other areas sheet flow to the Canal. ' Basin OS 1 drains by sheet flow into Basin A. Three OS 1 sub -basins are delineated for combined flows at the private drive, design points 9 and 12. Runoff ultimately enters the water quality pond before discharging to the Canal. ' Basin OS2 drains by sheet flow into Basin B. A grass swale carries runoff south at the east property line of lot 4 and discharges to the Canal. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations ' The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria and Construction Specifications are being used for the subject site. Design procedures and formats developed by Urban ' Drainage Flood. Control District (UDFCD) were used as needed. B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ' The development criteria used are in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria and Construction Specifications. Drainage design for this site is ' governed by the Master Plan report for the Canal Importation Channel completed in 2000 by Anderson Consulting Engineers. The report, Floodplain Modeling for Youngs Creek Subdivision, dated April 2003 was used to support design of the box ' culvert within the Canal Importation Channel. C. Hydrologic Criteria The rational method was used to calculate the 2-year and 100-year runoff for this site. ' Rational peak flows were used at the design points (DP) to size drainage channels and street inlets. A summary of the basin areas, intensity and peak flow from each 3 basin is provided in the Appendix. On -site detention for purposes of attenuation of the quantity of flow in the regional stormwater system is typically required for new developments. In this case, however, ' on -site detention is not required, because the flow volumes and times of concentration for all on -site basins are very small in comparison to the regional flows ' in the regional channel through the site. This means that, for a 100-year design storm event, the peak runoff from this site will be conveyed through the regional channel prior to the peak flows from major basin runoff upstream of the site. ' Although on -site detention is not required a Water Quality Control Pond is proposed to capture runoff from all but the south half of the single-family units (see variance ' letter request in appendix). The water quality control volume (WQCV) is 0.09 Ac-ft and was calculated using design procedures and formats developed by Urban Drainage Flood Control District (UDFCD). All related calculations are provided in the appendix of this report. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept The drainage plan for the site involves overland flow from vegetated areas and concentrated flow in both paved and vegetated surfaces. Overland sheet flow from off -site basins, common areas, landscaped areas and parking lots will concentrate in drainage pans or street gutters in the private drive and Hobbit Drive. Concentrated runoff in the private drive will be diverted to curb chases on each side of the drive and discharge into the curb and gutter on Hobbit Drive. Runoff flows in the street gutter west then south over the Canal to a low point in the street. Flow is intercepted by storm sewer inlets on both sides of the street and conveyed to the water quality pond. Release to the Canal is restricted by a water quality control outlet structure. Flow is released to the Canal through a 30-inch storm sewer. The basin flow paths are shown on the Proposed Drainage Map in the map pocket at the back of this report. Storm Sewer Design ' Storm sewer ST-1 A was modeled using Neo UD Sewer. In the 100-Yr design storm it is anticipated that the runoff will crest the crown of the road and the flow depth will equalize in the street. The inlet capacity and the storm sewer modeling assume that the combined flow to both inlets is split equally. Storm sewer ST-1 was modeled with HY-8. The box culvert design is presented in the "Floodplain Modeling for Youngs Creek Subdivision" prepared by Ayers and Associates, and construction drawings are included in the Utility Plans for Youngs Creek PUD. Swale Design ' Concentrated runoff is conveyed in swales or through curb cuts at several locations through out the site. Runoff from basins A5 and OS 1 A is conveyed in a concrete pan ' and a curb cut in the private drive (DP9). A grass swale routes runoff from OS1B (DP10) into the private drive curb chase. Flow on the private drive is routed from the drive into 2-foot drain pans to curb chases and discharge in the north flowline of ' Hobbit Street (DP 12 and DP3). Basin D3 runoff is conveyed by a concrete pan along the north property line to the ' Canal (DP15). A grass swale also routes runoff from OS2 along the basin B boundary and ultimately discharges to the Canal (DP20). ' Cross sections of the swales are shown on the Proposed Drainage Map. Water Quality Pond ' A water quality pond will serve as a sediment basin during construction activities. The WQCV pond/sediment basin in basin C receives flow from basin A and basin OS It is designed to intercept the runoff from the majority of the developed area. ' The pond was sized to allow sufficient capacity to hold the sediment load of 350 CY in the interim construction period. Following construction the pond must be modified to contain the water quality control volume 0.09 Ac-Ft. In a 100-year design storm the pond will discharge through the pond outlet structure. An overtopping spillway is provided adjacent to the Canal for storm events in excess of ' the 100-year design event. Calculations for the street capacity, storm sewer sizing, inlet sizing, riprap and water ' quality structures are included in the Appendix. ' V. STORM WATER QUALITY AND EROSION CONTROL A. General Concept ' For this project, we have sought to find various Best Management Practices for the treatment of storm water runoff. This development lies within the Moderate to High Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the ' Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. Construction and permanent erosion control measures will consist of silt fence, gravel inlet filters, straw bale dikes, vehicle tracking pad, grass seeding and sod as ' shown on the Erosion Control Plan. ' The minimum Erosion Control Performance Standard (PS) is 81.0 during construction and 95.2 after construction. The computed PS during construction was 84.7 and after construction PS is 98.6. Both values exceed the required minimum. ' The erosion control method listed below meets the City of Fort Collins requirements. An erosion control escrow cost estimate of $3540 is also included in Appendix. This represents the cost to re -seed the entire project, not the cost of the erosion control methods required for construction on the site. To mitigate the deposition of sediment into the storm sewer system during ' construction of the roads, utilities and building pads, gravel inlet filters and a sedimentation basin will be employed. The inlet filters and basin should be monitored for sediment accumulation and maintained regularly throughout the ' construction schedule. The grass -lined water quality pond will provide the opportunity for pollutants to filter out of the storm water runoff before being discharged into the Canal. Straw bale dikes within the Canal will help prevent sediment migration during construction of the box culverts within the Canal. Disturbed areas not in a roadway or greenbelt area shall have temporary vegetation ' seed applied within 30 days of initial disturbance. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed at a rate of 1.5 tons/acre minimum, and the mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. Those areas that are to be paved must have a 1-inch layer of gravel mulch applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre 30 days after overlot grading is completed. The pavement structure shall be applied within 30 days after the utilities have been installed. ' If the disturbed areas will not be built on within one growing season, a permanent seed shall be applied. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the ' seed at a minimum rate of 1.5 tons/acre, and the mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked or crimped into the soil. In the event a portion of the roadway pavement surface and utilities will not be constructed for an extended period of time after t overlot grading, a temporary vegetation seed and mulch shall also be applied to the roadway areas as discussed above. ' All constriction activities must also comply with the State of Colorado permitting process for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Constriction Activity. A 6 Colorado Department of Health NPDES permit has been obtained such that ' construction grading can continue within this development 7 CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards. Drainage Concept The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the Utility Plans adequately provide for the conveyance of developed on -site flows into the Canal Importation Canal and ultimately Spring Creek. The proposed water quality pond will provide. adequate storage and release of the "first flush" storm runoff to assist in removal of potential sediment and pollutants within the storm runoff. If groundwater is encountered during the construction of any portion of the site and dewatering is used to install utilities, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Wastewater Discharge Permit will be required. M REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, City of Fort Collins, May 1984. 2. Floodplain Modeling for Youngs Creek Subdivision, Ayres Associates, April 2003. 3. Drainage Criteria Manual (Volume 3), Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Prepared by Wright Water Engineers, Inc., September 1999. 9 Appendix Vicinity Map _ZAT Su'COMA-v E: v UL ill, \ST alp=Ts A "I M OR f.Y -a LA G L oDjR n a M 71 14, M u 14MMATY _46�� TH rZI z's-. Lml__ 11WEM 0 0 a p A I Y'll M U_ a JA E I tq to apse 1rYi1LT'. i i-M ov PROS. ECT R D INj!gr 9TLL �mz G. ............ GIL- :27 K PAN e 'ecRxT emo 'maiedwMAL lj- I VICINITY Y IVIAFJ (SCALE 1 1500') L No Text U) U) U) Ln N N m N O O O O G ;3 • • • a a � w e o 0 s a) u � a) L <a co C ooo O O N O N 0 C. 0 0 0 C � d � w� W O L O U CD o o o W0 rn C W > �Uo U �Co E rio.-o �Q) U L C T CC) N CD 6� �( U Ln C) CO W cu to co z a) t m N L ~ U1 U7 U1 Lo N N N N O O O O Lo Lo U') U7 0) 0) m CD 0 0 0 0 N ;LL = = 0 ow 2 o ao � N t N O N co (1 J Lq i' O r\ C) U II II F 0 I I ti E O N Z c 0 .m F N Y ~ CoW N U O W 0 LL LL• Q) O O CW U G_ N IOLL r 'r^ v/ U) < Cl) Wi ^:d cr Q ,C N r V N M $ Is C 000 Of'( U y0 rc0C0 CO M CO 000 O w r J M W < w W O c)C) W o ACV > J W m ;ry ZW 00 a Q 0C9CJC9 ~ a^ U F- Zvh 0 0 0 0 W J _ C ..+ (O r T CV co O) O E W co W 2 1�4 of Z J wj x W W (L o ��oo > O o LO N o o J 4 r r xj. J U) Q �Y H Z a n- w V O O Lo 3 Ln tt) N Z W V. N u; J unUn n n%L (� M N N CO. CN Q ooC) Z W U N U. co v o (0,'- co o m i Z_ co(n O r r Nit r N (n (n U) m z ==OOEi,. 