HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 03/24/1993Fin Aro►.led Report
Date ,�/� �/y3
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR THE
IE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE
THIRD FILING
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
PROPERTY OF
FORT COLLINS UTILlM
FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR THE
THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE
THIRD FILING
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
January 13, 1993
Prepared for:
Woodcraft Homes
1501 N. Cleveland Avenue
Loveland, Colorado 80538
Prepared by:
RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants
2900 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(303) 226-4955
RBD Job No. 434-008
8
RMINC.
Engineering Consultants
2900 South College Avenue
Fort Collins. Colorado 60525
303/226-4955
FAX:3031226-4971
January 13, 1993
Ms. Kathy Malers
City of Fort Collins
Utility Services Stormwater
235 Mathews Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study
The Overlook at Woodridge Third Filing
Dear Kathy:
We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Revised Final
Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Overlook at Woodridge Third Filing. All
computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort
Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria.
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you
have any questions.
Respectfully,
RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants
Roger Curtiss, P.E.
Project Engineer
X G11
\`4
`o
Kevin W. Ginge , P.E.
?-
Project Manager
11-10
cc: Mr. Gary Berger
Mr. John Hutchinson
Other offices: Denver 3031458-5526 • Vail 303.r476-6340 • Longmont 303!678-9584
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
A. LOCATION 1
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1
DRAINAGE BASINS 1
A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 1
B. SUB -BASIN DESCRIPTION 2
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 2
A. REGULATIONS 2
B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 2
C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 3
D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 3
E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 3
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 3
A. GENERAL CONCEPT 3
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 4
V. EROSION CONTROL 6
A. GENERAL CONCEPT 6
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 6
VI. CONCLUSIONS 7
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 7
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 7
C. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 7
REFERENCES 8
APPENDIX
VICINITY MAP 1
DETENTION 2
THIRD FILING HYDROLOGY 4
DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM SEWER AND SWALES 9
RIPRAP DESIGN 20
EROSION CONTROL 23
CHARTS, FIGURES AND TABLES 27
' FINAL DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL STUDY
FOR THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE
THIRD FILING
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
'
A. Location
The Overlook at Woodridge Third Filing P.U.D. is bounded by Taft Hill Road
'
(County Road 19) on the west, open space (future filings) and Imperial
Estates on the north, future Harmony Road, Webber Junior High School
and Regency Park PUD to the east and by the Overlook Second Filing and
existing Harmony Road on the south.
The site location can also be described as situate in the Southwest 1 /4 of
Section 34, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort
Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The site location can be seen on Exhibit
1 in the Appendix.
'
B. Description of Property(
'
The Third Filing of the Overlook at Woodridge contains approximately 25.7
acres, more or less. Presently, the property is undeveloped. The property
is being proposed for planned unit development within the City of Fort
'
Collins Zoning District PUD, and will be developed consistent with the
Overlook First and Second FilingSat Woodridge. Native grasses presently
'
cover the property. The topography of the site generally slopes from west
to east at approximately 1.5 percent.
'
II. DRAINAGE BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
' The majority of the proposed development lies within Basin 80 (see
Appendix, page 1) of the McClellands and Mail Creek Major Drainageway
' Plan prepared by Cornell Consulting Company. A natural drainageway runs
from west to east along the northern edge of the project boundary within
Basin 80. Runoff from Basin 80 is routed by open channels and culverts
' along the northern boundary of the Gates First, Second and Third Filings,
along the north side of Seneca Street past Webber Junior High School and
then along the east side of Regency Drive to the existing Regional Detention
■ Pond.
1
A small portion of the Third Filing (Basin 7A) lies within Basin 75 of the
McClellands and Mail Creek Major Drainageway. Runoff from Basin 75 is
routed through the Regency Park development (east of the Woodridge
property) in an open channel along the north side of Harmony Road and
' eventually into the existing Regional Detention Pond.
This development will also include improvements to a portion of the existing
' Taft Hill Road (Basin 0-1). This basin is located within the Fossil Creek
Master Drainageway Basin, as prepared by Simons, U & Associates. The
runoff from the widening of Taft Hill Road will be directed south towards an
' existing roadside ditch.
B. Sub -basin Description
The Overlook Third Filing has been divided into 10 sub -basins, 8 of which
lie within Basin 80 of the McClellands and Mail Creek Master Plan, 1 lies
' within Basin 79 of the McClellands and Mail Creek Master Plan, and 1 lies
in the Fossil Creek Master Drainageway Plan. All 10 basins will be developed
consisting of proposed residential housing and street improvements,
' including improvements to Taft Hill Road and to Harmony Road. These sub -
basins are shown on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in the back
' pocket of this report.
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Regulations
'
The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the
subject site.
'
B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
'
From the Final Drainage Report for Regency Park PUD, 100 year developed
runoff from Basin 75 will be routed through the Regency Park subdivision
in an open channel along the north side of Harmony Road. A 42 inch culvert
lies under Regency Drive. An existing open channel along the east
side of Regency Drive transports storm water runoff from the 42 inch culvert,
north to the Regional Detention Pond near Wake Robin Lane.
From the Preliminary Drainage Report for the 1990 Junior High School, the
channel and culvert system along the north side of Seneca Street and the
teast
side of Regency Drive was sized for undetained off -site 100 year
1 2
' developed runoff from Basins 79, 80, and 85. A current SWMM model
analysis for Basins 79 and 80, obtained by the City of Fort Collins, has
determined that the existing channel, culverts and Seneca Street
(downstream of the subject site) will receive greater 100 year developed
runoff than was originally anticipated. The City of Fort Collins is currently
reviewing this matter and has indicated that the downstream existing
improvements may not be adequate to transport the entire 100 year
developed runoff (318 cfs) that could be produced from Basins 79 and 80
as shown in the appendix on sheet 1 at Seneca Street and the East property
line. The City is considering acquiring a portion of the Woodridge property
(part of a future filing northeast of the Overlook at Woodridge Third Filing)
for use as an additional regional detention pond.
1 C. Hydrological Criteria
The Rational Method for determining surface runoff was used for the project
site. The 2-year and 100 year storm event criteria, obtained by the City of
Fort Collins, was used in calculating runoff values. These calculations and
' criteria are included in the Appendix of this report.
' D. Hydraulic Criteria
All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in
' accordance with the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are also
included in the Appendix.
' E. Variances from Criteria
' No variances are being sought for the proposed project site.
' IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Conceit
' The majority of on -site runoff produced by the proposed development of the
Overlook at Woodridge Third Filing will flow easterly to the existing
' drainageway along the north side of Seneca Street and eventually arrive at
the Regional Detention Pond. Basin 7A will flow easterly also along the north
side of Harmony Road and will flow to the same Regional Detention Facility.
