HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 01/25/20019
L9�1 �QMLe-
I JAN .5 2001
WILLOW SPRINGS FIFTH FILING, T ' %T;,
MINOR AMENDMENT � ``�tP �k}�
UPDATE TO FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR THE WILLOW SPRINGS P. U.S., PHASE ONE/ZS/D
BY LIDSTONE & ANDERSON, DATED May 3,1995 /
Prepared by:
North Star Design, Inc.
1194 W. Ash Street, Suite B
Windsor, Colorado 80550
(970)686-6939
December 8, 2000
Job Number 137-02
1 �
North Star
1 �® design _
December 8, 2000
Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins Stormwater
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Basil,
This letter is to accompany the Minor Amendment for Willow Springs Fifth Filing, Tract
D and is to serve as an update to the "Final Drainage Report for the Willow Springs
P.U.D. Phase One" by Lidstone & Anderson dated May 3, 1995 and the "Willow Springs
Fifth Filing, Pool Site" by TST, Inc. dated November 5, 1997.
Tract D contains the Nelson Farmstead and has several existing structures including the
main house, a stone milk house and a garage. All of these structures will remain on the
site with the garage building being relocated. All of the patios around the existing
buildings will also remain. This Minor Amendment being proposed is to add a parking
area and trash enclosure on the north side of the two main buildings and additional patio
area between the two buildings.
This site lies in portions of Subbasins 24B and 26A from the Lidstone & Anderson
report. The areas of these Subbasins were modified with the TST report and the basin
sizes and configurations will remain the same with this minor amendment (0.38 acres for
Basin 24B and 0.53 acres for Basin 26A).
The C-values for these basins were established in the Lidstone & Anderson report as 0.70
for both basins. The TST report recalculated the C-values with the pool development and
determined the values to be 0.42 .for Basin 24B and 0.31 for Basin 26A. These
calculations did not account for any development in Tract D even though the Lidstone &
Anderson report indicated that future development was anticipated in Tract D.
With the additional impervious area anticipated with .this minor amendment, the C-values gn
for these basins were recalculated. The calculations are attached to this letter. The C- ' J
1 value for Basin 24B was calculated as 0.43 which is, close to the value indicated in the
TST report and much less than the allowable value in the Lidstone & Anderson report. �1
The C-value for Basin 26A was calculated to be 0.68 which is above the value in the TS
report but below the allowable value in the L&A report.
NeQca.e-dc.s�rQpaw�
' 1194 W. Ash Street, Suite B Windsor, Colorado 80550
970-686-6939 Phone 970-686-1188 Fax
The rational method was used to calculate runoff for the 2 and 100-year storms. The
flowpath lengths and slopes used have not changed significantly from the previous
' reports and the revised C-values (indicated above) were used. The revised flow
quantities are greater than the runoff calculated with the TST report but less than allowed
in the Lidstone . & Anderson report. See table below for comparisons of the runoff
' calculated with each report. Calculations for this project are included at the end of this
letter.
SUBBASIN
Q 2
TST
L&,k
Q100
TST
L&A
2
2
100
Q100
24B
0.38
0.4
1.0
1.76
1.4
2.6
26A
0.76
0.4
1.4
3.39
1.3
4.3
Erosion control for this site is shown on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan attached
1 and an escrow estimate for the proposed erosion control measures is attached.
All drainage calculations completed for the changes proposed with this Minor
' Amendment are attached. Applicable excerpts from previous reports are also attached for
your reference.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Si
Patrici Kroetc , P. r-
North Star Design, Inc.
Z ++a4$'i
HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS
�
R
o
\
�
§
A-
IL
/]
®
}-
�
�E
w
�\�
oe
U.
jk
o
\
/
m0
�
to�/
4 \
@
og e
-
2k
,
3§k)
)§
\E
®
)
@
)k
22
(u<
£|
.
FLU
E
§
0
uc
j Uim
@ \
C13
I
k)oq§§q
/0
o 0
f
0
/
[§-
$
\
\§\
5
\§k
on
v
§
)§k
k
°
0
;
e!#
d
m
§)i
§
Q
)(
<
m
a
§§
\
k
.
e
4k«2
««§)
\{{\
)
\|f6
�*§-E.
)0
\
\\\/
ca
/
0 m.0
ƒ-))m)
,
o«�<
_7
f\
0
�
\
�
,1
)
)
§
CM
k
LL
,)
;§
o/
§u
§b
�m
R
k
�§
\����
§
@@E
,
7
§
(
•
ec
2
e
ĴF
(
a
)£�6�
�\#
,
f\2
e
2
g
S
)
f«+
)LU
R
Ci
/f§
0
0
E
2
2
/
§«qk
<
%
m
2§kC
§
\
m
m
Q
z
O
z°zQ
y
O
UUO0E o
-1 u 0 o
Y
f
W
R'
C
n
= 8
E
LL
�-
0
0
o
i
c
cO
?
E
m
U
W
m
u �
e
o
u �
0
0
J
LL
W
O
V
.-.
z
m
f
N
=
U
C
m
m
o
O
0
m
0
C
puj
Q
n
m
o
C7
o 2' m
m
w
f
m
m
W
L
C Z n
a
J
C �
C
N
M
O
n
0
0
m
O e _
N
m
o
c � <
J
p
m
IL
U
W
um,U
o
0
u
zp
m m N
n
n
O
m
C
O
N
Z
co
m
N
N
m
y
z
z F
m F
W p
N
N
mom
a
E
u
U
0
U
O
\
\
2 E
R
�
\(Ĥ
J
0
(
\
Gn
\
y\0
Rw�
a/R&
uoln
S@E)
k
§
k
K
�§e2
fccio
-{k
§
{
;
/
z£2
<
m
k
\ )
2
2
�
§
0§
ty
2£
/ E
@q
kk�k°
�0
)
[§/))
k
ooa'<§
;�
§LL
/
/
§
!
a
\
W
U
LL
W
z
LL
LL
O�
Z
Y
O
O
a �-
c
O
W
J
Q
Z
0
2
Q
F
C
.4
CD0 0 0
\
N
3 ^ CL
n
U
W
y
Oo
o
F
zz
_0 E.