20 Q o N N N O N CL Ic1 _J \^( } ui � N w U � U I Uj U DD00 ^II 0 N Z 07 O y mLu > W UoC0o 0 �C�o VOA lL ZO OD> w ~ O C0 2 Y Q rI w w J Z C ^ co O (D �r rn r:" lL J 0 0 0 0. (C } U 0 o `— CO (D CD (O M 00 OD J M N V V w W r3 w LLJ > O v LO N 3 Q F J mW u m U " F Zyr o00C) J r00o(Dq _ E(D rl�Dir W H g Q� w w > a o LO,nvoo o oNe-•- o n J Q H Z_ rle 3 v V Z 0 Cl lD LO L V C1 N N 1 J (i m V) V) LO W) N N co N n' O O O O Q Q W ci N UO 11: � . QQ COeM 06 ^;a Z i m m Z N n' (n O� _ NCnU5; 220OW, (� m Z 3s,;= g: v8 �g O (D 2 888 O O O N m Y {y N O m v LL Z i0 Z= W C m m O 400 a,Z0 o�'G a m� ad8s N_ d 6 6 m Of go C y T Y "Innm V1 N c N Oo .Y E of m o n `s n m � (7 A n H r� �J O m n Y C mII C J m a m& a m a Developed Site Hydrology YOUNGS CREEK 100005 Composite00 Desigg Point Basin(s) Area (acre) loci., - A 2.18 0.74 4.33 20.05 1 Al 0.14 0.47 0.19 0.81 2 A2 0.67 0.80 1.30 6.54 3 A3 0.44 0.83 1.04 4.35 4 A4 0.15 0.66 0.28 1.24 5 A5 0.27 0.49 0.38 1.66 6 A6 0.25 0.79 0.57 2.50 7 A7 0.25 0.85 0.62 2.54 18 B 0.51 0.56 0.72 3.36 14 C 0.07 0.28 0.05 0.23 16 D1 0.28 0.60 0.47 2.07 17 D2 0.48 0.74 0.97 4.39 15 D3 0.24 0.29 0.17 0.78 - OS1 1.41 0.32 1.12 5.08 8 OS1A 0.10 0.32 0.09 0.39 10 OS1 B 0.38 0.32 0.29 1.32 11 OS1C 0.92 0.32 0.72 3.25 19 OS2 0.76 0.32 0.60 2.72 21 A+OS1 3.58 0.58 4.94 23.13 20 B+OS2 1.27 0.42 1.36 6.27 9 A5+OS1A 1.68 0.35 1.56 7.04 12 A4+A5+OS1A+OS1B 0.91 0.43 1.03 4.69 13 A3+A4+A5+A6+OS1 2.52 0.49 3.35 15.39 22 A3 to A7+OS1 2.78) 0.53 3.49 16.25 k t.:1'8 i,�:r Xs Y' �'`v`�...rn�t �,ev���4" i� •1�$""4`bi �_�jt,^ :?� ��a °��.'-x'R �' vw+S. .... 8:15 AM The Sear -Brown Group 8/23/2002 I V r O M (O O O N (O O O V m N N N N N P` N N Cn M m M I- V (D M (O V n m m N O t` N M M M M M Un V M V V Un 6 6 0 0 0 0 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O O O O O O m Un m oD N N to V V n r O O 7 0 0 0 1 Un r 0 (O O M MONO UnMMUn0OOtnOOOOO'M(O(O V UnO NCO N— V 0N r LO m M M m m m m m m T .: Un t` co r O (O 7 Un m r N N (D V O O M CM O O m 0 0 0 y Un m O V 0 (- � M n MUMO IT M r- OW V V '7 ((D O O Oj 0 0 0 7 N IT N M M M V N O m m O N M O V M V V m UD t O M M N O Un O Un M O O N N N O r M O r 0 0 0 0 (O M N N CD r ,C)0000000000000000 :*1-411 0000, t` O (O Un M O V M O O O. (O O M (O V UO M r O V (C D O � n n m Un 0 Un N ?UOnOqUn N O It O(nM000mN COO r N Ln C V CO m m r (O V O O V r V M r � 6 CT M V O V n V Un f- Un Un r M W V O N N 'o OD r ODN m r O 'IT r N N N Un O N V N V r M m r a u] N O m Un r N O O O O O O O O O O O O r O o 0 0 Y M r .- O N N r M m V 0 n O O MLr) O n O m m n (O V� �07 (: CO (O W W M c- (D co O O r- v.r- N O M M V V q9, O V CC) co O r C Lo Oc r N m V N O O N V O to V V O m Om m(O NMN 0 0 UnMmm 0 . r r r (ON OCl) Un Un to to Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un ' .* Un Un Un Un to Un N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un to Un Un Un Un loin (n Un Un Un (n m m m m m m m m m m m Cl m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 O Uj 0 0 CD O ;iV Lt1 r N 0 r QO+ (+DU) Qmci rNrQQO r N M 7 to tD 1� r N M r r r r N p` fn N N r+ n Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m U coo (n w y O 0 0 0 m Un Q 000 Q m Q ty QQQ + M Q Q Z O ~ E O W Z N LLI U 5 U o0 fA (7 O D z O LL m 0 ONO W �l LU J n Q C N p O r 0 0 0 0 M M 0 O W Q O M m O N 6] M Z'y E uiuiuirooco Mmaocrirocomw LL .F C O O a0 N e0 c0 Q N N CJ aD r fO (D O Q Q 6> N 0) Cq p N O , E MO MN OON N N O N— OOOOO MOO'-.-N O O Oe0 o0N u7O Q Q W W OOOU)U)O u)OOm t n r M 0 Q) O) M u) O O N a p N o J a p N M of O mm M .., N W > W W J a roMoo�oo�n o,�N000000 In o�MN�ri- O O O O O O Lu De NM.- .-O �-O O N � � N N •- < U V F- i J s Z W ZCLW aaaaaaaOOOaOOOOO nOaaaa x ~ U :a x ~ Z LLJ tq u) M N N M N Q N N M Q _ CO �n r car coMN V)'-tJ ON W c0 O�QOD Oc7i Mr MQ ' E NNM NN Q N to cOMN IOOcor ro IOLU ff g _ wEL o0 0 000 00 000000 00 coOMM i O o .-pOOR1 OOOMOO 00! �0 O J ._. U < r z x U �...Q p rQrQQ�MNOMMQ�O�NNO NOrrr N Z W J U M Q r O M O Q� O N O W O Q m N N N N N of N N M O M r Q 00 tD O Q r CO 10 N c0 1� N M M M M M N Q M Q Q c0 O O O O O O O O,O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aE < w UN NQ r Qu)r u)U rmmQ Oo�NcO oJrm NOJ , Q Q UO U 0 ¢ m z N < co _< <.o,e3x . N (� (n (n } NM�U)U)UU `< <<NMQu�cormU OOO. «Q«Q< o00U)L00000 UlQmZ Q++O<o <_<.; n ; < < z 0 E o Y w LU Z z ui U mU o N f7 0 U O LL T� 000 w H M Y QM W LL' J a ? CN " E � oo N O0o 000 r OOMn 0 r�O O C D C)N N O i vi (n.� Iri In o o o � t; vi lri to (o (o LL, C J E (n O 00 N e0 W V N N (D W r (O (O O e Q o N 0) cq aD cq M O M N O O N N N O N 0 0 0 0 0 no O N F U NO OtD c0N �O Q e QOT otD (D tD cO (O (GOON tb t0 .� � � � r MO o Q)MtOO O N N N NOJN M W O Q)CO M�' w W w J EL I�o(�oo� oo(no(n (nrn00000 (no�(o N,q y O U < %? F J zw ¢3aaaaaaa3�3a��333 a�aaaa Q LLcOaOaaaaaLLa000LLU0000 a.OLLaaa. Y U sr W3 U �r �n 00000�noo (noo 00 000000 Noocon on(nm�nOrNw.cof7M(n (n(noroo W J O E w# z7 J �} W w WLL o0 0 000 00 000000'. oo(n .o o(ooMM M - O�� NN NQ) M N CO NMM-OOo00 00- - - 0 U ¢ F Z x 2 F w J U Q r O M (O m m to co M o Q m N N N.N N W N (O M m M p -o O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 O 0 0 o o 0 0 0 ¢ ¢ W A N S coere�c,r �o u� rcomQ omNc� o�nw NaD �- � (O Q � N N N� O N e N e � M Q) n (n N (O O w n QN O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o .- O O O O M o m z rn n O U) mLO. D Q n (n (n + aNL7 — ¢¢¢QOonntn000n¢n j, , �O� nZ m ¢ 0 O<Cn+++ a 0 tww N mUo o � Z ry mT �= N p Tppp ppp d p O d ppppp pp d p d p p �. G m 0 Eo cmoQoo O P O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r O O O O N coo oo 00oQ o Z="-lo o o o0000000 voc00000000000ca af0000n LL6 Ws d 0 P m IL � � r• Q Ct '.1 _ p a O U L P m m 0 m LL � N C O p m m m L P o Q Q Q Q c C m y o j m N U m a u `m `m ^-ccooggSSS000Sa000 C 70000 SScoSS y rc o y n N m u p m c � n m o Q r m n N N N n n n ti m m N o pb m no mNmn oQm oNn m mI CIN OnQ 0 m m n 0 C m p m m m m m n m N N m Q N b p b n N N N N N N N N N N N fJ N N N N N N N N N N N Na C ` () Q nO1"1 IDP W Nm mO POINN NCIN mNNn Qn Q m m p m N b r N l7 C] n n n N P n P N 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .000.., --. i59 C 'Y E COn00�-00NnOmm P d 111md Nm�n 0C1'F®A bin r vi vi vi vi vinm ivior Donn old oldo m�. nF E o m c0od0000000000d0000 000000 @E 000a0000000000000o ddddd6 V ET LL m ±y g n m 6 m _ r m r- J !r m _G¢U N�G¢�?er• '" _ G <<G G G G G 00000 p ¢ 9 N Q m G G Gr, 1 �Nn TNdn��d�� m�� � NS��•n (NV 44 m 3 m x gg q >! t ¢ C' ti m .a "n m$zo8�888888888888888 o888$3 €�=^8�88SS888888S8SS8 �8858��° 0�'=o6aido6dobddd6odd6o �dood�' OR N nLL VN � N 4 3"88m888888888885888 �SS88S V if lggq�. O C O Js. H m S S o O S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Ng LL V N N w 3@@333 rr44W! O C m = U mC ^OmNCNINpNNCIN0�00�(N•INn pp ppppQQ��pp p Jr, �-NSm^fJ m> � H O m Q^^ CJ lV t•1 O N Q O V) O � C) N H 10 !� O W N Kg mg?8 888 000088o Sc000 88888�o� a8.8 _q ^'^ m pNQ�ppQOmnmmmmNNN ^namm'^�# OmIm C1NbN Nf'1NO vNnNC- NOmnNa: N m dr , o ry O m Q^ N N m O N O n N H m n Q Z m m U � m Nm mQ NNNNONQNQ Clmn NF �NIpm� C Q-+N000000000000�'0 OI��OO W C�T��mNI_mNi. V000 mNi.N 01 Mi[IA mNINOPmmm mri T 1NO N00 =C_mlp pppOlm O4�0i O�mmm mmO�OP m1 �vmlNc7S mmrO�1W aCp��p �0p Gm•1SRCNln"t•)p0000 n�JNIP VmIm U O O O ^ Om O O P Op O O O O ..... 000 O O Oiz{;; (� p IP Q O W m O r 0 N N S Q m C! N N N N N P CNl P P Yn1 I�Nm Cr CI CIM O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Om O O O O;;ta: j.ESSNSSSS V mm 8 S0188mm�l�m mNNNNI�.I m i C n@ p E 6 >c00000000000000.... 0o 0000n @E odo6odo66ddd000add daddao�:' E pp tl m py^ om r c pg J V , E �n uimNmmin :n tp�N¢1 �.��cnn � o�i vi vi N-r N ^� Q o cf < N r n �C } c ed S$ I a 3 oU m n s3 VT p J i ro �a 5 �a jll a V a m a = L q C d V' mll Q 5 U U o Z a 1 Inlet Sizing and Street Capacity Hydraulics i Inlet Sizing and Street Capacity Hydraulics Project = Inlet ID = W L WP P,__� Curb [^ H gn Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) th of a Unit Inlet ber of Unit Inlets tr Depth for Design Condition e Information h of a Unit Grate Opening Ratio for a Grate (see USDCM Table ST-7) Sing Factor for a Single Grate a Orifice Coefficient a Weir Coefficient Opening Information ht of Curb Opening in Inches 3 of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Width for Depression Pan Sing Factor fora Single Curb Opening Opening Orifice Coefficient Opening Weir Coefficient a Weir pacity as a Weir without Clogging ,gging Coefficient for Multiple Units ,gging Factor for Multiple Units pacity as a Weir with Clogging an Orifice pacity as an Orifice without Clogging pacity as an Orifice with Clogging a Weir al Length of Curb Opening Inlet )acity as a Weir without Clogging gging Coefficient for Multiple Units gging Factor for Multiple Units )acity as a Weir with Clogging an Orifice )acity as an Orifice without Clogging racity as an Orifice with Clogging Flaw Direction ........................ n° 11':6 cfs L 10,00; it No �� ......5. Ya 3.00!.inches W, it A C. (G) 0,50 Ca (G) 0.67 C„ (G) 3.00 ............ H 6':00 iinches Theta ..... 45i0. degrees W° 2,00. fl C, (C) 0A0 Ca (C) 0,67 C (C) 3,00 ........................ O 2D'r3£cfs Clog R14 O 164 cis O°, O,a 173:3�cis 4acrate = ...................... :1.:6 5? cfs ........................ ...................... ................... L 50(00 OD[fl cfs Coef 1,33. Clog 0;03 O 19.6 cfs ....................... .............. O ::36:4 ;cfs O 354; cis Qacuro ..... 9cfs Qa 3S_2;cfs C% 190.00 Note: Unless additional ponding depth or spilling over the curb is acceptable, a capture percentage of less than 100% in a sump may indicate the need for additional inlet units. UD-Inlet v1.04 Hobbit Street capacity.xls, Combo-S 8/2312002, 9:30 AM Project= Street |Q= Top of Curb or �w Tx- | | Y H / d I I @ uDischarge inthe Gutter Width Depression Transverse Slope Longitudinal Slope ig'sRoughneso � !rCross Slope �rSpread Width 'rDepth without Gutter Depression 'rDepth with aGutter Depression 'rFlow |uDesign Flow Ratio hyFHVVAHGc-22method (Eq.sT-7) 3ufor Side Flow nnthe Street 3ufor Gutter Flow along Gutter Slope Rate Carried byWidth T, Rate Carried hyWidth <T.'vv) 'rp|mw Flow ergeabove Depressed Section (Eq.8T'1orGT'3) `argewithin Depressed Section (o o") Rate /alent Slope for the Street Area Velocity product Street Crown Q.= cfs VV= u a= inches S�= mn n 00E� | Sw= ft/ft T= � y= inches u= inches Eo= T,= ft T,= ft uw= cfs om-w= ms cfs Q�= Cfs �= cis �= cis QT=����"� u,= mn A,=2.59 sqft V,= f� UD'|nhetv1.O4Hobbit Street capacity.x1s.Street Hy 8/23/2002, 9:46AM Frame and GW� Heavy Duty Not recommended for bicycle traffic. For safety Total Weight 1130 Pounds standards see pages 88 to 93. Also available with Type "C" grate as s--hown on R-3360-A. F1-20 ------------- -- 1. 07711, Medium Duty Total Weight 590 Pounds 39L 227 F- 4 L��3767 2 g Medium Duty Total Weight 845 Pounds '3363 Un- -it,Inlet Frame, "Gidtci; CLirb Bozl'.�i - Medium Duty Total Weight 1660 Pounds 151 a cm 0 0 c O w U Q) h G Q) L.b W CML Lu U U o y o ai �C�o V) 4 m O . h CX U U c 0 w U N :a t U f6 N C m � 3 0 3 0 0 o O N a) w '3 T m. a� 3 C 0 (D LO O O C . o 0 0 .. O N N f0 O QJ (D C > m 3 aO) o U Co N N o � — Ew+ U N 7 y a 3 N 0 T LL E E O a-) r 3 LL 'a 0 cA LL o _° m a c c 0.