' Basin 0-1, which includes the widening of the existing Taft Hill Road
1 3
adjacent to the Third Filing, will flow south undetained to an existing
roadside ditch along the east side of Taft Hill Road and eventually on down
' to Fossil Creek. Included in the back pocket of this report are the proposed
drainage and grading plans.
' B. Specific Details
The Overlook at Woodridge has been broken down into 10 sub -basins. The
1 sub -basins designations correspond to the basin designations of the
Preliminary/Master Drainage Study for the Woodridge development.
' Runoff from Sub -basin 5 will be directed overland to the Regional Channel
and conveyed easterly towards Harmony Road.
' Runoff from Sub -basins 6, 10A, 1013, and 10C will be conveyed easterly
towards Harmony Road by a combination of gutter flows and a storm sewer
system. At Harmony Road, developed runoff will be combined with
developed runoff being conveyed north along Harmony Road, and will be
conveyed to the Regional Channel section East of Harmony Road. Flows
from the Third filing will be daylighted to a channel which will flow into the
regional channel. As Harmony Road is improved north of the intersection
of Harmony Road and Silvergate Road, a curb inlet will be constructed at
' the northwest corner of the intersection, and flows will be piped across
Harmony Road to the Regional Channel. A curb inlet will be required at this
point as curb and gutter flows exceed City criteria.
Runoff from Sub -basin 9 will be routed through the first two filings of the
Overlook towards Harmony Road, where it will be conveyed along with flows
' from Sub -basin 11 and developed flows from the remainder of Basin 9 per
the Preliminary/Master Drainage plan north by a combination of curb and
gutter and storm sewer to the Regional Channel. The 0.58 acres shown with
' this filing has been included in the 10.43 acre drainage basin shown with the
Second Filing of the Overlook Drainage Report, and the downstream
improvements have been designed to accept developed flows from this
area.
Runoff from Sub -basin 14, essentially the east half of Harmony Road from
Overlook Drive to Silvergate Road will also be conveyed north by the
proposed curb and gutter to the Regional Channel. Flows from the Third
filing will enter the regional channel overland by a temporary channel section
from the end of the curb and gutter to the regional channel. As Harmony
Road is improved north of the Third Filing, a curb inlet will be constructed
at the future low point of Harmony Road adjacent to the future underpass.
and developed flows will be piped to the Regional Channel.
4
Runoff from Basin 7A will be conveyed through the first two filings of the
Overlook by curb and gutter easterly towards Harmony Road. Runoff from
Basin 7A will be combined with runoff from Basins 76 and 7C (Basins 7B
and 7C are per the Preliminary/Master Drainage Study for Woodridge) and
will be transported to the existing off -site Regional detention pond by a
series of streets, culverts, roadside ditches, and open channels. Per the
Drainage Study of the Overlook Second Filing, the existing 21 inch pipe
under the temporary access road to Harmony Road can convey the runoff
from the developed Basin 7A and 7B and the undeveloped 7C. Thus no
further storm sewer systems are required for the completion of development
of Basin 7A. The 1.54 acre basin 7A shown with this filing is a part of basins
7A and 9 as defined with the Second Filing of the Overlook. The final
developed area for Basin 7A is larger than the area used in the Second
Filing. Calculations for this basin show that the City Criteria for gutter flow
will still be met.
Storm water runoff collected in the Regional channel will be directed easterly
to the existing 42 inch culverts immediately north of Seneca Street. There
flows travel via open channels and additional 42 inch culverts to the Regional
Detention Pond at Wake Robin Lane and Regency Drive. The City of Fort
Collins is currently studying the possibility of reconfiguring the two existing
42 inch culverts to provide a more efficient transmission of storm water to
the east.
The existing downstream culverts, open channels and streets have the
available capacity for the Overlook at Woodridge Third Filing.
The Overlook Third Filing will be built in phases; Phase 1 will be built first
and will consist of essentially Basins 5, a portion of 6, 7A, 9, 10A, 10B, and
a portion of 10C. With Phase 1 construction, only a portion of the ultimate
storm sewer system will be built. The curb inlet at the intersection of Vista
Drive and Overlook Drive will be constructed, along with the storm pipe
down to a point just to the east of the temporary gravel turnaround. There
developed runoff from Phase 1 development will be directed by the way of
a temporary swale towards the future Regional Channel. The fully developed
Interim Regional Channel section, as shown on the grading plan, will not be
installed until Phase 2 construction. The temporary Regional Channel section
as developed in the Second Filing plans, over the Fort Collins -Loveland
Water District water main will be extended up towards the Third Filing. Phase
2 construction schedule has not yet been determined.
5
' V. EROSION CONTROL
A. General Concept
This development lies within the High Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the
' Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. The
potential exists for moderate erosion problems after completion of the Third
Filing improvements, due to some existing and proposed site slopes of
' greater than 2 %. It is also anticipated that the project site improvements will
be subject to both wind and rainfall erosion before new vegetation can take
hold or before the new residential lots are developed.
The Erosion Control Performance Standard (PS) for this project was
computed to be 80.3% per the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Erosion
Control Reference Manual for Construction sites. The Effectiveness (EEF)
of the proposed erosion control plan was calculated to be 80.2%. Therefore,
the erosion control plan below meets the City of Fort Collins' requirements.
A copy of the calculations has been included in the Appendix.
B. Specific Details
After the overlot grading has been completed, all disturbed areas, not in a
roadway, shall have temporary vegetation seed applied. After seeding, a
hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre
minimum, and the mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped
into the soil. After the utilities have been installed, the roadway surfaces
shall receive the pavement structure.
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 rate of 2 tons/acre minimum, 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 overlot grading, a
temporary vegetation seed and mulch shall also be applied to the roadway
areas as discussed above.
The erosion control details specified above will apply to both Phase 1 and
Phase 2 construction. All the erosion control measures and structures
installed with the Overlook Second Filing and the Gates Second Filing shall
remain in place and in effect until the erosion control plan specified within
the Third Filing Plans has been established. No Construction Sequence
schedule has been developed for Phase 2 construction, and one will be
' submitted and approved by the City of Fort Collins prior to the start of any
construction activities commencing on Phase 2.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
' A. Compliance with Standards
All computations that have been completed within this report are in
' compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual
for Construction Sites and the Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. In
addition, all computations are in compliance with the Preliminary/Master
' Drainage Study for Woodridge prepared by RBD, Inc. in December 1991.
B. Drainage Concept
' The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the
construction plans adequately provide for the transmission of developed on -
site runoff to the existing drainage facilities at the eastern property line of the
subject site. The combination of street capacities in the curb and gutter and
the storm sewer system will provide for the 2 year and the 100 year
developed flows to reach the Regional Detention facilities.