F W a
u C)
O O A
IX
N
Y
f
W
R'
0
Q
c]
Od
0
o_
La
w
Oc
Y
E rn c
a
0
�
n
Q
U C
E
O
r
U
�
U
o
0
N
m
v
O
G
LL
O
Z
d
¢
m
F
0
w
1'
O
tli C
Q a
N
N
Z
7
U
LL
0
E
0
w
w
L g 2.
N
m %
t C N c
U N N O Q
N O C 0)Y m O
cc O c0 C
a) C C @
O. 2 .� O
II II ` II rn
00 r
A
m
M
rn
i�
O
d
a
�N
c
d
c
d
z
0
0
d
EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS
Cost Est
EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE
Project: Willow Springs Fifth Filing, Tract D
Prepared by: PPK
ITEM
IQUANTITY
JUNIT
COST/UNIT
JT5TAL COST
Silt Fence
140
LF
$3
$420
Straw Bale Barrier
1
EA
$150
$150
Gravel Inlet Filter
0
EA
$150
$0
Construction Entrance
0
EA
$550
$0
Subtotal
Contingency (50%)
Total
$570
$285
$855
CITY RESEEDING COST
Reseed/Mulch
0.62
ACRE
$615
$381
Subtotal
Contingency (50%)
Total
$381
$191
$572
EROSION CONTROL ESCROW AMOUNT $855
Page 1
North Star Design, Inc.
1194 W. Ash Street, Suite B
Windsor, CO 80550 -
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
STANDARD FORM C
PROJECT: Willow SDrinas Fifth Filina. Tract D
SEQUENCE FOR 2000 ONLY COMPLETED BY: PPK DATE: 08-Dec-00
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.
2000
MONTH
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
Demolition
Grading
Wind Erosion Control:
Soil Roughing
Perimeter Barrier
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Soil Sealant
Other
Rainfall Erosion Control
Structural:
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters
Straw Barriers
Silt Fence Barriers
Sand Bags
Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
Asphalt/Concrete Paving
Other
Vegetative:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Sealant
Temporary Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/Mats/Blan kets
Other
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY: CONTRACTOR MAINTAINED BY: DEVELOPER
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: TO BE DETERMINED BY BID
DATE SUBMITTED: APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON:
Page 1
' EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS
' jFinal-Vred Report November 5, 1997
Dade 3
Mr. Basil Hamden
' City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department
P.O. Box 850
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Re: Willow Springs Ffh Filing, Pool Site
Project No. 10-695-065
Dear Mr. Hamden:
We are pleased to submit this letter summarizing our evaluation of the proposed Willow Springs
Pool Site. The pool will be located near Catkins Court between White Willow Drive and
Timberline Road. The site was platted with the Willow Springs P.U.D. but no improvements
' have been installed.
The proposed pool site was considered in the "Final Drainage Report for the Willow Springs
P.U.D., Phase One" (Lidstone & Anderson, Inc., May 3, 1995) and was assumed to be a
neighborhood recreation center in their evaluation. The runoff coefficient (C) used for the site in
the L/A report was 0.70. The purpose of our evaluation was to determine the impacts of the
' proposed pool site improvements to the approved drainage plan and existing drainage facilities.
Our evaluation began by adjusting the L/A basin delineation to match the proposed grading. The
' proposed site lies in portions of Subbasins 23B and 24B, which contribute to Pond 324, and
Subbasins 25B and 26A, which contribute to Pond 326. The revised basin delineation can be
found on the Grading and Drainage Plan accompanying this letter.
' The rational method was used to evaluate peak runoff from the revised subbasins, which is
consistent with the methodology used in the L/A report. Flow lengths and slopes did not change
significantly for the proposed condition but the runoff coefficient did. A composite runoff
' coefficient was calculated for each subbasin. Base values for the composite coefficient were 0.95
for impervious surfaces (streets, roof tops, concrete, and the pool), 0.20 for pervious surfaces
(grass areas), and 0.45 for existing residential front yards. These areas were not estimated but
' were calculated based on existing and proposed conditions. The following table summarizes the
revised hydrology and compares it to the values presented in the L/A report:
SUBBASIN
Q2
L/A Q2
CHANGE
Q100
L/A Qloo
CHANGE
23B
------•-•-•-•-----
24B
2.1 cfs
---------------
0.4 cfs
1.7 cfs
-----------•.---
1.0 cfs
+0.4 cfs
•----•---------
- 0.6 cfs
6.6 cfs
------ ----------
1.4 cfs
5.4 cfs
-••--•-•---------
2.6 cfs
+1.2 cfs
---------------
-1.2 cfs
POND 324
- 0.2 cfs
0.0 cfs
25B
26A
30. cfs 1.
0.4 cfs
2.3 cfs
1.4 cfs
+0.7 cfs
1.0 cfs
9.8 cfs
1 1.3 cfs
8.0 cfs
----------------
4.3 cfs
+1.8 cfs
.-----
1 -3.0 cfs
POND 326
1
1 -0.3 cfs
1
1 -1.2 cfs
TST INC.748 Whalers VL'av- BuildingD 1021mcrncss Terrace East
7 Fort Collins. CO 80525 Suite 105
Consulting Engineers (970) 226-055' Englewood. CO 80112
Metro Denver (303) 595-9103 (303)'92-0557
Fax (970) 226-0204 Fax (303) 792-9489
TST, INC.