� o ' L y0 - o o Z n Z U coi Z O Q Q) 0 p 14 QJ U N M O N N Ir O O O 0000 N M O N CO N It 000 O O O O C C 0 0 a a) :- :_• m O- m j O 0 L Vl r 0 m aD C O .r _p N 0 C� 3 3 otS 0 O o c LL U c U v i d � 00 M Ci1 00 (fl r- N co N CV.CT O tO r N I�Y M U') LO Cr) 00 ti ti fV L— C-4 N 0) O Lo r N i c w N O u) _ p_ �U.. � .U.. > _>.LL wCL 4. cu O U (0 o U � : U ,o •U.2 fl ° m a) 3 E O N 0 C L Q O `~. m 0 co a c m a m J N a O 0 N .. N r N 0 O G O U h G m W U p Uco w ayiC90 M N mU 3 0 c N O O NN OIT 0O)OO a)r O C)0 O V I- O m O O O O) CO CO 0 0 p 0 0 V C D O O N O CD G O O U N N OC), f-NN OC)NN O V t�O O O to OOO yQ) OO 0D1tr)00 W m O O O 0 0 V (O O O O N O( O ' 04 r r V w in o w CL'o N'OY.O U C Y (6 � 'LL ' a o o cc o N 6 a > o E 3 U U C U O m N.= O N V Q° L O) O O N Y C U -o U ' d Y. « 7 0_w N L O O O C� N N� U�A N N z � U� �" O f6 a) 3 N (Uw2`a-0 O N O O O Tn O_ L a) N O 4'S O O Vl O 0) 11 U NO N 7 7 L L Q Q O)F ~ ' C O. O C Q) C O 7 y Q C: U p O 0 O> U O o V dtE U N O L w o a N C) m U a ' m o o o `O w L U u N U ti No Text 1313 ID N 0 0 0 S 0 C O O N d �0 �3 a) o 3 Q (D ro CO m N ~ N C _N N C3 � co w R Y � � L d y (j 0 O y � 01 a d 7 v @ N > @ N m O cn (n 0 Z ............ N O CV . r i (D i r `I ' 7 7 7 7 U N r r r '- N r r r r > O a C) CN Q1 O a)= N 0 0 0 0 W CD r r r T T E E Z 1- � -E� c � 0 0 M C r NM 7l0 3 0_ O cc2 c2c c=c c2c cSc G G G G G « m m 0 3t r N M 7 0 o Z 2 = N 1� 7 7 7 UN r r Q N r r N ��077 co > f7 N N CO 0 C (O r--: n r N 7 c0 co 1- N M M O r-� n P-� @N N o Y CoJ J U N co l0 l0 Cl 0 O Y M N O O CO J 0 0 0 r C N 0 N @ m a IT 0 0 0 N @ N O 3 N 7 co CO V � � n COCO W O O 06 O. O O (n O O O O O' O L O r O J U'7 M O (n cL a a 0 U U U Q Of of 0� C7(UNOo EN r r r r N M 7 NeoUDS Results Summary Project Title: Project Description: Output Created On: 8/29/2002 at 3:44:36 PM Using NeoUDSewer Version 1.0.52 Beta Release. Rainfall Intensity Formula Used. Return Period of Flood is 100 Years. Summary of Manhole Hydraulics Ground Water Manhole Design Peak Elevation Elevation Comments ID # Flow (CFS) (Feet) (Feet) 1 22.8 6.50 8 73'Surface Water Present 2 11.4 10.90 8.69 3 11.4 10.90 8.74 4 11.4 10.92 9.13' 5 11.4 10.92' 9.78. 1 Summary of Sewer Hydraulics Note: The given depth to flow ratio is 0.9. Manhole ID Number Calculated Suggested Existing Diameter Diameter Diameter Sewer Upstream ownstrea Sewer (Rise) (Rise) (Rise) Width ID # m Shape (Inches) (FT) : (Inches) (FT) nche (Inches) (FT), 1 2 1 Round 22.0 24 24 N/A 2 3 2 Round 22.0 24 18 N/A 3 4 2 Round 21.9 24 18 N/A' 4 1 5 1 4 1 Round 21.9 24 18 N/A Round and arch sewers are measured in inches. Box sewers are measured in feet. Calculated diameter was determined by sewer hydraulic capacity. Suggested diameter was rounded up to the nearest commercially availible size All hydraulics where calculated using the existing parameters. If sewer was sized mathematically, the suggested diameter was used for hydraulic calculations. Design Full Normal Normal Critical : Critical Full Sewer Flow Flow Depth Velocity Depth Velocity Velocity Fronde Comment ID (CFS) (C) S (Feet) (FPS) (Feet) (FPS) (FPS) Number 1 11.4 14.3, 1.35 5.1 1.21 5.7 3.6 0.82 velocity Is High. 2 11.4 6.7 1.50 6.5 1.28 7.1 6.5 N/A Velocity .Is High 3 11.4 6.7 1.50 6.5 1.28 7.1 6.5 N/A Velocity Is High 4 11.4 6.7 1.50 6.5 1.28 7.1 6.5 N/A Velocity Is High A Froude number = 0 indicated that a pressured flow occurs. 2 Summary of Sewer Design Information Invert Elevation Buried Depth Slope Sewer ID % Upstream (Feet) Downstream' (Feet) Upstream (Feet) Downstream (Feet) Comment 1 0.40 6.72 6.50 2.18 -2.00 Sewer Too Shallow 2 0.40 7.24 7.24 2.16 2.16 3 0.41 7.38 7.25 2.04 2.15 4 0.41 7.38 7.38 2.04 2.04 Summary of Hydraulic Grade Line Crown Elevation Water Elevation Sewer Sewer Surcharged Upstream Downstrea Upstream ownstrea ID # Length Length (Feet) m (Feet) m Condition (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 1 54.87 16.95 8.72' 8.50 8.69 8 73 Subcritica 1 2 0.1 0.1' 8.74 8.74 8.74' 8.69 Pressured 3 32.77 32.77 8.88 8.75 9.13 8.69 Pressured 4 0.1 0.1 8.88 8.88 9.78 9.13 Pressured 3 Summary of Energy Grade Line Upstream Manhole Juncture Losses Downstream Manhole Energy Sewer Bend Bend LateralLateral Energy Sewer Manhole Elevation Friction K Loss K ' Loss Manhole Elevation ID # ID # (Feet) (Feet) Coeffic (Feet) Coeffic (Feet) ID # (Feet) lent ient 1 2 8.91 0.18 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 8.73 2 3 9.39 0.31 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.00 2 8.91 3 4 9.78 0.83 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 2 8.91 4 5 1 10.42 0.00 1.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 4 9.78 Bend loss = Bend K * Flowing full vhead in sewer. Lateral loss = Outflow full vhead - Junction Loss K * Inflow full vhead. A friction loss of 0 means it was negligible or possible error due to jump. Friction loss includes sewer invert drop at manhole. Notice: Vhead denotes the velocity head of the full flow condition. A minimum junction loss of 0.05 Feet would be introduced unless Lateral K is 0. Friction loss was estimated by backwater curve computations. E 1 ,. CURRENT DATE: 08-23-2002 - FILE DATE: 08-23-2002 CURRENT TIME: 15:05:55 FILE NAME: YC-1 FHWA CULVERT ANALYSIS HY-8, VERSION 6.1 C I SITE DATA I CULVERT SHAPE, MATERIAL, INLET U---------------------------------------------------------------------=---� L I INLET OUTLET CULVERT BARRELS V I ELEV. ELEV. LENGTH SHAPE SPAN RISE MANNING INLET INO.I (ft) (ft) (ft) MATERIAL (ft) (ft) n TYPE 1 15005.75 5005.00 74.91 1 RCP 2.50 2.50 .012 CONVENTIONAL 2 3 4 5 6 SUMMARY OF CULVERT FLOWS (cfs) ELEV (ft) TOTAL 1 2 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 5008.51 2.6 0.0 0.0 5008.54 5.2 0.0 0.0 5008.58 7.8 0.0 0.0 5008.65 10.4 0.0 0.0 5008.73 13.0 0.0 0.0 5008.83 15.6 0.0 0.0 5008.94 18.2 0.0 0.0 5009.08 20.8 0.0 0.0 _"3'._. 5009:2223. 1-.�._..9..: 0. 0 5009.41 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 FILE: YC-1 DATE: 08-23-2002 3 4 5 6 ROADWAY ITR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OVERTOPPING SUMMARY OF ITERATIVE SOLUTION ERRORS FILE: YC-1 DATE: 08-23-2002 HEAD HEAD TOTAL FLOW % FLOW ELEV (ft) ERROR (ft) FLOW (cfs) ERROR (cfs) ERROR 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 5008.51 0.000 2.60 0.00 0.00 5008.54 0.000 5.20 0.00 0.00 5008.58 0.000 7.80 0.00 0.00 5008.65 0.000 10.40 0.00 0.00 5008.73 0.000 13.00 0.00 0.00 5008.83 0.000 15.60 0.00 0.00 5008.94 0.000 18.20 0.00 0.00 5009.08 0.000 20.80 0.00 0.00 5009.22 0.000 23.13 0.00 0.00 5009.41 0.000 26.00 0.00 0.00 <i> TOLERANCE (ft) = 0.010 <2> TOLERANCE M = 1.000 CURRENT DATE: 08-23-2002 CURRENT TIME: 15:05:55 2 FILE DATE: 08-23-2002 FILE NAME: YC-1 PERFORMANCE CURVE FOR CULVERT 1 - 1( 2.50 (ft) BY 2.50 (ft)) RCP DIS- HEAD- INLET OUTLET CHARGE WATER CONTROL CONTROL FLOW NORMAL GRIT. OUTLET TW OUTLET TW FLOW ELEV. DEPTH DEPTH TYPE DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH VEL. VEL. (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft). <F4> (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) (fps) 0.00 5008.50 0.00 2.75 0-NF 0.00 2.60 5008.51 0.63 2.76 4-FFt 0.39 5.20 5008.54 0.98 2.79 4-FFt 0.57 7.80 5008.58 1.28 2.83 4-FFt 0.70 10.40 5008.65 1.54 2.90 4-FFt 0.82 13.00 5008.73 1.77 2.98 4-FFt 0.92 15.60 5008.83 1.98 3.08 4-FFt 1.02 1 18.20 5008.95 2.18 3.20 4-FFt 1.11 20.80 5009.08 2.37 3.33 4-FFt 1.20 23.13 5009.22 2.56 3.47 4-FFt 1.28 26.00 5009.41 2.79 3.66 4-FFt 1.37 El. inlet face invert 5005.75 ft El. inlet throat invert 0.00 ft 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.52 2.50 3.50 0.53 0.00 0.75 2.50 3.50 1.06 0.00 0.92 2.50 3.50 1.59 0.00 1.07 2.50 3.50 2.12 0.00 1.21 2.50 3.50 2.65 0.00 1.33 2.50 3.50 3.18 0.00 1.44 2.50 3.50 3.71 0.00 1.55 2.50 3.50 4.24 0.00 1.63 2.50 3.50 4.71 0.00 1.74 2.50 3.50 5.30 0.00 El. outlet invert 5005.00 ft El. inlet crest 0.00 ft ***** SITE DATA ***** EMBANKMENT TOE ************** UPSTREAM STATION 75.00 ft UPSTREAM ELEVATION 5005.75 ft UPSTREAM EMBANKMENT SLOPE (X:1) 0.01 DOWNSTREAM STATION 0.00 ft DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION 5005.00 ft DOWNSTREAM EMBANKMENT SLOPE (X:1) 0.01 ***** CULVERT DATA SUMMARY ************************ BARREL SHAPE CIRCULAR BARREL DIAMETER 2.50 ft BARREL MATERIAL CONCRETE BARREL MANNING'S n 0.012 INLET TYPE CONVENTIONAL INLET EDGE AND WALL SQUARE EDGE WITH HEADWALL INLET DEPRESSION NONE Water.Quality Control Pond Design Sedimentation Pond Design Pond. Storage Rating Curve Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility Sheet 1 of 3 Designer: A. Willkomm Company: Sear -Brown Date: August 22, 2002 Project: Youngs Creek Location: Fort Collins 1. Basin Storage Volume la = 65.00 % A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = la / 100) B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area) Area = 3.59 acres C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) WQCV = 0.25 K watershed inches (WQCV =1.0 * (0.91 * 13 - 1.19. 12 t 0.78 * 1)) D) Design Volume: Vol= (WQCV / 12) * Area * 1.2 Vol = -- .` 0.091 ` acre-feet 2. Outlet Works A) Outlet Type (Check One) B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowest Perforation (H) C) Required Maximum Outlet Area per Row, (A.) D) Perforation Dimensions (enter one only): i) Circular Perforation Diameter OR ii) 2" Height Rectangular Perforation Width E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 For Maximum) F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (A,) G) Number of Rows (nr) H) Total Outlet Area (Ap) 3. Trash Rack A) Needed Open Area: At = 0.5 * (Figure 7 Value) * Aot B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One) C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref.: Figure 6a): i) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (W.,,) from Table 6a-1 ii) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) X Orifice Plate Perforated Riser Pipe Other: H = 3.05 feet A. = :011 _'. square inches D = 0.2500 inches, OR W = inches nc = 7 "- number 17: square inches' nr = i9 =' number Apt = "' ' 0 90 '`,=' square inches At = i `.c 34 `- square inches X < 2" Diameter Round 2" High Rectangular Other: Ww c = 6 inches . HTR = 61 inches UDFCD Form WQCV.xls, EDB Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility Sheet 2 of 3 Designer: A. Willkomm Company: Sear -Brown . Date: August 22, 2002 Project: Youngs Creek Location: Fort Collins iii) Type of Screen (Based on Depth H), Describe if "Other" I X S.S. #93 VEE Wire (US Filter) Other: iv) Screen Opening Slot Dimension, Describe if "Other' X 0.139" (US Filter) Other: v) Spacing of Support Rod (O.C.) Type and Size of Support Rod (Ref.: Table 6a-2) vi) Type and Size of Holding Frame (Ref.: Table 6a-2) 0 75' inches #156 VEE 3/8 in. x 1.0 in. flat bar D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening (Refer to Figure 6b): 1) Width of Rectangular Opening (W) W = inches ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Wcon, = W + 12") Woonc = s inches iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopen;ng) from Table 6b-1 Wepen;n9 'inches iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = inches v) Type of Screen (based on depth H) (Describe if "Other") KlempTm KPP Series Aluminum Other: vi) Cross -bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTm KPP inches Grating). Describe if "Other" Other: vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2) (Based on depth of WQCV surcharge) 4. Detention Basin length to width ratio (LNVII 5 Pre -sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values A) Volume (5 to 10% of the Design Volume in 1 D) acre-feet B) Surface Area acres C) Connector Pipe Diameter inches (Size to drain this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control) D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides yes/no UDFCD Form WQCV.xls, EDB Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility Sheet 3 of 3 Designer: A. Willkomm Company: Sear -Brown Date: August 22, 2002 Project: Youngs Creek Location: Fort Collins 6. Two -Stage Design A) Top Stage (Dwo = 2' Minimum) Dwo = feet Storage= acre-feet B) Bottom Stage (DBs = Dwo+ 1.5' Minimum, Dwo+ 3.0' Maximum, DBs = feet Storage = 5% to 15% of Total WQCV) Storage= acre-feet Surf. Area - <>i acres C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of Depth= feet 0.5 . Top Stage Depth or 2.5 Feet) Storage= acre-feet Surf. Area= acres D) Total Volume: Volto, = Storage from 5A + 6A + 6B Voltot acre-feet Must be > Design Volume in 1 D 7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical) Z = (horizontal/vertical) Minimum Z = 4, Flatter Preferred 8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance) Z = 3.00 (horizontal/vertical) per unit vertical) Minimum Z = 3, Flatter Preferred 9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "Other") Native Grass Irrigated Turf Grass Other: Notes: UDFCD Form WQCV.xls, EDB Orifice Perforation Details A� Structural Steel Channel Formed Into Concrete, To Span Width Of Structure. See Figures 6—a, 6—b WPlate — WConc. + 6 inches (minimum) Conc. (see below) OI . O_IO �. o 0 IO 11 OI 0 12" Max. of Hwocv B _f Permanent Water Surface f 2' — 4" Minimum Av ' Circular Openings: Wconc.Obtained From Table 6a-1 Rectangular Openings: WConc = (Width of Rectangular Perforation W) + 12" Rectangular Openings: WOpening (see Figure 6—b) Obtained From Table 6b-1 ' Sc, see SC, see figure 5 Figure 5 W ' o 0 0 i 0 0 o 1 1 o O O O O O O O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 ' O O O 000 O O O 000 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 o O O 0 000 O O O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q o ' - Example Perforation Patterns Note: The goal in designing the outlet is to minimize the number of columns of perforations that will drein the WQCV in the desired time. Do not, however, increase the diameter of circular perforations or the height of the rectangular perforations beyond 2 inches. Use the "owed perforation shapes and configurations shown above along with Figure 5 to determine the ttern that provides an area per row closest to that required without exceeding it. Urban Drainage and Figure 4 Flood Control District Orifice Details for Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Draining WQCV Orifice Plate Perforation Sizing Circular Perforation Sizing Chart may be applied to orifice plate or vertical pipe outlet. Hole Dia (in) ' Hole Dia (in) Min. Sc (in) Area per Row.(sq in) n=1 n=2 n=3 1 /4 0.250 1 0.05 0.10 0.15 5/16 0.313 2 0.08 0.15 0.23 3/8 0.375 2 0.11 0.22 0.33 7/16 0.438 2 0.15 0.30 0.45 1 /2 . 0.500 2 0.20 0.39 0.59 9/16 0.563 3 0.25 0.50 0.75 5/8 0.625 3 0.31 0.61 0.92 11 /16 0.688 3 0.37 0.74 1.11 3 4 0.750 3 0.44 0.88 1.33 13/16 0.813 3 0.52 1.04 1.56 7/8 0.875 3 0.60 1.20 1.80 15/16 0.938 3 0.69 1.38 2.07 1 1.000 4 0.79 1.57 2.36 1 1 16 1.063 4 0.89 1.77 2.66 1 1 8 1.125 4 0.99 1.99 2.98 1 3 16 1.188 4 1.11 2.22 3.32 1 1 4 1.250 4 1.23 2.45 3.68 1 5/16 1.313 4 1.35 2.71 4.06 1 3 8 1.375 4 1.48 2.97 4.45 1 7 16 1.438 4 1.62 3.25 4.87 1 t 2 1.500 4 1.77 3.53. 5.30 1 9 16 1.563 4 1.92 3.83 5.75 1 5 8 1.625 4 2.07 4.15 6.22 1 11 16 1.688 4 2.24 4.47 6.71 1 3 4 1.750 4 2.41 4.81 7.22 1 13 16 1.813 4 2.58 5.16 7.74 1 7 8 1.875 4 2.76 5.52 8.28 1 15 16 1.938 4 2.95 5.90 8.84 2 2.000 4 3.14 6.28 9.42 n = Number of columns of perforations Minimum steel plate thickness. 1/4 5/16 3/ 8 " ' • Designer may interpolate to the nearest 32nd inch to better match the required area, if desired. ' Rectangular Perforation Sizing ' Only one column of rectangular perforations allowed. Rectangular Height = 2 inches Rectangular Width _(inches) ' Required Area per Row (sq in) .= 2" Urban Drainage and ' Flood Control District. Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Rectangular Hole Width Min. Steel Thickness 5„ 1 4 „ 6„ 1 /4 „ 7" 5/32 „ 8" 5/16 " 9" 11 /32 10" 3/0 >10" 1 /2 Figure 5 WQCV Outlet Orifice Perforation Sizing ote: vertical vvw%.v Irasn rCacKs are snown In rlgures o, o—a, ano o—a for-sUggesteo SLonaaralZea utlet design. Adverse —Slope Trash Rack design may be used for non —standardized designs, but must feet minimum design criteria. Ctrnnh.rnl StPP Steel Bolts Formed Into See Figures I B A —4-7 See Figure Varies IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III oil" a e 6 mum tart Welds, 6—a, 6—b 2'-0" -0" um) 1 A� 'WQCV Trash Racks: Elevation 1. Well —screen trash racks shall be stainless steel and shall be attached by.intermittant ' welds along the edge of the mounting frame. 2. Bar grate trash racks shall be aluminum and shall be bolted using stainless steel hardwar- ' 3. Trash Rack widths are for specified trash rack material. Finer well —screen or mesh size than specified is acceptable, however, trash rack dimensions need to be adjusted for . materials having a different open area/gross area ratio (R value) ' 4, Structural design of trash rack shall be based on full hydrostatic head with zero head downstream of the rack. Dverflow Trash Racks: ' 1. All trash racks shall be mounted using stainless steel hardware and provided with hinged and lockable or boltable access panels. ' 2. Trash racks shall be stainless steel, aluminum, or steel. Steeltrash. racks shall be hot dip galvanized and may be hot powder painted after galvanizing. Trash Racks shall be designed such that the diagonal dimension of. each opening is . smaller than the diameter of tale outlet pipe. 4. Structural design of trash rack shall be based on full hydrostatic head with zero head downstream of the rack. Urban Drainage and Figure 6 Flood Control District Suggested WQCV Outlet Standardized Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Trash Rack Design Youngs Creek Project No. 1005001 Detention Pond Volume Rating Curve Pond A 5.62 1 0.00 0.000 0.000 6.00 120 0.00 0.000 0.000 7.00 1,320 0.03 0.014 0.014 8.00 1,910 0.04 0.036 0.051 8.10 1,980 0.05 0.004 0.055 8.20 2,050 0.05 0.005 0.060 8.30 2,120 0.05 0.005 0.065 8.40 2,190 0.05 0.005 0.069 8.50 2,260 0.05 0.005 0.074 8.60 2,330 0.05 0.005 0.080 8.70 2,400 0.06 0.005 0.085 8.80 2,470 0.06 0.006 0.091 �- 8.90 2,540 0.06 0.006 0.096 9.00 2,610 0.06 0.051 0.102 100-year WSEL = V = Id(A+B+ AB) where: V = volume between contour interval d = elevation - elevationn_I A = area of elevation-1 contour B = area of elevationn contour Volume Required = 0.09 acre-ft. Water Surface Area = 0.06 acre Volume Provided = 0.09 acre-ft. 10:38 AM Sear -Brown 8/29/2002 F' Riprap Design y 1 -- SEAR -BROWN Youngs Creek By: Wilikomm 1005-001 Pond Discharge to Channel: 1-30" ADS N-12 Plastic Pipe Checked: Updated: 23-Aug-02 Pipe Diameter: D 30 in IF§o�iiType: Erosion Resistant Soil (Clay) Discharge: Q . 23.13 cfs IMax Velocity: V 7.7 ft/sec Tailwater: y 0.8 ft known 1. Required riprap type: Q/D2.5 = 2.34 < 6 --> use design charts D = 2.50 ft YUD = 0.32 Q/D^1.5 = 5.85 d50 = 6.34 in -------> 9 in ----> Use Type L (Class 9) riprap 2. Expansion Factor: 1/2tanO = 3.99 3. Riprap Length: At = Q/V = 3.00 ft2 L = 1/2tan0 * (At/Yt - D) = 5 ft 4. Governing Limits: L> 3D 8 ft increase length to 8 ft L<1OD 25 ft=>5ft-->OK 5. Maximum Depth: Depth = 2d50 = 2 (9 in / 12) = 1.5 ft 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. 7. Riprap Width: Width = 3D = 3 (30 in /12) = 8 ft (Extend riprap to minimum of culvert height or normal channel depth.) Summary: Type L (Class 9) riprap Length = 8 ft Depth = 1.5 ft Width = 8 ft Reference: UDFCD USDCM, Vol. 1, Major Drainage, Page MD-105 L:UOBS\1005001\DATA\CHANNEL RIPRAPALS SEAR -BROWN Youngs Creek Design Point 21: 1-24" ADS N-12 Plastic Pipe Updated: 23-Aug-02 Pipe Diameter: D 24 in Discharge: Q 22.8 cfs Tailwater*: y 0.8 ft (unknown) * Assume that y=0.4*D if tailwater conditions are unknown 1. Required riprap type: 2. Expansion Factor: 3. Riprap Length: By: Willkomm 1005-001 Checked: Soil Type: Erosion Resistant Soil (Clay) Max Velocity: V 7.7 ft/sec Q/D2.5 = 4.03 < 6 --> use design charts D = 2.00 ft Yt/D = 0.40 Q/D^1.5 = 8.06 d50 = 6.68 in -------> 9 in ----> Use Type L (Class 9) riprap 1/2tan0= 3.48 At = QN = 2.96 ft2 L = 1/2tanO * (AUYt - D) = 6 ft 4. Governing Limits: L>3D 6 ft <=Eft -->OK L<10D 20 ft >6ft-->OK 5. Maximum Depth: Depth = 2d50 = 2 (9 in / 12) = 1.5 ft 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. 7. Riprap Width: Width = 3D = 3 (24 in /12) = 6 ft (Extend riprap to minimum of culvert height or normal channel depth.) Summary: Type L (Class 9) riprap Length = 6 ft Depth = 1.5 ft Width = 6 ft Reference: UDFCD USDCM, Vol. 1, Major Drainage, Page MD-105 L:WOBS\1005001\DATA\RIPRAP FOR DP21ALS SEAR -BROWN Youngs Creek Riprap at Box Culvert Updated: 23-Aug-02 Box Width: W 18 ft Box Height: H 4.5 ft Discharge: Q 778 cfs Tailwater: y 1.5 ft (known) 1. Required riprap type: By: AGW 702-083 Checked: Soil Type: Erosion Resistant Soil (Clay) Max Velocity: v 7.7 ft/sec Q/WHAl.5 = 4.53 < 8 --> use design charts H = 4.50 ft Yt/H = 0.33 Q/WH^0.5 = 20.38 d50 = 10.27 in --> 12 in ----> Use Type M (Class 12) riprap 2. Expansion Factor: 1/2tanO= 1.33 3. Riprap Length: At = QN = 101 ft2 L = 1/(2tanO)' (At/Yt - W) = 66 ft 4. Governing Limits: L>3H 14 ft <=66ft-->OK L < 1 OH = 45 ft decrease length to 45 ft S. Maximum Depth: Depth = 2d50 = 2 (12 in / 12) = 2 ft 6. Bedding: Use 1 ft thick layer of Type II (CDOT Class A) bedding material. 7. Riprap Width (minimum): Width =2H=2(5ft) =. 