The City of Fort Collins is currently studying the possible reconfiguration
of the existing 42 inch culverts at Webber Junior High School adjacent to
Seneca Street. Depending on the outcome of this analysis, the existing
culverts may or may not be reconfigured for this development. In addition
to the 42 inch culvert study, the City of Fort Collins is also evaluating the
capacity of downstream improvements in regard to the new SWMM runoff
'
flows which exceed the previously used downstream capacity in the culverts,
open channels, and street systems exists to safely convey developed runoff
to the Regional Detention Pond east of Regency Drive.
'
At the time of construction, if for some unforeseen reason groundwater is
encountered during construction, a Colorado Department of Health
Construction Dewatering Permit would be required.
C. Erosion Control Concept
The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control
of wind and rainfall erosion from the Overlook Third Filing. Through the
'
construction of the proposed erosion control concepts, the City of Fort
Collins performance standard will be met. The proposed erosion control
concepts presented in this report and shown on the erosion control plan are
'
in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Criteria.
7
' REFERENCES
1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, May 1984, Revised January 1991.
2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado, January 1991.
3. Preliminary/Master Drainage Study for Woodridge by RBD, Inc. Engineering
Consultants, December 27, 1991.
4. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Gates at Woodridge Second
Filing and the Overlook at Woodridge Second Filing, by RBD, Inc. Engineering
Consultants, March 3, 1992.
5. The McClellands and Mail Creek Major Drainageway Plan by Cornell Consulting
Company, December 1980.
6. The Final Drainage Report for Regency Park PUD by Parsons and Associates
Consulting Engineers, March 30, 1987.
7. Preliminary Drainage Report for the 1990 Junior High School by RBD, Inc.
Engineering Consultants, February 5, 1988.
8. Final Drainage Report for Poudre School District R-1 Elementary School by
Engineering Professionals, Inc. April 1987.
13
APPENDIX
. . I �'% \ c-- 'H i B i r -t
DETENTION
NC
Engineering Consultants
CLIENT JOB NO.
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR
w»osavZ:0�omsJ00 ��Icoscxsoen—__--DATE _---___--_nxccr—___op -----
110
4/3
THIRD FILING HYDROLOGY
1
1ZE
cc
O
1
cc
d
°
1
H
1
IJ
w
cr
`�
ll Vl
l�l VI
:-
Lo'
G
r�
r
►'
0
1p
m
—
r
O
o
.p
m u
O
Hw
_inh�
—
—
D
uu
1
o
\
�0`
�N�A
—
Vco
'`
j�
IF
NN
W 4
ID fi
to
r,
II'
,n��
.� �f1
N
0
mN=N
r\1-�1=NrINN
.
ter.>wV
Id
`o
0
—
—
w
° .�
moo
ID
`�
`0
U)
lnN
Q-
_fir►
p_N__
0
0
�I
�
—
z
>'
ILI
V)
l )1
\�
WF--
`�r
N
NN
N
�.
Zr"
0
0
0
6
6
6
0
to
_
Q Q
00
N
c�
u 1
m oFwv.)Q
4`
0
0
0Fn�
O
Qn
0� N
fn�fn �
U�' p
N V
IL
Q �
Z
N
LLI
LLcn
Q a
� H
C1C Z
O LLI
n Z
Q O
o LL >
H W O
(q �i m
F- O w
0
J
W J
1 Q
O U
O
01
Q �
d I
L
43
x
cr-
�
L
%
z�"
N
—
a
W
N
co
oU
ua
oN
a;
OU
i
7l'
I
O
,ill
Q
$
g1
Q
O
p
U
0
w
J
wIF
lD cIJ
.
D
1I11n�1
`uV1
fo
NN
_
J
W
ti
W
o c
o o
cooQ
o
z U
LLJ
J
o w
-10
No
N
N
N
N
CD
z~
ZILv
w
cod
N
III
-
-
v 'r
O
Z
O
O
O
()1
01
01
0
q
QQ
mQ
a
w
t
N
a i
wo
LSD Joa__ o - �3d- - do8 ��- --�_. '�e•�-, ss __ j��r+= C�-1--0 �� 2.. ?� , I49Z %/4�
STORM DRAINAGE
SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN DATA Q5
Location
Design Point
y
p
Co
L
o+
O .:O•-
J v-
O
E
-
c E
Flow Time
o
O
`-
C
0 0
E C G
F- u E
O
.�.
r_
O-
O U
u-
.T. L
to C
rJ _
'- -
E_
U
o 0
O-
Q
Q=
•'- v-
0 0
C y
7 �--
O X 0
a., ..-.
0 o
L G to
7
0� 0
y
C
u
.«.
E 0
E C
7 7
Co X
Street
Pipe
Street
Pipe
Remarks
p
o
to E
0
D E
n
O O
Z!3 o
O T
U
o o
0. y
O •.-
Q u u
O
a
O
- O
to o
0
N
•_
� .�
U
o
O. y
O v-.
U u
C
T
y
O w
p 0
u
O N
>
C
v
N N
0 u
•-
v
O N
j a
1
2
1 3
I 4 I
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
t 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2S.8
LD•4
I, (-o
z:-tl
I •-7v
I •-18J
�C;�UJ -ro
-7A.
Zlo•S
p.4
I,Sg
5.20
3.7D
�
3.7d
Z.o
8, IS
3-70
Z?o
=
Piz t= uoL oar z.d �N�
9
9
a"E;,
4b
1.�3
1�.4-3
7.7a
as
'7.70
2.0
4.J,IS
I O A
ton
-
15.8
O.SD
2.10
2.18
Z.29
g5
Z.Z9
. (,So
8 S
2.Zq
3,c�
O al ads C•AeevpvEz ro D.P. l0 8
l o a
1013
23 o
I • ('�
1-7, 4_
-6.50
2 .
5.54
a, 54
14t> 14-7
(�. L>
1 .
Z,-73 c;s coe�z -To D. t=. 1 1
I
I I
8(�J
9•�'
aC�.)
D.s4
1.85
2.�A
2�4
2.9
�,s
a.6
8.39
_
5,59,
1. So
_
I I
ALL^. b
3(;,•I
D,,5 I
14,79
1.So°
z.73.C,t�,cL5 cue
Fuw Lu s "N Fu e E. Cc�),zB tiJ Lf-T'
14-
14-
7.v-7"
0,47
1.a>d
I -If)
ca.
(.cam
o.�
g.