Though the net runoff to each of the two detention ponds ether decreased or remained unchanged
the runoff to the existing inlets in White Willow Drive increased. This was due to the increased
area and composite runoff coefficients in Subbasins 23B and 25B. Both inlets were evaluated for
the existing size and for the ponding limits presented in the L/A report. The inlets were evaluated
for both the 2-yr and 100-yr runoff conditions. The existing 5' Type "R" inlet at DP 23B
' functions adequately during the 2-yr event storm but is slightly undersized for the 100-yr event
storm. Our evaluation indicates this inlet would need to be 5.7 feet long to accept the 100-yr
runoff. Rather than modifying or replacing the existing inlet we request a variance which would
allow the excess runoff to utilize the existing overflow swale behind the inlet. The overflow was
sized to convey the 100-yr runoff to the low point in the street at this location and discharges
directly to Pond 324. The existing 10' Type "R" inlet at DP 25B has adequate capacity for the
increased runoff in both the 2-yr and 100-yr event storms.
In addition to checking the inlet capacities for the increased runoff we also modified the
' UDSEWER analysis for storm sewer lines ST-5 (Basin 23) and ST-9 (Basin 25). Both systems
function adequately with no significant impacts to existing inlets or manholes.
As shown in the summary table above, the net revised runoff to Detention Ponds 324 and 326 is
unchanged or decreases. For this reason we feel that a revised analysis of the detention facilities
is unnecessary and should not be required. It is our opinion that the reduced flow into Pond 326
will not provide a significant increase in the ponds active capacity or freeboard.
Accompanying this letter are our hydorologic calculations, inlet capacity calculations, revised
UDSEWER analysis for Lines ST-5 and ST-9, and our Grading and Drainage Plan. We believe
this evaluation should satisfy the requirements of a Final Drainage Report for an infill use within
an approved P.U.D. and look forward to your review and comment. If you should have any
questions please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
TST, INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS
David B. Lindsay, P.E.
DBL/SAS/ebc
Enclosures
,e,�*JpAew
Sharlene A. adowen, P.E.
`�R•R8�
TST. INC.
Consulting Engineers
IRY/aN ��LL'nJf
/!J- G4S.-OG
CLIENT
' JOB NO.
vaoJEcr Lir'�lz•.� f/2 „✓GS i���L 1 tc
CALCULATIONS FOR "� t' li C
MADE BY 1/%3 L DATE �U •"J_57 CHECKED BY_ DATE SHEETOF Q
I
31 2 % JP 3
iZvn/v�f CvE>< - C .: Ca poJ %tom S�iter���. frA✓'a.� = 0. 95 F/4. -7 `(AA,ls
4e
4c.._.4�
CC•Ss)C•S'a (.9S�L•GJ) 1�1.i3
= 0./ -7 (o.G3 Fitt. 4.44 n,•f..a-7)
1
.4✓E.-�Lo.✓,. Le%.iL�H .- Sift
_.
VX _
4. -7
vs -
G�tttn c +L—7.•.,•Ia = �.
Gvttc �t Lc,v P-:!� .
to
G✓tx�ti: v rc;�-, - i.7 FPS . 6F2-;m
3 a v0OC )
%t x64) = JUD/.% k 1o0
e�. 9
/.MV cr CGnCET.X.�. C. %i✓�.I - lG -..I` 1 f
l,'rs -ern i� _ >>• 5 .1. � - S, � „ : ,� -�
7. D �u/.un ---
l�
Lam/ � �✓Nr�� '�_>� � Ct_Y- ..-
(A-7 ter. L/rT ens.. ice---- +
CS,4 L/,A nra��) �-- �1..7crs
G0507M 54
TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
CLIENT JOB NO.
p
PROJECT �'�-L""� ����•�✓L I ry L CALCULATIONSFOR
MADE BY f_ DATE f U-`j 1 CHECKED BY_ DATE SHEET Li OF
Jrk (IAA,* POND ?d4-
j�45r ..% FVl EPr - C.38 /rc Cv.43 fc. F2::.... G/� /_'cf✓�T� '4—
R✓,�;,yr C„r•F = G • G�.�-.`a:,''=c: � �'rJF�uF:/f'X�Gonc2�7����Pc�'Lv;✓•� —r�. CS/ !�24.SI = O a�f� /4c:,-
_.. _ _ a7
AL _ .0
OVPJL L,4v0 iT r C ry i
- ccf) JT i. Ci. - C. �a?C/,P )�
_ � 5 ��� Q.O.-.��.✓, -tr-
uvltcwt te^/L
%..... L err C✓..Ct.i7l:� .:.I = - /; + T _ ..
e2 = (.4,1)(�.a)(:�• ���.=BJ - �.� CfJ l �•G Gt�S Fla. ZIA
C;7,✓, - (.4��Cl.J� %�7.Oi�.vz) = 4 ccs e02.
GP3^'r3-84
TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
CLIENT "'
JOB NO.
PROJECT wl"•r SFZ'•iG-3 �C f fl CALCULATIONS FOR
14S'rRcL�(.4
1 ti
MADE BY Jti DATE la "E i CHECKED BY_
DATE SHEET 3 OF
/�SrrJ r4PtfA I: So Ic. F4
iC Lr/d� cuc><" = C ' • e,, PO; cc S7� Er��»/�r v; i�J 7 0. 4S
F/e i+ WA.05 - O, •4`.
/
c - Cc: ss)L. 79) + (. �s)C• i ;= � ��/,�,i O. L- 9 �o. � �
P-4, L/A 12,,A 7 —¢-
14
--�2- _ (: b7C�-cam) _ /.B�C�.� �.G�iCi•o7J -
57
3
Citrtte.�c_ Gcvb7�: =- 7dv �-�
vc Lc 4't-, .?. 9t -rps C9/zv. F, a 3-a C F- U,OO.c
Pia 2 /.. FF A
7r/, a . 1.?. 3 CvcJ "L i/ 1ZcYc,l-7
i
/',=�.�ri���Ji��>1C%•vrt; '— 7.�SCTCS � �CfS LAo� L�� %12fi./•i T/,$c,C
GC8471. E
TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
CLIENT e - JOB NO. /U _ V
PROJECT LzG L�
>�/�1L CALCULATIONS FOR �'' L
'J
MADE BY V L DATE �U _ �� 7 CHECKED BY_ DATE SHEET OF
S v ,, .. , ��P6, A 0) ? a)!>' l r; A s�c�as;,.,
c1. 0.537p AC/A
?ti.y�FG CoC,�. =C `..Cy....f'aJitt� evgFi�(/C�..tRcr"I�c/�'•✓CrCJ.4S� Grass =U.aJ _
A .:...