9 ft (Extend riprap to minimum of culvert height or normal channel depth.) Summary: Type M (Class 12) riprap Length = 45 ft Depth = 2 ft Width = 9 ft Reference: UDFCD USDCM, Vol. 1, Major Drainage, Page MD-105 L:\JOBS\1005001\DATA\RIPRAP FOR BOX UPSTREAM RECTANGULAR CONDUITSI.XLS Swale and Drainage Pan Design DP3 SW Chase 100-YR Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet DP 3 Private Drive Chase Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.014 Slope 015000 ft/ft Bottom Width 2.00 ft Discharge 4.35 cfs V Results Depth 0.39 It •� Flow Area 0.8 ft' Wetted Perimi 2.78 ft Top Width 2.00 ft Critical Depth 0.53 ft Critical Slope 0.006219 ft/ft Velocity 5.57 ft/s Velocity Head 0.48 It Specific Eneq 0.87 ft Froude Numb, 1.57 Flow Type supercritical Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm I:\jobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown - FlowMaster v6.1 [614n] 08/22/02 12:23:42 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666- Page 1 of 1 DP 3 SW Chase 100-YR Freeboard Depth Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet DP 3 Private Drive Chase 100-YR Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.014 Slope 015000 ft/ft Bottom Width 2.00 ft Discharge 5.66 cfs Goo Mesuns Depth 0.47 ft A F Flow Area 0.9 ft' Wetted Perimi 2.93 ft Top Width 2.00 ft Critical Depth 0.63 ft Critical Slope 0.006389 ft/ft Velocity 6.06 ft/s Velocity Head 0.57 ft Specific Enerc 1.04 ft . Froude Numb. 1.56 Flow Type >upercritical Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm 1:\jobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown FlowMaster v6.1 [614n] 08/22/02 12:24:51 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP 5 Drain Pan 100-YR Depth Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet DP5 Drain Pan 100 YR t Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Slope 010000 ft/ft Discharge 1.66 cfs Options Current Roughness Methc)ved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting wed Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weightint Horton's Method Results rvidmmigs �ueljlulul U.U' Water Surface Elev. 0.28 ft Elevation Range 3.00 to 0.58 Flow Area 0.6 ft' Wetted Perimeter 3.63 ft Top Width 3.57 ft Actual Depth 0.28 ft Critical Elevation 0.29 ft Critical Slope 0.012021 ft/ft Velocity 2.63 ft/s Velocity Head 0.11 ft Specific Energy 0.39 ft Froude Number 1.10 Flow Type >upercritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 7c 0+00 0+02 0.030 , L 0+02 0+04 0.013 0+04 0+06 0.030 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (it) (ft) 0+00 0.58 0+02 0.08 0+03 0.00 0+04 0.08 0+06 0.58 Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm L\jobs\1 005001 \data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown FlowMasterv6.1 (614n] 08/22/02 11:28:15 AM C Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP 5 Drain Pan 100-YR Freeboard Depth Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet DP5 Drain Pan 100 YR F.B. Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Slope 010000 ft/ft Discharge 2.20 cfs 3 Options Current Roughness Methoved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting wed Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weightint Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.013 ) t, Water Surface Elev 0.28 ft V fog Elevation Range ).00 to 0.58 Flow Area 0.6 ft' Wetted Perimeter 3.63 ft Top Width 3.57 ft Actual Depth 0.28 ft Critical Elevation 0.34 ft Critical Slope 0.004237 ft/ft Velocity 3.49 ft/s Velocity Head 0.19 ft Specific Energy 0.47 ft Froude Number 1.46 Flow Type >upercritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+02 0.030 0+02 0+04 0.013 0+04 0+06 0.030 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0.58 0+02 0.08 0+03 0.00 0+04 0.08 0+06 0.58 Project,Engineer: Anthony Wllkomm (:\jobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown FlowMaster v6.1 (614n) 08/22/02 11:30:52 AM m Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP 9 Curb Cut Capacity Worksheet for Sharp Crested Rectangular Weir Project Description Worksheet DP 9 Curb Cut to Private Type Sharp Crested Rectangul Solve For Discharge Input Data Headwater Elevati( 0.67 ft Crest Elevation 0.17 ft Tailwater Elevation 0.00 ft Discharge Coeffici(3.33 US Crest Length 2.00 ft Number of Contrac 2 Results Discharge 2.24 cfs 4 - 1 c- r _.,' Cr i,=c I T Y To To r o = C 11 z. v Headwater Height Abov 0.50 ft Tailwater Height Above -0.17 ft Flow Area 1.0 ft' Velocity 2.24 ft/s Wetted Perimeter 3.00 ft Top Width 2.00 ft Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm (:\jobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown FlowMaster v6.1 [614n) 08/22/02 11:57:43 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP9 Curb Cut Overtopping 100-YR Flow Depth Worksheet for Broad Crested Weir Project Description Worksheet DP 9 Curb Overtop Type Broad Crested Weir Solve For Headwater Elevatio Input Data Discharge 4.80 cfs 4 Crest Elevation 0.67 ft Tailwater Elevati 0.50 ft Crest Surface T)'aved Crest Breadth 0.50 ft Crest Length 18.00 ft Results Headwater Elevation 0.87 ft Headwater Height Above 0.20 ft Tailwater Height Above C -0.17 ft Discharge Coefficient 3.09 US Submergence Factor 1.00 Adjusted Discharge Coef 3.09 US Flow Area 3.5 f12 Velocity 1.36 ft/s Wetted Perimeter 18.39 ft Top Width 18.00 ft Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm 1:\jobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown FlowMaster v6.1 [614n] 08/22/02 12:04:22 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP10 Swale Capacity for Q100 Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Worksheet DP 10 Swale 100-Y1 Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.030 Slope 023000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 4.00 H : V Right Side Slope 4.00 H : V Discharge 0.65 cfs�—C;%,.,. Results Depth 0.28 ft Flow Area 0.3 ft' Wetted Perimi 2.35 ft Top Width 2.28 ft Critical Depth 0.28 ft Critical Slope 0.026381 ft/ft Velocity 2.01 ft/s Velocity Head 0.06 ft Specific Enerc 0.35 ft Froude Numb. 0.94 Flow Type Subcritical Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm 1:\jobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown FlowMaster v6.1 (614n) 08/22/02 05:29:38 PNt Q Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP10 Swale Freeboard Depth Q100 Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Worksheet DP 10 Swale 100-YR Freeb( Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.030 Slope 023000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 4.00 H : V Right Side Slope 4.00 H : V Discharge 0.86 cfs �— Results Depth 0.32 ft Flow Area 0.4 ft' Wetted Perimi 2.61 ft Top Width 2.53 ft Critical Depth 0.31 ft Critical Slope 0.025415 ft/ft Velocity 2.15 ft/s Velocity Head 0.07 ft Specific Enerc 0.39 ft Froude Numb. 0.95 Flow Type Subcritical Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm L\jobs\7005001\data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown - FlowMaster v6.1 [614n] 08/22/02 05,32:59 PM 0 Haestad Methods. Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP12 SW Chase 100-YR Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet DP 12 Private Drive Chase Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.014 Slope 015000 fUft Bottom Width 2.00 ft Discharge 4.69 cfs 1 Results Depth 0.41 ft Flow Area 0.8 ft' Wetted Perim, 2.82 It Top Width 2.00 It Critical Depth 0.55 ft Critical Slope 0.006261 ft/ft Velocity 5.71 ft/s Velocity Head 0.51 It Specific Enerc 0.92 ft Froude Numb. 1.57 Flow Type supercritical Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm (:\jobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown FlowMaster v6.1 (614n) 08/22/02 11:37:57 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP12 SW Chase 100-YR Freeboard Depth Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet DP 12 Private Drive Chase 100-YF Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.014 Slope 015000 ft/ft Bottom Width 2.00 ft Discharge 6.10 cfs �— X /• 3 �� Results Depth 0.49 ft 4— Flow Area 1.0 ft' Wetted Perim( 2.98 ft Top Width 2.00 It Critical Depth 0.66 It Critical Slope 0.006450 ft/ft Velocity 6.20 ft/s Velocity Head 0.60 It Specific Enerc 1.09 It Froude Numb, 1.56 Flow Type supercritical Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm ' I:\jobs\1005001\data\prel1m.fm2 Sear -Brown _ FlowMaster v6.1 (614n] 08/22/02 11:38:58 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP/5 West Drainage Pan Q1O0 Capacity Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet WEST DRAIN Flow Element Irregular Cram Method Manning's Foa Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Slope 005000 ft/ft Discharg, 0.78 cfs Q,�o Options Current Roughness Methc)ved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting wed Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weightin( Horton's Method Results Mannings coenictei u:u21 dl Water Surface Elev 0.25 ft c e Elevation Range .00 to 0.58 Flow Area 0.5 ft' Wetted Perimeter 3.39 It Top Width 3.34 It Actual Depth 0.25 It Critical Elevation 0.20 It Critical Slope 0.012669 ft/ft Velocity 1.47 ft/s Velocity Head 0.03 It JEsr Specific Energy 0.28 ft Froude Number 0.65 L Flow Type Subcritical i Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+02 0.030 ;4 L 0+02 0+04 0.013 -Z 0+04 0+06 0.030 u• Natural Channel Points Station Elevation \ (ft) (ft)- 0+00 0.58 0+02 0.08 0+03 0.00 0+04 0.08 0+06 0.58 TC °= " Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm (:\jobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown FlowMasterv6.1 (614n) O8/22102 11:21 :16 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DpiS West Drainage Pan Q100 Freeboard Capacity Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet WEST DRAIN PAN Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Slope 005000 fUft Discharg( 1.01 cfs Q, ,, x Options Current Roughness Methc)ved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting wed Lotter's Method Closed Channel Weightin( Horton's Method Results mannmgs coerriclel u.un Water Surface Elev 0.28 ft Elevation Range .00 to 0.58 Flow Area 0.6 W Wetted Perimeter 3.63 ft Top Width 3.57 ft Actual Depth 0.28 ft Critical Elevation 0.23 ft Critical Slope 0.012954 ft/ft Velocity 1.60 ft/s Velocity Head 0.04 ft Specific Energy 0.32 ft Froude Number 0.67 Flow Type Subcritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00 0+02 0.030 0+02 0+04 0.013 0+04 0+06 0.030 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00 0.58 0+02 0.08 0+03 0.00 0+04 0.08 0+06 0.58 Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm 1:\jobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 - Sear -Brown FlowMasterv6.1 [614n] 08/22/02 11:21:58 AM O Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DPI Swale Capacity for Q100 Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Worksheet Copy of DP 19 Swale 100- Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.030 Slope 023000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 4.00 H : V Right Side Slope 4.00 H : V Discharge 2.72 cfs — C�I.,� (?� F. Results 0 Depth Flow Area 0.9 ft' Wetted Perimi 4.01 ft Top Width 3.89 ft Critical Depth 0.49 ft Critical Slope 0.021798 ft/ft Velocity 2.87 ft/s Velocity Head 0.13 ft Specific Enerc 0.61 ft Froude Numb, 1.03 Flow Type supercritical Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm I:yobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 Sear -Brown FlowMaster v6.1 [614n] O8/22/02 05:34:54 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DP19 Swale Freeboard Depth for Q100 Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Worksheet DP 19 Swale 100-YR Freeb Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.030 Slope 023000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 4.00 H : V Right Side Slope 4.00 H : V Discharge 3.62 cfs n y !; Results Depth 0.54 ft _ /--- Flow Area 1.2 ft2 Wetted Perimi 4.47 ft Top Width 4.33 ft Critical Depth 0.55 ft Critical Slope 0.020983 ft/ft Velocity 3.08 ft/s Velocity Head 0.15 ft Specific Enerc . 0.69 ft Froude Numb, 1.04 Flow Type supercritical Project Engineer: Anthony Willkomm ' I:\jobs\1005001\data\prelim.fm2 _ - Sear -Brown FlowMaster v6.1 (614nj 08/22/02 05:37:38 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Erosion Control n F #1 The Sear -Brown Group ' RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION 1005001 Project: Youngs Creek STANDARD FORM A Calculated 8 : AGW Date: 08/26 DEVELOPE ERODIBILITY Asb Lsb Ssb Lb Sb PS SUBBASIN ZONE (ac) (ft) (%). (ft) N (%) A High 2.18 600 2.8 347.9 1.6 B High 0.51 50 2.5 6.8 0.3 C High 0.07 180 1.2 3.4 0.0 D High 1.00 545 1.9 144.9 0.5 Total 3.76 503.0 2.5 81.0 EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS Lb = sum(AiLi)/sum(Ai) _ (0.00 x 0 + ... + 0.00 x 0)/ 3.76 503.0 ft tSb = sum(AiSi)/sum(Ai) _ (0.00 x 0.00 + ... + 0.00 x 0.00)/ 3.76 = 2.5 % PS (during construction) = 81.0 (from Table 8A ) tPS (after construction) = 81.0/0.85 = 95.2 �V (� EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- / STANDARD FORM B PROJECT: -. ;._..