1.c�z
I,�
>=yours TO F--U-rueE IN,Ler (W-
Low PT-. I ti +� 4ZMoV f i'ua�
o-I
13.8
p.41
Zzo
4.o
I
Di2r/�
I TGi$- lJ.OU,JS Sour-�+-
19,8
D,e6
S,-=5
94
I1,04
0
11.04
Z.eO
IDA-Z
11.54
1, 50�
I STefT Fw�v
I
TL�-76A- PI PE 4-
ST'Pr=E7- TD Nl P D P-N(.v -
b ID
PaL
36,1
<7.46
I.SS
32.4¢
Z^1.61
27,61
SwoLES
9,11 14
I
-
- . • - . - .
Location
.
Design Point-
9/�
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
C
1
1
1
1
i
f
1
DESIGN OF INLETS,
STORM SEWER AND SWALES
1
---------------------------------------
;
DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN:
UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET
DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>>
SIZING:CURB OPENING
---------------------
--------------- -----------
------------ ------------------
'
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND
SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: I
INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE.
_._............... ..... ...
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
10.00�
REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH(ft)=
12.75'
'
EFFICIENCY OF CURB OPENING
0.94/
STREET GEOMETRIES:
STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE.(%) =
1.50/
STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) =
2.00i
'
STREET MANNING N =
0.016.,
GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)=
GUTTER WIDTH (ft) =
2.00/
'
STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) =
7.30
'
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) =
0.31
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)=
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)=
GRATE CLOGGING AREA RATIO M =
50.00�
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING RATIO (%)=
15.00---�
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
DESIGN FLOW FOR CURB OPENING (cfs)=
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)=
ACTUAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)_=
2.29✓
2.15✓
1.82�//
THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION OF CARRYOVER FLOW= 0 MINUTES.
�3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>>
UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
INLET ID NUMBER: 2 _-C.(-__ll Suj OF
_S i U
INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH(ft)=
EFFICIENCY OF CURB OPENING =
STREET GEOMETRIES:
STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) _
STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) _
STREET MANNING N =
GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)=
GUTTER WIDTH (ft) _
STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
10.00__�
23.01
0. 64�
1. 65-
2.00'
0.016^
2.00
2.00 /
'
WATER SPREAD ON STREET
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH
(ft) =
(ft) =
11.69
0.40
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET
(fps)=
-:T_._94
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA
(sq ft)=
GRATE CLOGGING AREA RATIO
M =
�1.5-
50.00 `
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING RATIO (%)=
15.00 ,
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
DESIGN FLOW FOR CURB OPENING (cfs)= 6.01
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 3.8
ACTUAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= --2 73AFLC>u.is r�._�4o2nno+.ti`L_2ovo
THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION OF CARRYOVER FLOW= 0 MINUTES.
1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
' <<STREET DRAINAGE INLET DESIGN: DEVELOPED BY CU-DENVER>>
UDINLET-MENU NETWORK:DESIGN MENU:INLET SIZING:CURB OPENING
------------------------------- --------------------------------------
' *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:
1
I
I
INLET ID NUMBER: 3_,-_.C.LASTED_..NIaL_C_o2w,EZ.o�.__16oQ.nnou�_.2oao_._.
INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE.
GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION:
GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)=
REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH(ft)=
EFFICIENCY OF CURB OPENING =
STREET GEOMETRIES:
STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE
STREET CROSS SLOPE
STREET MANNING N =
GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)=
GUTTER WIDTH (ft) =
STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
0.4O'
2.0,0,
0.016
2.00
2.00,
WATER SPREAD ON STREET
GUTTER FLOW DEPTH
(ft) =
(ft) =
17.59
0.52
FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET
(fps)=
FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA
(sq ft)=�26
'
GRATE CLOGGING AREA RATIO
($)=
50.00 ✓
CURB OPENNING CLOGGING RATIO
15.00,/
INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY:
DESIGN FLOW FOR CURB OPENING (cfs)=
IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)=
ACTUAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)=
CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)=
_ .
j-
-
57Q
9— -- - --- -
4.75
__.I -{AIM O-N�1-20.A1
THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION OF CARRYOVER FLOW= 0 MINUTES. t=�y �r-
Gu ea -, i Q Lam- --
t .u__co.Pvj�-_e_caF ._
CLIENT LfAf-,4 JOB NO.
NC PROJECT EIrA CALCULATIONSFOR
Engineering Consultants MADE BY _&LL DATE -CHECKED BY -DATE -SHEET- OF
--------- -
A T
I>
_2 . ..... ---- ------
- --- -- ------
- - -------- --
--- ----- ---- -
-- --- ---- --------- --
77:tl
4-t-
7
4-f
- - ----------
---- - -- ----------
+
+ -
... ...... .
K, I os , I Z�_Mo�144 :So'I ' Ion : - IS'
- ---- -------------- ----
'51
--- 1-4
Pi
...... I... 4j Pr
.. ......... ..
n � ; _ .: . ;�
4 1
70
i& .4-
D PT
2, 1 JLEr
P Z-44--j-
J
_57
FE
-----------
_T_
T
-- L-- -------
' I I _ 1 rav - Z'7.9 5 i i c� 1c� c_.� ;
PL
(2�
-07
REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN
' USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4
DEVELOPED
BY
' JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER
IN COOPERATION WITH
URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DENVER, COLORADO
*** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY .............................................
ON DATA 12-28-1992 AT TIME 14:06:26
' *** PROJECT TITLE :
OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE THIRD FILING
' *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 2 YEARS
*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES
.
" --'------'-----------------------------------------'---------------------
MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS
ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION
MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET
------- ---------------------'...-----------------------
1.00 N/A N/A N/A 11.27 29.70 27.95 OK
2.00 N/A N/A N/A 11.27 33.00 29.99 OK
3.00 N/A N/A N/A 5.59 35.10 33.16 OK
' 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 5.59 37.20 36.16 OK
5.00 N/A N/A N/A 5.59 37.20 36.28 OK
6.00 N/A N/A N/A 5.68 36.19 34.18 OK
7.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.82 42.41 38.90 OK
8.00 N/A N/A N/A 1.82 42.41 39.29 OK
' OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION
' *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS
NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8
SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING
ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH
ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT)
---------'-----------------------------------------'.-----..--------
1.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 18.89 21.00 21.00 0.00
2.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 15.28 18.00 15.00 0.00
3.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 15.64 18.00 15.00 0.00
4.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 16,87 18,00 15.00 0.00
5.00 6.00 2.00 ROUND 13.07 15.00 15.00 0.00
6.00 7.00 6.00 ROUND 8.29 15.00 15.00 0.00
7.00 8.00 7.00 ROUND 11.08 15.00 15.00 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,
EXISTING SIZE WAS USED
1
I
------
---------
---------------------
---
--------
----------------------•---------
SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT
ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO.