CG..4S4c
C`-- rl,ys)C, v�): y.C.aD)(.4� ) ]�S3 = U, 3/- w.7o Fi,�,->, �/.a R�P��•�) �'-
01,m- LAtvo -�,AAvc L -7 r, e- -7
14v- Fw..J ='/4v it
�iU'tttTt. � 2;t,�c L " r : •... � = tom. _
6✓=tat: G�A�,^i1 = �, p •F=.
1 �2 c 13. OF. ,-J.
RA',;IFA Lt 77,
_
I = —
—�
�,,,, (,�r)(1.,;,-J �j.�,•� s.�, /, 3 ems.,
C/. 4 cPJ .1'i,,, L/R 26 p / r ) -q-- - /,
GC5a7:3.8=
No Text
TST, INC.
Consulting Engineers
CLIENT F.7 �n4"J 4c.LL' •✓ f JOB NO.
PROJECT t✓'LL6-J 11;r_; rJn f fL •X; CALCULATIONS FOR
MADE BY L �� L' DATE / CHECKED BY DATE SHEET / OF-
��S/!s nl Poi, % a.3 -7 1, S` ram!/tr `/L '� <�r,.;p 4rN0.':,'✓,.i
RE -vacs FLvY✓ J 1/✓La`T, FLuw lelcaE.4sco F✓L. LIA
Q;,;> = G • to c><s .. . ,_:
a„lR /Arcs ,7 C,4CCvLA-7;v;�3 Y<.r,AEr Ta ZIA 2c/dn
,4Lcow6CL7..P�..a._;M'zDer--74..-- 0,.35f"{ C%Y/r✓Fc,44)
—rA-u2o-7,'cAL l<✓L -. CArAc:tlr = 0.78 cFJ1in.
CAP/-'c;{�: rcr.c�,'>;✓;.�:r 7.2 = U. YIiJ CF.n s' ;,,.4-v ).
1
1.vLt? fA%iC.•LY..-� �01�8)(S)(. $� = 3. � C•�S <� o!. � C�J✓ l/K / �r
IOJ-`r2 �.✓(s7 Cf1lLrC.A7:i�/.'' I�.iZ,C.•.c"�erLl F2v.„ L/r4 �'ti'YiL"�
MpJ L_
/�;cv/Lc7.CAL.-ltvLc"> Cr/gc,{�!
FFo (fYa
j /LC-7, _CAPAc:t ..= (/.4; )(S) is = S. 4s CrLG G, 6 C•1s Ft.,, e%cR41 -Ar-Az.'xv�'F
2c-!,2:,;a co/r✓LL r L;�l.,— = �? v cFs�% 4i cft/{eY• 5r S, 7 f
L=kCFurs _QLVFh -rA..; 6= Cr,nva Yr/J_ !::/lEC C�/. j tZ✓!� 30a4 viA —7;4
... �i''l= r5'.'.•/; /. Qli(i^.FL.-,✓ SYo.�} �L .GGii, ,� %r."� /i✓(.C7 ,
f�,%L✓ T�JI f./�'w`S../�--�rJLLr% • ['iL'7 T•.-t, ��%`! a,�Lr `.n.' ! C�.w� CGn O, t.�J
R:=1,iS c'rJ �GoY� 1•v LC> F7Lv--' I L✓41LC'A•`cro F(Zo^c`L/A� 2tP�n7 .
0,2
3 O c�1
/4LLv1,.fC-E
ru/La"7;ciC /iiCGn �,c!<.c,•¢y — (j:7$ c�'J�Ft.
CFC.t�f[�2/OFl
78)/Av 1, &ri G GaCS > ap. / Cj=.i G/c-
.
/�LLr!•v<�Lc: I��...0:^'- 2,=C•--r? — 0. Cr- F� !G" A/,�c.c cam:.-,�)
ifAPAG/iy /2&-0,C',C?.rL — 0, �S I-c✓;/riLam)
Y• evA G J I,Y i
.-1,/Lr..� C� , �i' (�. "Y.!/C�7 •i �. � � � / i i C%.S r r 6.:3 Cfor Jr
G05i':;, i...
Path:
C:\UDSEWER
File:
R_WSP1-5.OUT
10,447
.a.. 11-03-97
11:48:50
am
Page 1
STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
USING UDSEWER MODEL
Developed by Dr.
James Guo,
Civil Eng.
Dept,
U. of Colorado at Denver
Metro Denver
Cities/Counties
& UDFCD
Pool Fund Study
USER:TST Inc Consulting Engineers
............................................
ON DATA
11-03-1997
AT TIME
11:10:17
VERSION=07-17-1995
' *** PROJECT
TITLE :Willow
Springs
First --
Storm Sewer
Analysis for Line
5
*** RETURN PERIOD OF
FLOOD IS 100
YEARS
*** SUMMARY
OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
%ZEVSro
Q,�
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANHOLE CNTRBTING
RAINFALL RAINFALL
DESIGN
' GROUND
WATER COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA * C
DURATION INTENSITY
PEAK FLOW
ELEVATION
ELEVATION
MINUTES
INCH/HR
CFS
FEET
FEET
I 80.00 PV^d� 3�4 0.00
-- -
0.00
0.00
E49.10
4953.00
4952.20
OK
81.00DPOa G 7.80
5.00
6.29
10
4954.60
4952.58
OK
82.00
0.60
5.00
9.00
5.40
4954.60
4953.48
OK
83.00 V-;1A 6.60
5.00
6.65
43.90
4954.70
4953.23
OK
84.00
1.20
5.00
9.33
11.20
4954.50
4953.26
OK
85.00
0.60
5.00
18.67
11.20
4954.50
4953.43
OK
86.00
1
4.80
5.00
7.50
36.00
4955.80
4954.71
OK
87.00
1.20
5.00
15.00
18.00
4955.60
4954.85
OK
88.00
0.60
5.00
30.00
18.00
4955.60
4954.98
OK
89.00
3.00
5.00
6.00
18.00
4956.80
4955.67
OK
90.00
2.40
5.00
7.50
18.00
4957.70
4956.23
OK
91.00
1.80
5.00
10.00
18.00
4959.10
4956.99
OK
92.00
1.20
5.00
15.00
18.00
4959.00
4957.32
OK
93.00
0.60
5.00
30.00,
18.00
4959.00
4957.41
OK
OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION
IS LOWER
THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY
OF SEWER
HYDRAULICS
NOTE:
THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH
-TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .85
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
MAMHOLE
NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED
SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(RISE)
DIA(RISE)
DIA(RISE)
WIDTH
ID NO.