��:. -: '__:•...:- �. COMPLETED BY: 4, Vj,�� DATE: Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor I Method----------- ValueValue-------_Comment ---Value- ------- , ���i ,N.. L•�JT- %R.Al� �, v r'- � az oofl C_ � . 4AJOR1 BASINI ----------------------------------------------------------------I PS SUB I AREA I (;) IBASINI (Ac) I CALCULATIONS -----I-----i------i----------------------------------_---------I L I ------------- ------- HDI/SF-8:1989 -�1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------- PROJECT: =;!.,:;,; .'__;. ` : ,� STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: DATE: Erosion Control C-Factor Method Value ---------------------------- MAJOR BASINI SUB BASIN AREA -(Ac)-+ /, c P-Factor Value Comment ----------------------------- -------------------------------------------- CALCULATIONS -SILY ifJ i 1; i LlS 14 Fr _I _ 7. _ ` _•- Iu a :_ O 1, / c- DI/SF-B:1969 F7-c(Z >Tk'VC,% 10,",I EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PROJECT: Y"A,Fs STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: DATE: "12 /; 3 Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor i I Method ----------------------------------------------------------- / )r�-11 /. �•� / /jj']]__1..� )l Jlii ^TI-S• ,I I � -/ i'�/ZV/OVJ`I/. �'Y i`-ll.�i. •„' ur'11` .. .� _�j .. v _. _ .,. ----------------------------------------------------------------------I MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASINI (e) IBASIN� (Ac) ---CALCULATIONS - ----I------I-----I------I----------- ------------------ wTe c I vi T b wT� F i—=�•U ,% :?- 1DI/SF-B:1989 The Sear -Brown Group 'ro/ec Prepared By. CIT R SEEDING COST ' Method Reseed/mulch EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE ' Subtotal Contingency Total ' N t 1 A —5 ac—$655/ac• A>5 ac=$615/ac 1 3. Unit Cost 50% Date: Cost Notes 08/26 $2,358 See Note 1. $2,358 $1,179 $3,537 _ , EROSION CONTROL MEASURES Unit Total Number Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes 4 Sediment/Basin Trap 1 0 $400 $400 5 Straw Bale Barrier 6 ea $150 $900 8 Silt Fence Barrier 340 LF $3 $1,020 38 Gravel Mulch 0.57 ac $1,350 $769 39 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 3.1 ac $500 $1,550 Subtotal . $4,640 Contingency 50% $2,320 Total $6,959 Total Security $6,959 The Sear -Brown Group EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1E+06 Project: Youngs Creek STANDARD FORM C Date: 08/26 Calculated By: AGW SEQUENCE FOR 2003 ONLY 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 2003 MONTH J F M A M J J A S O N D OVERLOT GRADING WIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin. Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers MOM Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation N etti n gs/Mats/BI ankets Other STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY _ MAINTAINED BY ' VEGETATION/MULCHING. CONTRACTOR _ DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS C No Text November 2, 2001 Mr. Basil Harridan City of Fort Collins — Stormwater Utilities P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 ' Re: Prospect Creek Subdivision Project No. 0903-001 ' Dear Mr. Harridan: I am writing this letter to summarize our conversation yesterday about requesting a variance for the code requiring a water quality pond on the north side of the Canal Importation Channel in the ' proposed Prospect Creek Subdivision. Prospect Creek Subdivision is a three -acre infill project located south and east of the intersection of Prospect Road and Shields Street. In the most recent submittal, two water quality ponds were shown on the project. The larger pond is located ' in the southwest corner of the site, east of Hobbit Street and south of the channel. This pond collects all of the stormwater runoff from the street and the majority of the developed site, and releases it into the Canal Importation Channel. The smaller pond, which we are asking to remove from the design, is located in the southeast corner of the site north of the channel. The current ' design shows four single-family lots adjacent to and just north of the channel. This pond would collect stormwater from the southern half of the single-family lots and a swale that runs along the eastern boundary of the property. The pond would release the stormwater runoff into the Canal ' Importation Channel. The channel flows into Spring Creek approximately two tenths of a mile from the project. - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - We are requesting a variance from the code for a number of reasons. • There is no street runoff that would flow into the water quality pond. A majority of the contaminants that the pond would be designed to remove come from the street. ' • Without the pond, stormwater runoff will sheet -flow across the back of the lots before flowing into the channel. The grass will act as a water quality device and remove some of the suspended solids from the runoff before it enters the channel. Per our conversation, it was agreed that this approach would be accepted and supported by the stormwater department as we proceed in the approval process. The drainage report will have a section in the next submittal discussing this request in further detail. We look forward to your review and welcome any questions or comments you may have. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. Respectfully, TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Fraser Walsh FW.!cros Keith G. Sheaffer. P.E. No Text r� r1 FLOODPLAIN MODELING FOR YOUNG'S CREEK SUBDIVISION Prepared for Grace/Cynkar Investments, L.L.C: 3533 Harbor Way Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 AS ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 270460 Fort Collins, Colorado 80527 (970) 223-5556, FAX (970) 223-5578 Ayres Project No. 32-0669.00 PROSP4TX.DOC April 2003 April 14, 2003 Mrs. Marsha Hilmes-Robinson City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administrator 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Canal Importation Channel at the Prospect Creek Development Dear Marsha, Ayres Associates is pleased to submit this revised floodplain modeling report in support of the construction of a box culvert on the Canal Importation Channel in conjunction with the Young's Creek development (formerly known as Prospect Creek). We have responded to City comments from our previous submittal, dated January 2002. Due to the location of the site, any modifications must be shown to have no adverse impact on the 100-year base flood elevation. The results of the analysis indicate that this no -rise condition has been met. The analysis and documentation provided herein follow the recommended procedures . documented in "Guidelines for Submitting Floodplain Modeling Reports to the City of Fort Collins," updated May 16, 2001. If you have any questions about the report or documentation, please call. Sincerely, Owen Ayres &Asso ales, Inc G" Christo er L. Do4rl ,. Civil gineer CLD:sp Enclosure Engineers/ Scientists/Surveyors PROSP,LT.DOC 32-0638.00 No Text 3. RESULTS 3.1 Effective vs. Duplicate Effective Condition The effective condition, base flood elevations for the Canal Importation Basin Channel were obtained from the Canal Importation Basin Channel HEC2 model. The comparison indicates that there is virtually no difference between the models. The comparison of the results is provided in Table 3.1. Documentation of the duplicate effective condition model, including HEC-2 input and output for all cross sections is provided in Appendix A. Table 3.1. Comparison Between the Effective and Duplicate Effective Condition Models. Effective 100-Year Event Duplicate Effective 100-Year Event Difference Between Cross Section Base Flood Elevation ft, msl Velocity ft/sec Base Flood Elevation ft, msl Velocity ft/sec Effective and Duplicate Effective BFE (ft) 823 5008.6 4.4 5008.6 4.4 1 0.0 920 5008.9 3.6 5008.9 3.6 1 0.0 1000 5009.0 3.7 5009.0 3.7 1 0.0 1090 5009.1 3.8 5009.1 F 3.8 1 0.0 1153 5009.1 5.9 5009.1 5.9 0.0 1165 I 5009.1 10.4 5009.1 10.4 0.0 1223 5010.5 7.9 5010.5 7.9 0.0 1303 I 5011.4 5.1 5011.4 5.1 j 0.0 1468 1 5011.9 1 4.9 5011.9 4.9 I 0.0 3.2 Duplicate Effective vs. Corrected Effective Condition The results of the duplicate effective condition model were then compared to the corrected effective condition model. With the modification of the three cross sections, no impact was observed in the existing arch culverts, located immediately upstream of the proposed development. A maximum rise of 0.2 feet was shown at Cross Section 1153. The comparison of results is provided in Table 3.2. Documentation of the corrected effective condition model, including HEC-2 input and output for all cross sections is provided in Appendix B. Table 3.2. Comparison Between the Duplicate Effective and Corrected Effective Condition Models. Duplicate Effective 100-Year Event Corrected Effective 100-Year Event Difference Between Cross Section Base Flood Elevation ft, msl Velocity ft/sec Base Flood Elevation ft, msl Velocity (ft/sec) Duplicate Effective and Corrected Effective (ft) 823 5008.6 4.4 5008.6 4.4 1 0.0 920 I 5008.9 3.6 5008.9 3.6 1 0.0 1000 I 5009.0 3.7 5009.0 3.6 1 0.0 1020 5009.0' I 5009.1 3.5 1 0.1 1035 I 5009.0' 1. 5009.1 I 3.5 1 0.1 1075 1 5009.1' I 1 5009.2 I 3.5 1 0.1 j 1090 I 5009.1 I 3.8 I 5009.2 i 4.0 I 0.1 i 1153 I 5009.1 I 5.9 I 5009.3 1 5.6 I 0.2 i . 11 3 I 5009.1 10.4 5009.1 1 10.4 0.0 F 1223 I 5010.5 T9 5010.5 7.9 0.0 I 1303. 1 5011.4 I 5.1 5011.4 5.1 0.0 1468 1 5011.9 1 4.9 1 5011.9 1 4.9 I 0.0 Interpcle:ed between Cross Sections 1000 and 1090 3.1 Ayres Associates 3.3 Corrected Effective vs. Revised Condition ' The results of the corrected effective condition model were compared to the results of the revised condition model. The modeling shows a minimal drop in water surface immediately upstream of proposed box culverts (Cross sections 1090 and 1153). The comparison of results is provided in Table 3.3. Documentation of the revised condition model, including HEC-2 input and output for all cross sections is provided in Appendix C. Table 3.3. Comparison Between the Corrected Effective and Revised Condition Models. Corrected Effective 100-Year Event Revised Condition 100-Year Event Difference Between Cross Section Base Flood Elevation ft, msl Velocity ft/sec Base Flood Elevation ft, msl Velocity ft/sec Corrected Effective and Revised Effective (ft) 823 5008.6 1 4.4 5008.6 4.4 0.0 920 5008.9 3.6 5008.9 3.6 0.0, 1000 5009.0 3.7 5009.0 3.6 0.0 1020 500E 3.6 5009.1 3.5 0.0 1035 5009.1 3.5 1 5009.0 4.7 -0.1 1075 5009.2 3.5 5009.0 4.9 -0.2 1090 5009.2 4.0 5009.3 3.3 0.1 1153 5009.3 5.6 5009.3 5.5 I 0.0 1165 I 5009.1 I 10.4 5009.1 1 10.4 0.0 1223 I 5010.5 7.9 I 5010.5 1 7.9 I 0.0 1303 5011.4 I 5.1 5011.4 5.1 I 0.0 1468 5011.9 4.9 5011.9 4.9 ( 0.0 3.4 Emergency Response/Worst Case Scenario For the 100-year event, the channel will not exceed its banks. Therefore, flooding in this area would be limited. The capacity of the channel is such that 100-year flows are completely contained. Freeboard ranges from a minimum of 7 to 8 inches at the two cross sections where water surface elevations are at a maximum. This only occurs at cross sections between the existing arch culverts and the proposed box culvert. Overtopping to the south overbank upstream of the box culvert would occur at an elevation of 5010 feet. The roadway overtopping elevation is approximately 5011.0 feet and the minimum open elevation for all structures upstream of the culvert is 5015.2 feet. In the event of an extreme rainfall event, in which the channel overtopped before the box culvert, water would flow south, overtop Hobbit Street, and eventually return to the channel downstream. 