' NUMBER CFS CIS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 11.3 15.0 1.13 6.84 1.24 6.19 4.69 1.22 V-OK
2.0 5.6 5.3 1.25 4.56 0.96 11.17 4.56 0.00 V-OK
3.0 5.6 5.0 1.25 4.56 0.96 5.54 4.56 0.00 V-OK
' 4.0 5.6 4.1 1.25 4.56 0.96 5.54 4.56 0.00 V-OK
5.0 5.7 8.2 0.76 7.23 0.97 5.50 4.63 1.59 V-OK
6.0 1.8 8.9 0.38 5.69 0.54 11.10 1.48 1.90 V-OK
7.0 1.8 4.1 0.58 3.24 0.54 3.56 1.48 0.85 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1.00 0.89 28.75 27.95 2.50 0.00 NO
' 2.00 0.68 31.75 29.23 2.10. 2.52 OK
3.00 0.60 34.15 31.75 1.80 2.10 OK
4.00 0.40 34.15 34.15 1.80 1.80 OK
5.00 1.61 33.21 29.25 1.73 2.50 OK
' 6.00 1.88 38.36 33.21 2.80 1.73 OK
7.00 0.40 38.36 38.36 2.80 2.80 OK
OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET
' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS
.........................•-------------------------------------------------....
' SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW
ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION
FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET
---•---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.00 90.00 0.00 30.50 29.70 29.99 27.95 JUMP
' 2.00 370.00 370.00 33.00 30.48 33.16 29.99 PRSSIED
3.00 400.00 400.00 35.40 33.00 36.16 33.16 PRSSIED
4.00 0.10 0.00 35.40 35.40 36.28 36.16 PRSSIED
5.00 246.00 0.00 34.46 30.50 34.18 29.99 JUMP
' 6.00 274.00 1.45 39.61 34.46 38.90 34.18 JUMP
7.00 0.10 0.00 39.61 39.61 39.29 38.90 SUBCR
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
1.0 2.00 30.72 2.43 1.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 1.00 27.95
2.0 3.00 33.49 2.75 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.00 30.72
3.0 4.00 36.48 2.98 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.00 33.49
' 4.0 5.00 36.60 0.04 0.25 0.08 0.00 0.00 4.00 36.48
5.0 6.00 34.99 3.94 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 2.00 30.72
6.0 7.00 39.41 4.42 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 34.99
7.0 8.00 39.45 0.04 0.25 0.01 0.00. 0.00 7.00 39.41
'BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER.
LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD
FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP.
FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE
t NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION.
A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O.
FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS.
1
1 43
' R8D INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
1 TEMPORARY SVALE DURING PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION - OVERLOOK 3RD FILING
1 STA ELEV
1 0.00 20.00
20.00 15.00
24.00 15.00
1 44.00 20.00
1 N VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft)
0.035 0.0100
1
ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE
1 (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO.
1 15.50 3.0 2.2 6.58 0.63
16.00 8.0 3.2 25.65 0.69 Q ! oo a 41, CFI w
16.50 15.0 4.0 60.25 0.13 'I
17.00 24.0 4.7 113.51 0.76 u
1 17.50 35.0 5.4 188.36 0.79
18.00 48.0 6.0 287.56 0.81
18.50 63.0 6.6 413.72 0.82
1 19.00 80.0 7.1 569.33 0.84
19.50 99.0 7.6 756.78 0.86
20.00 120.0 8.2 978.39 0.87
M1 rJ. DFPTU �j`� \
i
i�/
�3
' RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
' TEMPORARY SWALE FROM HARMONY ROAD TO GATES FILING 2
ELEVATION
' (feet)
' 1.0
16.00
16.50
17.00
' 17.50
18.00
18.50
19.0
19.50
20.00
1
1
STA
0.00
20.00
35.00
55.00
'N' VALUE
0.035
AREA
(sq ft)
8.5
19.0
31.5
46.0
62.5
81.0
101.5
124.0
148.5
175.0
ELEV
20.00
15.00
15.00
20.00
SLOPE (ft/ft)
0.0100
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
FROUDE
(fps)
(cfs)
NO.
-79.93.
........
.........
......
pale.
g�2.5
21.09
0.65
3.7
70.72
0.72
@ _ �' S - �' _ �477' Z6
4.7
147.26
0.76 .L
5.5
252.04
0.79
6.2
386.96
0.82
6.8
554.09
0.84
7.4
755.55
0.85
8.0
993.44
0.87
8.6
1269.86
0.88
9.1
1566.85
0.90
- c. 4-I o n
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
INTERIM REGIONAL CHANNEL FULLY DEVELOPED CONDITION WEST OF HARMONY ROAD
.L1S.._S_1-a C�.s1.t_IJ__0.rJ._SUT.-_.E'----a�._•_U'Ll-lJ."[`L�t.dnlS__ .
( To_.. --di+.-- BULL T•---l1J-ITF ._. pHOS ..I . G0t�1STEC�C_'nL-
STA ELEV
s
Pez mllsraz
0.00
20.00
-Z-'---c
20.00
15.00
.II
(�
DP�i r.10C-E Plvwt
-----
-
26.00
15.00
46.00
20.00
'N' VALUE
..........
SLOPE
.............
(ft/ft)
0.035
0.0200
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
FROUDE
(feet)
(sq ft)
(fps)
(cfs)
NO.
.........
.......
........
.........
......
C)
15.50
4.0
3.2
12.98
0.90
16.00
10.0
4.8
47.56
0.99
Q oo ioo '
81
16.50
18.0
5.9
106.91
1.05
17.00
28.0
7.0
195.05
1.09
C� _
• S Q
I C� 91
17.50
40.0
7.9
315.88
1.12
18.00
54.0
8.8
473.15
1.15
18.50
70.0
9.6
670.44
1.18
19.00
88.0
10.4
911.18
1.20
19.50
108.0
11.1
1198.68
1.22
20.00
130.0
11.8
1536.13
1.24
1/
RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION
INTERIM REGIONAL CHANNEL FULLY DEVELOPED CONDITION EAST OF HARMONY ROAD
STA
0.00
20.00
26.00
46.00
'N' VALUE
0.035
ELEV
20.00
15.00
15.00
20.00
SLOPE (ft/ft)
0.0060
ELEVATION
AREA
VELOCITY
DISCHARGE
FROUDE
(feet)
......••.
(sq ft)
•......
(fps)
........
(cfs)
.........
NO.
......