----
NO.
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
8081.00
- -
81.00
80.00
ROUND
35.80
36.00
36.00
0.00
8182.00
82.00
81.00
ROUND
15.65
18.00
36.00
0.00
8183.00
83.00
81.00 ARCH
35.05
36.00
29.00
45.00
8384.00
84.00
83.00
ROUND
21.00
24.00
18.00
0.00
8485.00
85.00
84.00
ROUND
21.00
24.00
18.00
0.00
8386.00
86.00
83.00 ARCH
32.54
33.00
29.00
45.00
8687.00
87.00
86.00
ROUND
25.09
27.00
24.00
0.00
8788.00
88.00
87.00
ROUND
25.09
27.00
24.00
0.00
Path:
C:\UDSEWER
File:
R_WSP1-5.OUT
10,447
.a.. 11-03-97 11:48:50 am
Page 2
8689.00
89.00
86.00
ROUND
25.09
27.00
27.00
0.00
8990,00
90.00
89.00
ROUND
25.09
27.00
27.00
0.00
9091.00
91.00
90.00
ROUND
25.09
27.00
27.00
0.00
9192.00
92.00
91.00
ROUND
25.09
27.00
27.00
0.00
9293.00
93.00
92.00
ROUND
25.09
27.00
27.00
0.00
' DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
DESIGN
FLOW NORMAL
NORAML
CRITIC CRITIC
FULL FROUDE
COMMENT
ID
FLOW Q FULL
Q DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH VLCITY
VLCITY
NO.
NUMBER
CFS
CFS FEET
FPS
FEET
FPS
FPS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8081.0
49.1
50.0 2.41
8.06
2.28
8.51
6.95
0.89
V-OK
8182.0
5.4
50.0 0.67
4.62
0.77
3.74
0.76
1.19
V-OK
8183.0
43.9
50.9 2.21
7.67
2.18
7.77
5.88
0.94
V-OK
8384.0
11-.2
7.4 1.50
6.34
1.27
7.01
6.34
0.00
V-OK
8485.0
11.2
7.4 1.50
6.34
1.27
7.01
6.34
0.00
V-OK
8386.0
36.0
50.9 1.91
7.39
1.93
7.33
4.82
1.02
V-OK .
8687.0
18.0
16.0 2.00
5.73
1.53
6.99
5.73
0.00
V-OK
8788.0
18.0
16.0 2.00
5.73.
1.53
6.99
5.73
0.00
V-OK
8689.0
18.0
22.0 1.55
6.16
1.48
6.49
4.53
0.92
V-OK
8990.0
18.0
22.0 1.55
6.16
1.48
6.49
4.53
0.92
V-OK
9091.0
18.0
22.0 1.55
6.16
1.48
6.49
4.53
0.92
V-OK
9192.0
18.0
22.0 1.55
6.16
1.48
6.49
4.53
0.92
V-OK
9293.0
18.0
22.0 1.55
6.16
1.48
6.49
4.53
0.92
V-OK
IFROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES
THAT A
PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLOPE
INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED
DEPTH
COMMENTS
'SEWER
ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
%
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8081.00
0.40
4950.00
4949.43
1.60
0.57 NO
8182.00
0.40
4950.00
4950.00
1.60
1.60 OK
8183.00
0.50
4950.14
4950.00
2.14
2.18 OK
8384.00
0.50
4950.18
4950.14
2.82
3.06 OK
8485.00
0.50
4950.18
4950.18
2.82
2.82 OK
8386.00
0.50
4951.15
4950.15
2.23
-
2.13 OK
8687.00
0.50
4951.17
4951.13
2.43
2.67 OK
8788.00
0.50
4951.17
4951.17
2.43
2.44 OK
8689.00
0.50
4952.07
4951.14
2.48
2.41 OK
8990,00
0.50
4952.87
4952,06
2.58
2.49 OK
9091.00
0.50
4953.98
4952.88
2.87
2.57 OK
9192.00
0.50
4954.01
4953.98
2.74
2.87 OK
9293.00
0.50
4954.01
4954.00
2.74
2.75 OK
Path: C:\UDSEWER
File: R_WSP1-5.OUT 10,447 .a.. 11-03-97 11:48:50 am
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN -REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
--- -----------
SEWER
--------=-------
SEWER
SURCHARGED
ID NUMBER
LENGTH
LENGTH
' 8081.00
----FEET------IEET-
142.70
0.00
8182.00
1.00
1.00
8183.00
28.00
28.00
8384.00
8.00
8.00
8485.00
1.00
1.00
8386.00
200.00
200.00
8687.00
8.00
8.00
8788.00
1.00
1.00
8689.00
185.80
185.80
8990.00
161.40
161.40
9091.00
220.40
220.40
9192.00
5.00
5.00
9293.00
1.00
1.00
Page 3
1 FEET
----------------------------------------------
CROWN ELEVATION
WATER ELEVATION
FLOW
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET .
FEET
FEET
FEET
------------------------------------------------
4953.00
4952.43
4952.58
4952.20
SUBCR
4953.00
4953.00
4953.48
4952.58
PRSS'ED
4952.56
4952.42
4953.23
4952.58
PRSS'ED
4951.68
4951.64
4953.26
4953.23
PRSS'ED
4951.68
4951.68
4953.43
4953.26
PRSS'ED
4953.57
4952.57
4954.71
4953.23
PRSS'ED
4953.17
4953.13
4954.85
4954.71
PRSS'ED
4953.17
4953.17
4954.98
4954.85
PRSS'ED
4954.32
4953.39
4955.67
4954.71
PRSS'ED
4955.12
4954.31
4956.23
4955.67
PRSS'ED,
4956.23
4955.13
4956.99
4956.23
PRSS'ED
4956.26
4956.23
4957.32
4956.99
PRSS'ED
4956.26
4956.25
4957.41
4957.32
PRSS'ED
PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
*** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IUPST
MANHOLE
SEWER
JUNCTURE LOSSES
DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE
ENERGY
FRCTION
BEND
BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE
ENERGY
ID NO
ID NO.
ELEV FT
FT
K COEF
LOSS FT K
--------
COEF LOSS FT
----------------------------
ID
FT
--------
8081.0
-------------
81.00
----
4953.49
--------
1.29
--------
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
80.00
4952.20
8182.0
82.00
4953.49
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
81.00
4953.49
8183.0
83.00
4953.76
0.25
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.00
81.00
4953.49
8384.0
84.00
4953.89
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.00
83.00
4953.76
8485.0
85.00
4954.05
0.01
0.25
0.16
0.00
0.00
84.00
4953.89
8386.0
86.00
4955.07
0.50
1.00
0.36
0.25
0.45
83.00
4953.76
8687.0
87.00
4955.36
0.05
0.46
0.23
0.00
0.00
86.00
4955.07
8788.0
88.00
4955.49
0.01.
0.25
0.13
0.00
0.00
87.00
4955.36
8689.0
89.00
4955.99
0.62
0.05
0.02
0.25
0.28
86.00
4955.07
8990.0
90.00
4956.55
0.54
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.00
89.00
4955.99
9091.0
91.00
4957.31
0.74
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.00
90.00
4956.55
9192.0
92.00
4957.64
0.02
1.00
0.32
0..00
0.00
91.00
4957.31
9293.0
93.00
4957,73
0.00
0.25
0.08
0.00
0.00
92.00
4957.64
BEND LOSS
=BEND
K* FLOWING FULL
VHEAD
IN SEWER.
LATERAL
LOSS=
OUTFLOW
FULL VHEAD-JCT
LOSS K*INFLOW
FULL
VHEAD
LOSS=O
MEANS
IT IS NEGLIGIBLE
OR POSSIBLE
ERROR
DUE TO
JUMP.
IFRICTION
FRICTION
LOSS
INCLUDES
SEWER INVERT
DROP
AT MANHOLE
NOTICE:
VHEAD
DENOTES
THE VELOCITY
HEAD OF FULL
FLOW CONDITION.
I
L- r i✓ c S 'T �
Path: C:\UDSEWER
File: R_WSP1-9.OUT 6,242 .a.. 11-03-97 11:50:42 am Page 1
--------------
t STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL
Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver
Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study
USER:TST Inc Consulting Engineers ............................................
ON DATA 11-03-1997 AT TIME 11:12:04 VERSION=07-17-1995
*** PROJECT TITLE :Willow Springs First -- Storm Sewer Analysis for Line 9
*** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS
' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL
DESIGN I GROUND
WATER COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA C DURATION INTENSITY
FLOW/ELEVATION
PEAK FLOW -ELEVATION
ELEVATION
INCH/HR
FEET--
--MINUTES-
-------------------------------
45.000.00 0.00
0.00
-----CFS
3.90 4944.00
------------
4942.30
OK
46.000E 2.40 5.00
9.96
23.9 4944.70
4941.83
OK
47.00 0.60 5.00
16.67
10.00 4944.70
4944.00
OK
'
48.00Cr.%=A 1.20 5.00
11.92
14.30 4944.70.
4942.69
OK
49.00 0.60' 5.00
23.83
14.30 4944.70
4942.84
OK
' OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER
THAN GROUND ELEVATION
*** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH
-TO -SEWER
SIZE RATIO= .85
-------NOTE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER
SEWER
REQUIRED SUGGESTED
EXISTING
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
SHAPE
DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE)
DIA(RISE)
WIDTH
ID NO. ID NO.
(IN) (FT) (IN) (FT)
(IN) (FT)
(FT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4546.00 46.00 45.00
ROUND
16.39 18.00
24.00
0.00
4647.00 47.00 46.00
ROUND
11.82 12.00
24.00
0.00
4648.00 48.00 46.00
ROUND
19.92 21.00
21.00
0.00
4849.00 49.00 48.00
ROUND
19.92 21.00
21.00
0.00
DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER
ARE IN INCHES
DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE
IN FEET
REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER
HYDRAULIC CAPACITY.
SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED
1
BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE
SIZE.
FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE
SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE;
OTHERWISE,
EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL
NORAML
CRITIC CRITIC
FULL FROUDE
COMMENT
ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH
VLCITY
DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
NUMBER CFS CFS FEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPS
FEET FPS
FPS
'• Path:
C:\UDSEWER
File:
R_WSP1-9.OUT 61242 :a.. 11-03-97 11:50:42
am
Page 2
4546.0
23.9 66.3 0.83
19.38
1.72
8.32
7.61 4.32
V-OK
4647.0
10.0 66.3 0.53
15.20
1.13
5.45
3.18 4.38
V-OK
4648.0
14.3 16.5 1.26
7.73
1.40
6.92
5.95 1.26
V-OK
'
4849.0
14.3 16.5 1.26
7.73
1.40
6.92
5.95 1.26
V-OK
' FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A
PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWER
SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION
BURIED
DEPTH
COMMENTS
' ID NUMBER
UPSTREAM DNSTREAM
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
% (FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
4546.00
6.12 4940.11
4938.00
2.59
4.00
OK
'
4647.00
6.12 4940.11
4940.05
2.59
2.65
OK
4648.00
1.08 4940.50
4940.11
2.45
2.84
OK
4849.00
1.08 4940.50
4940.49
2.45
2.46
OK
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER
THAN REQUIRED SOIL
COVER OF
1 FEET
I*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
' SEWER
ID NUMBER
4546.00
4647.00
4648.00
4849.00
----------------------------------
SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION
LENGTH
LENGTH
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
FEET
--------------------------------------
FEET
FEET
FEET
34.50
26.33
4942.11
4940.00
1.00
0.00
4942.11
4942.05
36.00
36.00
4942.25
4941.86
1.00
1.00
4942.25
4942.24
----------------------------
WATER ELEVATION
FLOW
UPSTREAM
DNSTREAM
CONDITION
FEET
FEET
----------------------------
4941.83
4942.30
JUMP
4944.00
4941.83
JUMP
4942.69
4941.83
PRSS'ED
4942.84
4942.69
PRSS'ED
PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW
*** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE
SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY
ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT
4546.0 46.00 4942.90 0.60 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 4942.30
4647.0 47.00 4944.16 1.22 0.25 0.04 0.00 0.00 46.00 4942.90
4648.0 48.00 4943.24 0.29 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00 46.00 4942.90
4849.0 49.00 4943.38 0.01 0.25 0.14 0.00 0.00 48.00 4943.24
r
BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE
1 NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K
FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
�rNn
. aU1���w_;_ SP2i`tii6%S - Pu�7
a 10-foot curb inlet at Design Point 23A. All flow collected in the inlets at Design points
20, 21A and 23A will be conveyed under White Willow Drive in a 29"H x 45"W
HERCP to Design Point 23B. The runoff from the eastern portion of White Willow
Drive (within Subbasin 23B) will be collected by a 5-foot inlet at Design Point 23B.
All flow will be conveyed. to Detention Pond 324 by way of a 36-inch RCP.
' Runoff generated within Subbasin 22A (as well as overflow of 5 cfs from Design Points
' 20 and 21A) will be collected along the eastern portion of White Willow Drive and
conveyed to Design Point 22C. Runoff from Subbasin 22B will be conveyed along
Timberline Road to Design Point 22C. Prior to the final construction of Timberline
Road, which will occur with the development of Willow Springs Phase 2, flow from
Subbasin 22B will be conveyed in the existing roadside ditch to an 18-inch ADS pipe.
The Pipe will connect to the inlet at Design Point 22C and will be abandoned with the
' final construction of Timberline Road. Local runoff generated within Subbasin 22C will
be conveyed overland to Design Point 22C. The total 2-year flow will be collected by
a 15-foot curb inlet and conveyed under Willow Springs Drive to Design Point 22D in
a 24-inch RCP. Runoff from the 2-year event collected along the northern portion of
Willow Springs Drive, east of White Willow Way, within Subbasin 22D will be
intercepted by a 10-foot curb inlet at Design Point 22D. The flow collected by the inlets
' at Design Points 22C and 22D will be conveyed to Detention Pond 324 by a 30-inch
RCP. For the 100-year event, up to 1.3 cfs will overtop the northern curb at Design
Point 22D and flow directly to the detention pond.
' The 100-year runoff generated along the western portion of Timberline Road within
Subbasin 24A will be collected by a 5-foot curb inlet at Design Point 24A and be
' conveyed to Detention Pond 324 by a 15-inch RCP. Subbasin 24B will remain
undeveloped for the First Filing; in the future, it is planned that the site will serve as a
neighborhood recreation area. Flow will be conveyed to Detention Pond 324 by a 4-foot
sidewalk culvert at the northern end of the pond. For the interim condition, flow will
be conveyed to the pond as overland flow. Flow from Subbasin 24C will be conveyed
directly into the pond as overland flow. Outflow from the detention pond will discharge
' to Detention Pond 326 in a 24-inch ADS pipe. The release from this pond will be
controlled by a 16.5-inch diameter orifice plate opening at the entrance to the outlet pipe.
The 100-year runoff from Topanga Court and the western portion of White Willow Drive
(within Subbasin 25A) will be conveyed by street flow to a 10-foot curb inlet at Design
Point 25A, and then transported to Design Point 25B in a 21-inch RCP. Runoff from
the eastern portion of White Willow Drive (within Subbasin 25B) will be conveyed by
street flow to a 10-foot curb inlet at Design Point 25B. The total 100-year runoff from
' Subbasin 25 will be conveyed to Detention Pond 326 in a 24-inch ADS pipe.
Runoff from Subbasins 26A and 26B will be conveyed to Detention Pond 326 by a
swale flowing north, parallel to Timberline Road. The northern portion (Subbasin 26A)
will be undeveloped for the First Filing. It is anticipated that the site will be used as a
neighborhood recreation area. Subbasin 26C encompasses Detention Pond 326; all
portionsof the subbasin not included in the pond will overland flow into the pond. The
' 9
Table 3.2 Summary of SWAM Subbasin Parameters.
Resrstance Factors :;
Surfacg Retention
Infiltratron Rate
Storage
Basin ::
Area
Perceai
51ope
Subbasm
Width
(ac)
Impervious
(ft/ft)
a
I mp ry
Pery
Impery
Pery
Maa
iDecay
Ivl m
(fr)
Rate
To
(m)
(m)
(m)
(in)
{sec ) i'
1
1,200
8.4
38
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
2
1,350
4.6
64
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
3
800
5.7
44
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
4
300
1.6
74
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
5
800
3.1
64
0.020
0.020
0.25
-0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
6
2,500
11.6
60
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
7
750
3.3
57
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
8
450
2.3
67
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
9
3,000
18.3
29
0.020
0.020
0,25
0.1
0.3
.0.51
0.50
0.0018
10
1,400
8.5
25
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
15
1,300
7.1
17
0.015
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
16
200
1.8
12
0.020
0.020
0.25
0..1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
20
600
4.1
46
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
21
1,400
9.0
46
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
22
1,800
7.2
51
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
23
1,000
2.2
61
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
24
500
3.4
42
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
25
900
4.0
65
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
26
1,000
2.9
31
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
30
1,700
11.8
60
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
40
1,300
6.1
29
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
41
800
3.5
50
0.020
0.020
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.51
0.50
0.0018
18
No Text
IF
5J Jl� SWALE AT I
Ill��ifff \\ � �
s — —lilyI A'•�_
—
Aw—
I ----- _
_._
-- -- - - __
1 I
1 I
' I
I
/ - I oEeEngon paxD m , II
/ ll
( II
C
y
mod.