3.5 Compliance With Criteria The City criterion is met for this project. Because there is no designated floodway on the Canal Importation Channel, the criteria states that any fill in the floodplain must result in no rise in the revised conditions base flood elevation, compared with the corrected effective condition. Since there is no rise, this condition is met. 1.2 Ayres Associates 8.3 Hvdrologic iVlodeling of Master Plan Conditions ' The hydrologic model which was prepared to evaluate fully developed conditionswith existing drainage facilities, as described in Chapter 3, was modified to reflect the effects of master plan facilities as outlined in the selected plan of improvements. ' Detention ponds were added and modified accordingly, while all but the two spills which will remain (both along LCC No. 2) were eliminated from the irrigation canals. The majority of ' subbasins and conveyance elements were disconnected from the irrigation canals; conveyance elements were added along the storm drainage channels proposed for the irrigation canal corridors. Several subbasin boundaries were modified to accommodate proposed facilities in the ' vicinity of the City Park Nine Pond, Sheldon Lake, and the West Orchard and Glenmoor Ponds. Conveyance element parameters were revised to reflect master plan conveyance facilities. ' Finally, it was assumed that inflows along the irrigation canals from the West Vine Basin would be eliminated by master plan improvements in that basin. All master plan subbasin and ' conveyance element modifications are shown on the map provided as Sheet 7. The schematic diagram which describes the connectivity in the master plan condition model is shown on Sheet 8. ' Since the master plan improvements will largely disconnect storm runoff from the irrigation canals, hydrologic conditions in the basin will not be dependent on the hydraulic operation of the irrigation canals. Due to elimination of the need. for an unsteady flow characterization of the irrigation canals, all six City rainfall events were evaluated for master. plan conditions. Reference is made to Tables 3.1 and 3.2 that summarize the total rainfall depths ' and actual rainfall hyetographs associated with each of the six return period storms. The hydrologic model was used to analyze the master plan condition response of the fully developed Canal importation Basin to the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year events. Table 8.2 is provided as a summary of fully developed condition, with master plan facilities, peak discharges at selected locations along the six major flow paths. Summary output files of the master plan condition hydrologic analyses for the six return periods analyzed for this portion of the study are provided in Appendix I. MODSW NEM input and output files for each of the return period events ' is provided on the enclosed compact disk. Comparison of these results with those previously presented in Table 3.4 indicates that, with the exception of the Canal Lmportation Channel, I00-year master plan discharges are generally lower throughout the basin. These discharges tend to be higher along the Canal Importation Channel due to the rerouting of runoff along the v—ivfD corridor. At other locations where discharges are shown to be higher than for the existing. facilities Condition. local runoff De35S are atf2CieG b`•' t'DStr2atri Ocie^,iiCn DOnCS and Sllali lnCreaS25 are inQiCateQ Qlle i0 master ' plan Conveyance iaC:ii.:2S that are more 2iiicient ihan existing facliitles. ' i:'.OPEN,CoscOT•iinai Rnor.'coiv [inai r=on.�oc -- +;waER50w CONSUIthVG t.vGtNEEIS. INC. Table S.2 Summary of Discharges for Fully Developed Conditions with Master Plan Drainage Facilities. SWNLti1 , Locahon r ea k Discha P,e (cfs) xr. : I ulberry'StreetFlowPath's., ;.+,. -- _'; ..'._: g v5s 101 I.Muibe ry Street at Taft Hill Rd 99 143 191 231 384 545 304 IRe!ease from City Park 'Nine Pond 85 118 148 195 I 256 278 857 ISPill from New Mercer Ditch (to proposed culvert) 16 I 25 34 52 76 110 311 IRe!ese from Sheldon Lake 0 4 15 42 I 85 145 Plum S&eet Channel.Flow. 313 lRelease from Scenic Views Pond 14 20 23 26 29 33 311 IReiease from West Orchard Pond l2 18 24 29 35 40 220 IP!um Street Channel at Taft Hill Rd 110 17 2237 340 162 624 322 (Release from Glenmoor Pond 66 90 113 152 184 225 350 (Plum Street Channel at Plum SdSkvline Dr 106 158 I 204 293 393 526 321 IRe!ease from Plum Street Rezional Pond 88 I 119 140 171 200 231 985 ISoill to Old Town Basin at CSU International House 104 I 144 177 211 285 3 79 : Clearview Cfiannel-F1ow.Path .__ .-. _. 397 IRe!ease from Ponds at Overland North Pond 4 8 10 i 12 I5 16 370 IRe!ease from Clearview Est Pond 5 I 10 I 11 I 20 49 I 93 272 IClearview Channel at Ponderosa Dr I 67 I 103 I 136 189 I 254 I 316 276 IC!earview Channel at Taft Hill Rd I 123 194 I 254 362 I 495 I 681 378 IReiease from Avery Park Pond I 64 101 133 I I80 222 266 279 IN`fD Channel South of Elizabeth St 32 54 I 76 I 118 170 243 27 7 INYID Channel South of Avery Park Pond 86 142 191 268 350 I 450 2S0 INLAID Channel at Prospect Rd 93 156 213 304 407 539 2S 1 ILCC No. 2 near Southridge Dr 40 I 62 83 120 I 167 231 9S9 ISmil to Old Town Basin near Bennett Road 0 0 0 I 0 0 82 Canal 7mporntionlFairbrooke Channel. Flow Path - 353 IReiese from Rodeo Pond 0 9 I 19 I 29 34 37 326 Reese from Fairbrooke Heizhts Pond 25 36 I 45 I 51 I 65 I 76 3-S !`,'Vest Prospect Rd Storm Sewer I 14 30 49 I 66 I 76 88 250 IPV3L Channel, at Fairbrooke Channel Ill I 154452 -- iFairbrooke Channei at Hampshire Rd P60 183 I 254 I 3 5 5 i 9 I 717 329 !Release -rom East Fairbrooke Pond at Taft Hill Road I 59 I 94 ( 131 182 I 221 258 IReiese from East Kane Pond 63 I 100 I 133 I 1S4 222 I 248 ;Rrpm Re 3 618elease ;Cana! imconation Channel at Shie!ds St I 143 253 _ I 152 I j , I 729 -_ jC_nal i+;,poration Channe! at Spring Creek I I14 256 337 =61 I 591 - I 745 NclanchesteriScarboroueh Drive Flow Path - =b Re. se or.1 Brow Farm Tract B Pond 1_0 I 30 I 37 - I I 67 i:;V&L C:anne!'at Stua-t Sr I 21 is ip I 33 i-a anne! at Drak= Rc j i9 ;S —r-orc—n Dr at Consen;tton Ave I 1' I 197 '65 j e9 z 11 j 71_ :!na._ar.-^C.e_. I :,: 19S I 266 ?final Re_or.•.ceic07 tinai -aort.dcc d= .ANdERSON CONSUITiVG E.Nq:jNEERS, INC. S' via A / L_l' 1 II / / L____J I \ 5 I J I I I Evisfm0 CenfHbre of Pro:Recf Roai --- _ _ ,. _ PROSPECtErhaparly Copy / /Er4fmq fl fhP IBPC —_`fw IVY _J $1RAW BALE DIME-Apwk I LANDMARK APARTMENTS � C \�JI\ Ilk- STANDARD EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUrTION PLAN NOTES_ Not i a era , AdNorAM Not. makedde w xr iAm M". rp ,romparkagyp. oaa l mt.) All Am F reform rm re my Imo aeacra Not u.e .e W W All o mad, e a .arm wnaa , Iwwa or n. All p",l.)..n.l dWw�c* of �N ant Mail be wheat to the ammead brioned At real Mandectot y To kept It to, AMe*MAN a October wtp AN .o,..a nwpi umbnlad cordn"i or mail tl, fair e.,emer...wawy in color. I.%a. �d coy proponlode ent men earl ar vel.Aaam wad a �,;.1. Idaring ANn Im. go"r.a it.))ib.td [.,pmulra�roAm P>n v Me Mara Utility •••••^rr.rrr e� N. mal oto %a+�q.l a�s°aemn aiwn�wwm:. a: dx Me by N=t. or ran metal xna..wp wpermme Am Moderate (Ill nodal conord thempapped Won or Not AM maddled Of D a0 e0 m ob.I,e a. or take All i�,� ay mffn%n,e ,n aapa.a a a Tanker ana .ap„ „ m as e,. ne4.�r AM ANnm aa' BC,ILE IN FEET ame.a ... DO) No or MOAL A a it wl A. oruod+r Coen • ^N'al. , brawl by ✓law ideal w s a arm,,:.1 knoll •+a�M allm w ww Anal be ,.,e,a aaa Tonkin CALL URLT'NOTIFlCATIQV CopyCo Not M,,maery& loA,. Allpaaoall at w or iai CENIER OF COLORADO 0 OFthan ha. My elderly bhiaebt 1-800-922-1987 .MaT:abuxr An.nn .ENT NPDES PERMIT NOTES - SIR DCSCeIpmej 1 'S FOR S1 WAl PIXIUTWInM Wx PRE a slipped Imi and m amey cm ,uNon Fnuanv aP pY[o road howear Cikedinpnal xpwl: C sw,om rpa. 6Uq down qutoltY o'knot Alln le a'aavYu"Uopl oanwva m U, x4. art). e TheOt are ned Inthe b. MCYnxa Nollmahel and Deal 9. Wlnm WYR NabYallMaq Y pawnmt beto .t Yimla b m m o coaba WIe Ydo mate c duree, FP,mw wr [9� ma b30K a .wdbn. 10 elyptl of aWm m sob re e inv a4 um,aw ] W new, If anlm zs :.a, or, m cartoon, 'u^aWga t In n ualtythemene mind whi do net le A m C Uv ply e.pi. polls ril aw walls roust. land Q tlAnFq, umwlM w 9r0an�9� flatpa,acket Npnpn. coma malerloln rInta, and bra a w - D before v R IF tl C. _ C Da+ ottr wnaw�dlai IDA tlb 14v �IUF 1M uWnab Wnol4 cmnete. W1am Ni ante and -aa to R } AM vq. v r Anu Fthe mtlamup CW Albnot b min ma al wT elm ma .road ...., .Col.,,. nm .Houle m�v .Cot. uN byplob,m Nndnot be abet th, Q a , Ni . Gir of !pi CMFv am, i ry . quality acne. F Ua spent It 0 "MAN en t to Aeal AD a sap I it, b IA la M the nAr Yn u01,.'1tl la CeU rFtl ana wFltll o wl v Mtv Mt, on m a a w n, n a ran a ar u 1 m bnwla M whoway anearmand imHmmN Hyto m the Ob �o[wnlna,alv.e ma .A . e,a p,..ull v. The cmgm W rcnw p w fol i fr l FINAL STARIuiAnaN AND LWq-(FAY STMuwAlpl uIMACFYFAT: I. xa4 lmua awutm ..,.a. AN I.ml.e Not w al Way room cabil Not" Ule NwAI w road awpvmum me ft to kintrill aewwly F 'lams Neer alr+,mgv, x mxmals: a rrA IN,a epeim ea IN Sn pW. ma ama be wamxMm to r n[vY wNA YrMut TenMwwn pILY of U, a ,(road " r.,naX rill %, t A and tlbpw pl Uw „Wlr Patorke /AN the f th fraternal tl Ow o m-AH aeim rm,IXyy a by w2 6 yllx. by c . , AN -a A end mmnby m h tlU mtl Alw Aw. Rom u,lo a ber una4 Mwla aslaYn U IYnld eX-vlb `abu poorly pet U,m forma, alarm pqA w thel t�Fmfaofm q of mod and a e gll[gA *am for Cmo Yrawtatkn Olmna ma tarp wrU to l Not y Brack I NaNiq U. Cola. as and ato term not by ba4.e cal SprlFq o..N amq ,aa all aamaa m Amm era-yoU6Nfe aaNagoas. .mad almlmgc .wnearr Into mr sP'Hq cr.E Al : sre Nw a Sw gM,e Kaki ON 6 Of A cmW Mae B. lx CTM AND UAINRNAl u. h,p Um m ma inroad be unaeO1 Me redulcho Net iq^nf ana llwm al the COPSC.u,Wy Pymllol pool all—\� LEGEND to PROPOSED WATERLINE W/ —5015— GATE VALVE AND BOX —501M— CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY — —5015— — EXISTING WATER LINE — —5016— — EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE ------- PROPOSED SAN. SEW. MH PROPOSED SAN. SEW. LINE PROPOSED STORM SEWER LINE _ SAN. SEW. SERVICE dT< 3/4 - WATER SERVICE W/ METER PIT 6R 1 1/2 r WATER SERVICE W/ METER VAULT P RY. PROPOSED INDEX ONSITE Coll PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE ONSITE CONTOURS EXISTING INDEX CONTOURS ON SITE MGM FIELD TOPO SURVEY EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOURS ON -SITE FROM REM TWO SURVEY EXISTING CONTOURS OFF SITE FROM CITY AERIAL TORO PROPOSED FLOW ARROW PROPOSED RETAINING WALL EXISTING RETAINING WALL FINISHELI FLOOR ELEVATION BUILDING TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION (BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION GARAGE TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION GARAGE HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP PROPOSED DRAINAGE PAN DRAINAGE PAN PROPOSED SIDEWALK CHASE RETAINING WALL m STRAW BALE DIRE PROPERTY BOUNDARY .