15.50
4.0
1.8
7.11
0.50
16.00
10.0
2.6
26.05
0.54 J
a r S-79 C-a CA
16.50
18.0
3.3
58.56
0.57
17.00
28.0
3.8
106.83
0.60
17.50
40.0
4.3
173.02
0.61
Q�oo = Zl4.
18.00
54.0
4.8
259.16
0.63
18.50
70.0
5.2
367.22
0.64
19.00
88.0
5.7
499.07
0.66
19.50
108.0
6.1
656.54
0.67
20.00
130.0
6.5
841.37
0.68
I
1
1
1
r,l
1
1
1
1
1
1
RIPRAP DESIGN
.i
.1
zl
J�/13
CLIENT JOB NO.R
INC PROJECT - V P' ^ram 'L 3� CALCULATIONS FOR RJA� I P,l P20P
Engineering Consultants MADE BYI?S_,_ DATE I0•71.9Z. CHECKED BY -DATE SHEET OF
-
1,A C>re� . l 40V__ Im. CE LJ 1
G,fTY OF F-'T C_A=>LA_I+.iS � I. ..•.. , a ._; I i..
I
t
6i_=onli:iy lUSE IZ"
�.
.. LES2=S D I pi L.
i
Ty P E I I G�D6T,- CL A*&t S �.
Zz/
'
CLIENT �QpCe�F-i - -IpMES
JOO NO. 434--QOg
INC
PROJECT nV eA
1111
CALCULATIONS FOR21.> _ 2?4 PAP
1
Engineering Consultants
MADE BYJ1JQ_DATE CHECKED BY
DATE -SHEET- OF
_.--�._..PLPf=. �LJT'(_?✓t
�ES"T• SIDE OF-�+L�.�wbrJ�-/---wL1D,-•-..-•--.--,------1
�1�1=
U'I-I t_i CGS ; U Cz� tJ -
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
h
1
1
1
1
c-n, 1 V r-a>�. Q - 1.. 2_77 C�-S
0. 89
C1.-15`J
I
ii-2� �z.s Il.Z7
.. F=Zcwn .rlC-_l>P_F S.-7 0 o US
f=Conn PIL��2F 9
.. Z.73
lL�r�c>na ' of -necrFac-n o>J mac- i p-� .� . = Q j._: ` I I Z% Z. ZS
1.7
1 L GQ N IJdT' ,�j C L-C- :aS -M4-n, N � I�
1
i
f� EOT�I NC> OS� (a', GDOT
,
i .
j
BCD) NA! 14.
i
-_CbN1C'�I�SiOtJ
I
.I
r'`IP2J�P -
t._Enl vr�-
77
c_Vs
IF Pie uDSEw�m� i
z.s cr
�.;
C Tom/ Pc L �Gry Or r"iL' n L45& ):
be
UsE
w I OTrt
_.. .
LE L1G�T-Fi
..
I
1
6E�o I>,1CT .
Z3
43
1
EROSION CONTROL
1
z1/
43
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
PROJECT: STANDARD FORM A
COMPLETED BY: �_ C�eriss / ��uC� Iti►c DATE:
DEVELOPED
SUBBA$IN
ERODIBILITY
ZONE
Asb
(ac)
Lsb
(ft)
Ssb
Lb
(feet)
Sb
PS
M
S
�IC�N_eplt,lFGl1_
UooeenTe WWO
Z•-1 I
13Sc�
0.93%
!0
4.2-2
1530
2-.16%
-=A-
I . Z9%
y
p.S�3
3l0
►.mil%
2.18
log
s.�
C-) 70---
I.S�
79 S
► , 69
14-
1,9Z
850
�.9C,1
d-1
11
SU_M__(.S6b
•.So�146�_+.._..
-7 10
3.SS
---S �.....
.�.__...__t_.(
�S�_
.b4x?.
/sum
),� (�.9Z
s�
850 �_
(-.Sb `71
_
)-+CS.
(2..18x1.
1.`3�+ �2,
_4-•Z2xZ:
. 3c�. CL•69
ZS,69
I�� �(I ,
. t (2,
�1..29,
- C1.,_17_�(,�
-�-.�O,Sa
laXl.`�3�.
Zs7 s4 �
. S¢-=---C
- - ---S'.-�,
,S6 -
.1��Q.,9_-3�.} .
Sb)-r C.._
C,-7
i
970
MARCH 1991 B-14 DESIGN CRITERIA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I F I
L�
I
I
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT: STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY: 'Es - clug--- , m SS lager 1 NA c- DATE: oc=r 2-1,9Z_
Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor
Method Value Value Cominent
..... .... . ... .. oj-Lz--
- ---- --------- ------ -
MAJOR
PS
SUB
AREA
BASIN
BASIN
(Ac)
CALCULATIONS
- -7Fr= r -Nsr
SIT
- ;>ch0S-.
,--,C4Pas=L �-,XIV-1-^ei
Uori— Clcwsrreucx-E=t)
-7
MARCH 1991 B-15 DESIGN CRITERIA
z6
43
1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
' PROJECT: O uGp a -d pill Tin
STANDARD FORM C
SEQUENCE FOR 19 43 ONLY COMPLETED BY: SC'u2nss / DATE: p�- ZI 9z
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. --pW OSE I �C FEDUI E �+JW
YEAR
MONTH
' OVERLOT GRADING
' WIND EROSION CONTROL
Soil Roughening
Perimeter Barrier I I
' Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Soil Sealant i
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
Nettinge/Mate/Blankets
Other
rA
I
I
i
i
1
i
i
'
I
'
1
� I
i I
L i
f I
j I
t
I
' STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY MAINTAINED BY
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR
' DATE SUBMITTED _ APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON
MARCH 1991 8-16 DESIGN CRITERIA
CHARTS, TABLES AND FIGURES
r
n
I
I
I
I
I
' DRAINAGE CRITERIA .MANUAL
RUNOFF
/3
'
S0
'
30
I-
20
1
z
W
U
cc
'
W
z
W
a
O
5:
W
cc-
3
�°
UCr
2
W
3
1
�
■NINO1I
1 e91111,1111/MM
moll
I I
M
oil
IN
FA
OMNI
moll
/��I/�I■qqll�
li����■�■■e
WA
0
' 1 .2 .3 .5 1 �� 2 i3 5 10 20
VELOCITY IN F ET PER SECOND
FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR
USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA.
' *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELOPED" .
LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION.
REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical
' Release No. 55, USDA. SCS Jan. 1975.
5 -1-84
' URBAN DRAINAGE S FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
No Text
r 11
A.