I ..Jilin I
!�
PRELIMINARY
NOT EAP E
DECEMBER & 6. 2000D00
10 5 0 10 20
SCALE: 1' - 10'
[It It— M:`lmlxecXMra M
DESIGN
POINT
BASIN
OE9G.
AREA
ACRES
CZ
C100
Tc (2)
MIN
To (100)
MIN
0 (
EFS
0 (iW)
CFS
26A
26A
0.53
0.68
O.BS
11A
10.4
0.76
J.39
246-
24B
0.38
0.4J
0.54
&6
7.4
>e
1J6
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
ST.wDAW root c
mACT D PRo . ?oath :mlmcs,
BE@IE1eZ ran 2001 ONLY Cg1pIFiEp BY: Mt
bets nisisto
M1 verse ervkn conW mg .vl be h"M
owdam of , W
WW modlF.e lm b
rn.NUE:�a�`
� q o nv win o fa appmal By Was My E^geiem.
YOIM
PAND
NN
r®
BM
Al
MAY
J.M
Alu
AUG
SA
OCT
NOL•
ME
uw,Nf m
GNaeW
Were r.. Cimmm.
PPill
i MawMg
Mw
Aeaww o n.
f.e
shihear
peal sms.LCal
(affirm
Trafeam
treat "i
Fred,AnTervRn
Cm
_
l banner,
`ems Con
bets
De?:'
vi sere
Manting
Iml
g/y
Beek
NmpoFgrA
beg
NN1ps/1oM1Basefs
oNw
BUlgnG GBNSTINGTNM
S1M.Y,TMES 116T/ BY: CONTRACIfB MAINTAINED BY:
p[yssty[g
1ccxTAnanrylxoma caTBACTan: TO er DETERMINED BY BID
DATE 9BnTTm: AP%Nl£➢ BY oTY OF Imal COLNs ON
LEGEND
Qi DESIGN POINT
BASIN CRITERIA
a.80 0. RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
AREA IN ACRES
FLOW DIRECTION
M BASIN BOUNDARY
--------- EXISTING PIPES
OEROSION BALES
— — — — — — EXISTING 5' CONTOUR
I -"------------ ----- EXISTING V CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOUR
X ® X SILT PENCE
The City of Fart CMMe Strom.ate. Ut41ly erosion control Inspector must be nallfle6 Of
lea" 24 hours prlar to any wnetm<tlan on this site.
All .stela pMmebr slitfending a to be "tall" pea any land disturbing ocUnfy
enthralling.Simmons, grading. etc.). All other nau4ea erosion control m .e Snot
De enteredl at Ns appropriate time In the construction se<uence Is indicated In arse
Invoked protect schedule, construction pima and erosion ontnl report.
.-dl¢wNal vemaylon Shall be pmbced one retainer mui navlele F.muwl
or „ scyShallapamto the area required far ImmeIme
[... 1st, a.mmArleta; neor thenowina Saudi me,
All oarsexp1"d during land disturbing octlyty (stripping, treating, uurity in Wilations
ailing, AN.) Mind? be kept roughened duration by ripping or Mil Mena
Iona [docow¢ umt m rogetmlm a other permanent er Contra? a m¢mueA.
outside protect street rightf say shot remain�oen ores by land eisNurdinq
rl areas
than thirty Idone erealt p r
< ea,read/mulm, Imes< g t) Installed. m the
st'""AN, Utility,
The property Small be .obrM one maintained at all times during Instruction mi
to eprewnt . m coaem a • l edisturbing r T h ll e a lady
nd when g t ep lpp t ed rthe l
Fart cane:Department
dust
Engineering o pan t.
Alt Temporary Si) armary control measures Anne
e inspenced and
responded
y n n assure continued
terminal of their intended r m mannera?y, free, by
u sea at n .e dual o e< .1
,at to,[r " tht r di y. sediments.
No vY stocapple Small exceed mr, (0) fastmight.'AT wil amki •m be
dropped Nor, takirmant trimegron by morwasky, muowAg,Mw and pwimmw I'll
MencingAny 1111 nape remaining after 30 days shot . ideal Ina mulched.
City federal. rolrone the track ns. dr ing, or depositing of or cry other
metal onto City stress by a er< on any m[le. dAnyduw innenil deal matenri
Nall be cloned Lnmeelltay by the mntmelar
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
APPROVED'.
[y Engineer
CALL UTILITY NOTIFlCATION
CHECKED BY:
battle A Naet"elw Unity
CENTER OF COLORADO
1w800SA922AS1987
CHECKED BY:
mme.iw 6IIty
A 534.6700 6 °
M
CHECKED BY:
L'Ny ]-B2-Mal DAYS 1N ADVANCE
Parke 8 ne[reeWn
DIDNKI RILE ON ExcnMA1E
FDASEBBRET E M
FA ME u.wNNG OF 11Nunwaro
CHECKED BY:
YpIBER U1L111F3,
TmID[ Engineer
Do
Uln
Nam
PO 00
c t5t o OBIT
Sky WAS:! SdLL
2�
0
Y
o
an
N
p
a
AD
a
a
r
u
n
0
o
In
o
o`
Z
Q
�
p
a
I-
O
d0�
�
V
Z
0
Z
O
^�
�
J
w
LL
a'd
O
F
�
J
LL
Z
Q
SHEET
2
2 OF
137—Q7