--](— PROPOSED SILT FENCE EASEMENT�'tii21 GRAVEL INLET FlLIER BUILDING ENVELOPE City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL MPRLIVE : y/ eN CHY ENBineW DOW CHECKED BY: ul S�filral. wiftera ficaty/S�It U�tuyBy.� CHECKED BY. '4i5%MOui((iFaFL Vi SIvmeDla UtiitY Dale CNECNED BY: Al If Reveal Date CHECKED BY: T Xk Date CHECKED BY: Ma�rlr;uz6X.y;DnaI�AY FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BY THE LOCAL ENTITY FOR ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES OF ITEMS SHOWN THAIr MAY BE REWIRED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. 0 0 30 00 00 SCALE IN FEE! 00 CUNIITYNDTFlCATIW CENTER OFCOLpMDO 1-800-922-1987 U.E eeM.�Ny"A STANDARD EROSION CONTROL CONSTIWDIDN PLAN NOTES store NOsls J M nYlM1e 0l«eF fee OudyM AlAlMryn looked �.m «� •.OW by houses al M. All Ia any uydadwyg NII✓Ve tom In ON ww+"I «wna'w b be b~ panimi I'M e, n.n ^a'un ,e ,...than q b"I wa aelwy I"'y (elI. a.af4 unity yWau,. nmeMY wp e,) lrsie v e'", pum e.nl~iIIpMol aleuf ftemry�elw tows a (vl Me sw.µAli fill, Allsaeev All !NOW/^ IeYM'M w.l M loo lY mane oth". al by M svmnv atop yo All uv m�Y% GM Al Coal A npre.I p¢nw I aunwn by M co,.1 nn L!e AN Manuel lFrv1m1nMeeuti An Abdul'Most"Anow AN -All ap. nu .M1M�u a on 11*paymems �w w my a a�noe. e. ft AN Movie "I �_.W+Iva tnl+e+ e.a'oeyeMdi elWe Y'd pgegN Y by WgnmmaAa.u..ie°Myy nvN.ythatd 'I"r dMy Mid, w Nuneyl�eF by w aad�ia. NPDES PERMIT NOTE& d e �Mstouts, dil s l mmp ad mltmy Willy m^elncti n 12 Pmwe an Us NO. F me mo1N, mudlY on, learned by the amtig WUMF � y pn1Fg, ulelly MtlblYn. Ponrml geFg eaelrvdM t NO site ,l ]M acl of MW 25 avo w to and lisg. mccwto, an deal LL obtained Y1C2T GMe cmNnoum. Fill'C - to 0.eM sly cmequdlm Do It, bay '[thin Do Nations M Do City ndMll Cal ame mema Zaire bed apee LM'Ellily Audi a' in toy dmol ]F on,s mpmmmts „nllyy lF nClcltl to it µd m d auto ,rcl• Tie Krt y conef of m1M 7®m 1 YSF Y1ggIWA. P)JUJI pM PM: 0. Sx Croelm Cmbd No m0 Sy TWO (di I, Had MmOw pubbi Curdy, w Iam1M ma ine e me febba of did dembang Rol« is qe wayaaM. No Imive�Q toym all waM gale, Iron nts ,uronst r. gmwln me o d sho l Too F ,amna d`^N G wu.r. wom npalxy pno,dlcnugee Intel mum, pa to �Cgm dFpm\ mama and Name aM uto 3. SITE MM: Ses Prmpbd pd Map a Do flWon CmW Rm. d. LEGEND b. hofforky, Handling and Anneal to ninon Its gilled model and "e t future q le Down accul aXK STMIILMH CN NW LC -TERM STpWINNI uµdp Wy. 5x E, ConIIN Notes qF Mlwt Ty Fnd atEW IMf embassy" No col polulmq F stmc s dlMwlgd O NM tlYlTn a. se Me and«lto Inal rare "H pionswmN am M1dn Ire MM and dl p of these All ls off -sits an � mdyctlNolum. mncrn Mmidee`una:t,kkM to "It Wg g of mud and All VAI Fin Mtl ly g the Mlle, mud and of sta le not be va AdM�an and odo.ed by .CIF non-amel da g..an Win ddmnw emwally Into Ne SyMg tseNc an CTIM MANMNNnitial a. Induction m e,nm d d be u,pTg �rq,lm dmb byawYFed F SeNm o of Do Lmne deM cmdlume a U e ton g.w p it — � PROPOSED WATERLINE W/ —501 PROPOSED INDEX ONSITE CONTOURS GATE VALVE AND BOX —5014 PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE � CONCRETE MRUST BLOCK ONSITE CONTOURS }� FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY ---5D15--- EXISTING INDEX CONTOURS ON SITE FROM FIELD TOPO SURVEY -----_-- EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOURS _ _ Wl6_—_ ON REM FROM FlETOPO SIlR1EY �� EXISTING SEWEfl MANHOLE _----` EXISTING SANITARY SEVER LINE —-------- -- EXISTING CONTOURS OFF SITE FROM CITY AERIAL TONG O PROPOSED SAN. SEW. MH y PROPOSED FLOW ARROW PROPOSED SAN. SEW. LINE Al PROPOgO RETAINING WALL 1111I10 PROPOSED STORM SEWER LINE EXISTING RETAINING WALL 5 SAN. SEW. SERNCE 9/h FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATOR BUILDING W ]/A - WATER SERNCE B Itr TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION BUILDING W/ METER PIT 0� FINISHED ROOR ELEVATION GARAGE 1 1/2 " WATER *RNCE W/ METER VAULgTITEIE 0 2n TOP OF FOUNDATION EEVATION WAGE HANDICAP ACCE RAMP PROPOSED DRAINAGE PAN = DRAINAGE PAN .- PROPOSED SIDEWALK CHASE RETAINING WALL m STRAW BALE DIKE - PROPERTY BOUNDARY �](� PROPOSED SILT FENCE - EASEMENT / ` + GRAVEL INLET FILTER sl BUILDING ENVELOPE City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY RAN APPROVAL APPROSTD: L Cili TOSineer MIND �I1�jA� CHECKED BY: ��� allBA1} Water A%at t UBit Toll CHECKED BY: N-L-o4 S! WaIW Utiily Dote CHECKED Br. P d Regreation DOM CHECKED BY: K 'nw Date CHECKED BY: Ofte ll sA� THESE PLANS NAVE BEEN RENEWED BY THE LOCAL ENTRY FOR CONCEPT ONLY, THE RENEW DOES NOT IMPLY RESPONSIBIUTY BY THE RENEY.ING DEPARTMENT, THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER, OR THE LOCAL ENTITY FOR ACCURACY AND CdiNECTNE55 OF THE CALCULATIONS. FURTHERMORE, THE RENEW DOES NOT IMPLY THAT QUANTITIES OF ITEMS ON THE PLANS ARE THE FINAL QUANTITIES REWIRED. THE RENEW SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED IN ANY REASON AS ACCEPTANCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BY THE LOCAL ENTITY FOR ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES OF ITEMS SHORN THAT MAY BE REWIRED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. N C ES Q 28 m YY EUN& vie 3 tom It :1In NUn LU oil V% N It Z J yy J W8 WIX 00 0 1005401 RAWHo No. CS203 SHEET 6 OF 17 u HOBBI / mmm TO comIoM TO I A51Y ma tm FBI PRESSURE I \ ` I OI11 ASTM ORAL YI L 0+00 1+00 STORM SEWER ST-1 PROFILE 0400 1+00 STORM SEWER ST-1 A PROFILE NOTES ALL OTIIDES ARI APPROXIMATELY SHOW AND LOCATIONS NEED TO BE VERIFIED BY ME CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO COASTRVCTIdI. 2 ALL STORM SE'APR PIPES SHALL BE CLASS N-12 ADS AND CVSS 3 PCP. LEGEND GATE VALVE AND BOX C CONCRETE THRUST BLOC( D—DQjJ FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY — — — ----- ELSTNG WATER LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE — — — — — — — EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE -- — -- _ — EASEMENT UNE O PROPOSED SAN. SEW. MIA -- PROPOSED SM. SEW. LINE Wla PROPOSED STORM SEWER LIKE SM. SEW. SERVICE M 3/4 - WATER SERVICE W/ METER PIT 3 1 1/2 - WATER SERVICE W/ METER VAUL 0+00 1.00 BOX CULVERT PROFILE T D 0 m HONG. O 5 tD PERT. SCA EIN FEET CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORNDO 1.800-922=1987 City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROYTO: City Engine r �40171 CHECKED BY: ��y.,��ss AkE m CHECKED BY: N-6�ngi SiwmwiW Utilty CHECKED BY: Palle h Rwrwllon pIECNED BY: /(y� Tr fe E09Wew Doll CNEGoG BY M` AI CROPS �y� y�•W THEY PLANS HAVE BEEN RENEWED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY FOR CONCEPT ONLY. THE REVIEW DOES NOT IMPLY RESPONSIBILTY BY THE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT, THE LOCAL ENTITY ENGINEER, OR THE LOCAL ENTITY FOR ACCURACY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE CALOULATIONS. FURTHERMORE, THE REVIEW DOES NOT IMPLY THAT OUANTITES OF ITEMS ON THE PLANS ARE THE FINAL QUANTITIES REWIRED. THE RENEW SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED IN ANY REASON AS ACCEPTANCE OF FINANCIAL RESPWSBILTY BY THE LOCA` ENTITY FOR ADDITIONAL WANTMES OF ITEM SHOWN THAT MAY BE REWIRED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. 3 $ 0 E O .28 m D2� SUm9 SCMNcm < m OIT�p�W n NIm 1005-001 ORA ING NO. CS403 SHEET It OF 17 a NO EY CO NoDR 115E Ttl5 0Rm Am CCMSTNCTpI MIS dUW WG L RN OPMTO C Cf5161 B s sii OIY. IEFER c C Nsmu C INFZR 91EE15 $OR SPEPNC CMSTNCTM IHfgIMATW. DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE 1 Al 0.14 0.47 0.19 UZI 2 A2 0.67 0.80 1.30 6.54 3 A3 0.44 0.83 1.04 4.35 4 A4 0.15 0.66 0.28 1.24 5 AS 0.27 0.49 0.38 1.66 6 AS 0.25 0.79 0.57 2.50 7 A7 0.25 0.85 0.62 2.54 /8 8 0.51 0.56 072 3.36 14 C 0.07 0.23 0.05 0.23 16 01 0.28 0.60 0.47 2.07 17 D2 0.48 0.74 0.97 4.39 15 03 0.24 0.29 0.17 0.78 OSt 1.41 0.32 1.12 5.08 6 OVA 0.10 0.32 0.09 0.39 10 OSIB 0.38 0.32 0.29 1.32 11 OS1C 0.92 0.32 0.72 3.25 1O OS2 0.76 0.32 0.60 2.72 21 A+OSI 3.58 0.58 4.94 23.13 2D B+OS2 1.27 0.42 1.36 6.27 9 A5+OS1A 1.68 0.35 1.56 7.04 12 A4+A5+OS1A 0.91 0.43 1.03 4.69 +OS1B 13 A3+A4+A5+ 2.52 0.49 3.35 15.39 A6+OS1 22 A3 to A7 2.91 0.53 3.49 16.25 +OS1 i� I rNONLE 1RT SIDE 9 WAY AT 500111 eWl EIEV I POND A 100-YR WS EIEVARON- 5008.75 100-YR RELEASE RATE=23.13 CFS WATER WAUTY DETENTION V0LUMEmO.09AC4fT \ ew ti ' I , T 111 0 0.14 m w Bm l rs nuwm iI Ice' D2 I $FLUENT WTWI THE s1E uMT�y �" / 0.48 B Nm 14'C LANDMARK APARTMENTS I l I r I I ,I I I r I $EF �SIRAW BALE DINE iI, T�lftln / SH'EE'LY",, SUB. O � 0.38 o; i OSl po Q nn�A 0.92 AIN [tfll - o i o , n n 0 n n n 'n.,-.- 1 \ BGlEMMET ---- Cityof Fort Collin9, cDI0na3 LEGEND 0 UTILITY\PLAN APPROVr'I, n 0 I Az 10.87 1 o'r AS O l 0.25 '-3Ei CANE VMVE THRUST BOX B52 O1IECIIEO BY: ` CONCH 1NRUST p� C- ocN 4��' a s{� D�D�TU FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY GIECMEO e' j Q • - .; e, - .\ pp Y. IpITweIC Ia1F _----- E%ISTING WATER UNE 0 r/ MISTING SANITARY $EWER MANHOLE --- EXISTING SANITARY SEWER UNE BY n EASDAENT LINE o 0 0 o P-J n O,C o o Cw..� o'fi C�'%=� n t]�,l =0 0 o C.T. c!P L� a n ram+• o- rAq GE( _ _ PROPOSED SAN' SEW MH A5 DP5 SWALE SWALE O�SiB DP19 SWALE OS2-B1 9 - cHECN6oe r '-- B B C -SWALE D3 C --- A A C D 0 %\ CALL UTkSE Ny NOTIFICATION ---- PROPOSED SM.SEW. UNE _ _ CENTErcy OF COLORADO rmouo.oNrt wr aramns / 1-800- 922-1987sax ° t� PROPOSED STORM SEWER UNE ' 5' SAN. SEW. SEHNCE Fw x te..W r. >Nv[ � eerwi'vau resv xrswnwu� % r, - eeExmE rfs. - - - - - IF -WATER SERVICE W/ METER PIT 1 1/2 - WATER SERVCE W/ METER VAULT i BASIN BOUNDARY f 223 FLOODPVJN CROSS SECTION - (AYRES ASSOC. APRIL 2003) i e 2 Z O Mg Oy y0 WO �V� () 0 1005-001 OWNS N6 CS900 SHEET I OF I 0 IIi \\ \h 1 1Pu l l I dll,% II 11 I p � I I IIlk jIAl III I II,I III uJl F I III'd I III I III I IS III II I ` I III I III I Illy I/, ID6111 I; I lu Irlll^p I III I III ,IIl�l % I I • I IVY Zi I I II I I 111 I I W IE I I Ir,,,l +III IIIII 1� (II III I�III� I ;II III- � III I I al-' 11(I I;p411'' I • I'JI I 1 1111 r 111111p, 1111111 r.L�,iiiiis,iiiiiiiI�,� cv.ilmEmNonRxwTaN CENIEROFCOI.ORABD 1-800-922-1987 buawYavaNO/x¢ wnwwF.wmaxcvre nE Via. IEE E.bllim, Colorado PLAN APPROVAL -�, T F, -jam.. E ,n J 1 30 SO N SC IN FEET LEGEND 9 5025 EXISTING INDEX CONTOIR EMISTINC INTERMEDIATE CONTOJR BASN UEIINEATOR 052 O I6Ac BA9N IABEE QHISTORIC DESIGN PONT to F i 0 lO VI C M N — O h€�pa a- �'se pgpmF'N a���b�bEa'� 8n'7?y,� oXw. �a Fi0 M �; 3U i EELE Z O E�5 E c as m -o EO ? NmD < ya0 QLu Lu N NSm ssO $o DO U CCIO Z m J IQM N w � 2 WI - w DO UDU ZO J k0 PRNECL rq. 1005-001 oxAnpw xo. CS901 SHEET I OF I