TABLE 12 - ENTRANCE LOSS COEFFICIENTS
Outlet Control, Full or Partly Full Entrance head loss
He = k" 3 2
2g
Type of Structure and Design of Entrance
Pipe, Concrete
Projecting from fill, socket end (groove-cnd)
Projecting from fill, sq. cut end .
Hcadwall or headwall and wingwalls
Socket end of pipe (groove-cnd) . . .
Square -edge . . . . . . .
Rounded (radius =. 1/12D)
Mitcred to conform to fill slope
*End -Section conforming to fill slope
Beveled edges, 33.71 or 450 bevels . . .
Side -or slope -tapered inlet . . . . .
Pioc. or Pipc-Arch. Corrugated Mctal
WKIMIM
. . . . . . . 0.2
. . . . . . . . 0.5
. . . . . . . . 0.2
. . . . . . . . 0.5
. . . . . . . . 0.2
. . . . . . . . 0.7
. . . . . . . . 0.5
. . . . . . . 0.2
. I. . . . . . 0.2
Projecting from fill (no headwall) . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9
Headwall or headwall and wingwalls square-cdge . . . . . . . 0.5
Mitcred to conform to fill slope, paved or unpaved slope . . 0.7
*End-Scction conforming to fill slope . . . . . . . . . . 0.5
Beveled edges, 33.7* or 450 bevels . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2
Sidc-or slope-tapercd inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2
Box, Reinforced Concrete
Hcadwall parallel to embankment (no wingwalls)
Squarc-cdgcd on 3 edges . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.5
Rounded on 3 edges to radius of 1/12 barrel
dimension, or beveled edges on 3 sides . . . . . . .
0.2
Wingwalls at 30* to 75* to barrel
Squarc-cdgcd at crown . . . .
0.4
Crown edge rounded to radius of 1/12 barrel
dimension, or beveled top edge . . . . . . . . . .
0.2
Wingwall at 100 to 250 to barrel
Square-cdgcd at crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.5
Wingwalls parallel (extension of sides)
Squarc-cdgcd at crown . . . . . ... . . . . .
0.7
Sidc-or slope-tapercd inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.2
*Note: "End Section conforming to fill slope," made of either metal or
concrete,
arc the sections commonly available from manufacturers. From limited hydrau-
lic tests they are equivalent in operation to a headwall in both
ytt& and
Rut,et control. Some end sections, incorporating a closed taper
in their
be
design have a superior hydraulic performance. These latter sections
can
179
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA
TABLE 802C
STORM SEWER
ENERGY LOSS
COEFFICIENT
(BENDS AT MANHOLES)
1,4
J;}
Li
r.Z•r
1.2
J It.
r,lz
IA'b
1.0
t+a6
0.9Z
v,�•1
Y 0.8
a: rl
0 0.4b
U
0 D64
0
0.6
1' 1 is
—V
o,43
d r'r
0.4
vG
Manhole
J•SZ
d,ty
vrs�l
0.2
Q•1 L
C
0. ell
0.0
0' 200 400 600
800 000 1000
Deflection Angle I,
Degrees
NOTE:
Head loss applied of outlel of
manhole.
DATE: J A N. 1 9 8 8
REFERENCE:
REV:I
Modern Sewer Design, AISI, Washington D.C., 1980.
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bend
no
el Manhole,
Special Shaping
Deflector
�
I
�
Curved
I
Y
_
Bond at Manhole,
Curved or Doheclor�
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
i
I
I
�
-
I
�
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA
MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES
o,• •,
PLAN
NOTE (a Any Type
of 1.1.1. .
USE EQUATION 001 SECTION
L_ K �( CASE I
�1 INLET ON MAINLINE or
k- J:C5 /11JAI-leiC /ilnihLinZ
0
PLAN
USE EQUATION 005
IIL^ Vz - I< V1
1�= Nvje�) Stc:
TABLE 803
i'1..
oy PLAN
USE EQUATION 005
z
Vz-
o,••r
o,,w
SECTION
CASE II
INLET ON MAIN LINE
VITH BRANCH LATERAL
PLAN
k Vj
K = O .:Z:5"
USE EQUATION 001
i o.r. k=1.2S
SECTION
CA
INLET OR MANHOLE AT
BEGINNING OF LINE
SECTION
CASE III
MANHOLE ON MAIN LINE CASE I I I
_WITH 0°.BRANCH LATERAL :CASE NO. K. Qu K.
I 0.05 22 1/2 0. 5
II 0.25 45 0.50
IV 1.25 60 0.35
90 0.25
No Lateral See Ca0e I
Date: NOV 1984 REFERENCE:
Rev: 1. APVVA Special Report No. 49, 1981
331/4-�2
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RIPRAP
n
O 4(
0
2(
0
i
Z A Yt/D .b
A]
Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel.
**Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream.
FIGURE 5-7.- RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR
CONDUIT OUTLET.
11-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGE A FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RIPRAP
7
0 = Expansion Angle
mmmmmmmm
mummm
ON
ME
MEMO
MENEM
MEN
.l .2 .3 A .b b ./ tf
TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D
FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS
11-15-82
URBAN DRAINAGE a FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
3S/
Calculations for
Curb Capacities and Velocities
Major and Minor Storms
per City
of Fort
Collins
Storm Drainage Design
Criteria
RESIDENTIAL with
drive over curb and
gutter
Prepared
by: RBD, Inc.
C is for
one side
of the
road only
February
28, 1992
'
V is based on theoretical
capacities
Area = 2.63 sq.ft.
Area
= 20.11
sq.ft.
Minor
Storm :
Major
Storm
Slope
Red.. .
Minor
. 0
V
Major .
C
V
(X) :Factor :
X
: (cfs)
(fps) :
X :
(cfs)
(fps)
0.40 :
0.50 :
86.71
: 2.74
2.09 :
696.73 :
22.03
2.19 :
'
0.50 :
0.65 :
86.71
: 3.99 :
2.33 :
696.73 :
32.02
2.45 :
0.60 :
0.80 :
86.71
: 5.37 :
2.55 :
696.73 :
43.17 :
2.68 :
0.70 :
0.80 :
86.71
5.80 :
2,76 :
696,73 :
46.63 :
2.90 :
0.80 :
0.80 :
86.71
6.20 :
2.95 :
696.73 :
49.85 :
3.10 :
0.90 :
0.80 :
86.71
6.58 :
3.13 :
696.73 :
52.88 :
3.29 :
1.00 :
0.80 :
86.71
6.94 :
3.30 :
.696.73 :
55.74 :
3.46 :
1.25 :
0.80 :
86.71
7.76 :
3.69 :
696.73 :
62.32 :
3.87 :
1.50 :
0.80 :
86.71
8.50 :
4.04 :
696.73 :
68.27 :
4.24 :
1.75 :
0.80 :
86.71
: 9.18 :
4.36 :
696.73 :
73.73 :
4.58 :
2.00 :
0.80 :
86.71
: 9.81 :
4.66 :
696.73 :
78.83 :
4.90 :
2.25 :
0.78 :
86.71
: 10.15 :
4.95 :
696.73 :
81.52 :
5.20 :
2.50 :
0.76 :
86.71
: 10.42 :
5.21 :
696.73 :
83.72 :
5.48 :
2.75 :
0.74 :
86.71
: 10.64 :
5.47 :
696.73 :
85.50 :
5.75 :
'
3.00 :
0.72 :
86.71
: 10.81 :
5.71 :
696.73 :
86.89 :
6.00 :
3.25 :
0.69 :
86.71
: 10.79 :
5.94 :
696.73 :
86.67 :
6.25 :
3.50 :
0.66 :
86.71
: 10.71 :
6.17 :
696.73 :
86.03 :
6.48 :
3.75 :
0.63 :
86.71
: 10.58 :
6.38 :
696.73 :
85.00 :
6.71 :
'
4.00
0.60 :
86.71
: 10.41 :
6.59 :
696.73 :
83.61 :
6.93 :
4.25
0.58 :
86.71
: 10.37 :
6.80 :
696.73 :
83.31 :
7.14 :
4.50
0.54 :
86.71
: 9.93 :
6.99 :
696.73 :
79.81 :
7.35 :
'
4.75
0.52 :
86.71
: 9.83 :
7.19 :
696.73 :
78.96 :
7.55 :
5.00
0.49 :
86.71
: 9.50 :
7.37 :
696.73 :
76.34 :
7.75 :
5.25
0.46 :
86.71
: 9.14 :
7.55 :
696.73 :
73.43 :
7.94 :
'
5.50
0.44 :
86.71
: 8.95 :
7.73 :
696.73 :
71.89 :
8.13 :
5.75
0.42 :
86.71
: 8.73 :
7.91 :
696.73 :
70.17 :
8.31 :
6.00
0.40 :
86.71
: 8.50 :
8.08 :
696.73 :
68.27 :
8.49 :
0
I
I
I
I
I
/4-3
CLIENT C' 17-q OE- T:7C= (_1 CA -JOB NO.
NC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR(�U1-1-_?_ 5ROLL7
Engineering Consultants MADE BY� DATE 2-91 CHECKED BY- DATE -SHEET I OF
. . .. . . ..... .. - T-
_T? Sz
37/
/7 T-� 7" C ^ ¢3
CLIENT ` ' �T`� OF T:70 f"�U .IQS JOB NO.
■O�INC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FORCZ( 771 E= V _ C>W
Engineering Consultants MADE BY_DATE Z•97CHECKED BY DATE SHEET Z OF Z
3�3
Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities
Major and Minor Storms
per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria
ARTERIAL u/ 6" Vertical curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc.
0 is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992
V is based on theoretical capacities
Area = 3.55 sq.ft. Area = 47.52 sq.ft.
Minor Storm . Major Storm
Slope :'Red. : Minor : 0 V : Major : 0 V
(X) :Factor : X : (cfs) (fps) . X : (cfs) (fps)
0.40 : 0.50 : 135.32 : 4.28 2.41 : 2031.62 : 64.25 : 2.70 :
0.50 : 0.65 : 135.32 : 6.22 2.70 : 2031.62 : 93.38 : 3.02 :
0.60 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 8.39 2.95 : 2031.62 : 125.89 : 3.31 :
0.70 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 9.06 3.19 : 2031.62 : 135.98 : 3.58 :
0.80 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 9.68 3.41 : 2031.62 : 145.37 : 3.82 :
0.90 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.27 : 3.62 : 2031.62 : 154.19 : 4.06 :
1.00 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.83 : 3.81 : 2031.62 : 162.53 : 4.28 :
1.25 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 12.10 : 4.26 : 2031.62 : 181.71 : 4.78 :
1.50 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 13.26 : 4.67 : 2031.62 : 199.06 : 5.24 :
1.75 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 14.32 : 5.04 : 2031.62 : 215.01 : 5.66 :
2.00 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 15.31 : 5.39 : 2031.62 : 229.85 : 6.05 :
2.25 : 0.78 : 135.32 : 15.83 : 5.72 : 2031.62 : 237.70 : 6.41 :
2.50 : 0.76 : 135.32 : 16.26 : 6.03 : 2031.62 : 244.13 : 6.76 :
2.75 : 0.74 : 135.32 : 16.61 : 6.32 : 2031.62 : 249.31 : 7.09 :
3.00 : 0.72 : 135.32 : 16.88 : 6.60 : 2031.62 : 253.36 : 7.41
3.25 : 0.69 : 135.32 : 16.83 : 6.87 : 2031.62 : 252.72 : 7.71 :
3.50 0.66 : 135.32 : 16.71 : 7.13 : 2031.62 : 250.85 : 8.00 :
3.75 0.63 : 135.32 : 16.51 : 7.38 : 2031.62 : 247.86 : 8.28 :
4.00 0.60 : 135.32 : 16.24 : 7.62 : 2031.62 : 243.79 : 8.55 :
4.25 0.58 : 135.32 : 16.18 : 7.86 : 2031.62 : 242.92 : 8.81 :
4.50 0.54 : 135.32 : 15.50 : 8.09 : 2031.62 : 232.72 : 9.07 :
4.75 0.52 : 135.32 : 15.34 : 8.31 : 2031.62 : 230.25 : 9.32 :
5.00 0.49 : 135.32 : 14.83 : 8.52 : 2031.62 : 222.60 : 9.56 :
5.25 0.46 : 135.32 : 14.26 : 8.73 : 2031.62 : 214.13 : 9.80 :
5.50 0.44 : 135.32 : 13.96 : 8.94 : 2031.62 : 209.64 : 10.03 :
5.75 0.42 : 135.32 : 13.63 : 9.14 : 2031.62 : 204.61 : 10.25 :
6.00 0.40 : 135.32 : 13.26 : 9.34 : 2031.62 : 199.06 : 10.47 :
g 7T= A
CLIENT � T%-?, 6t-- C-1-e-N I 1%-I-, -JOB NO.
PROJECT
CALCULATIONS FOR e'�L 7T7r�2 r-=L-e::'(A/
Engineering Consultants MADEBY—EY,'DATE 2.9Z CHECKED BY DATE —SHEET I OF 7
_i - - � i 1 3 S 32 ; I _
-J.
J
. .. . .. . .. .. ...
... .. .... ....... -- -- --
-
- - - - - - - - - -- - -
7
'
CLIENT t"'CDZT (2mot
JOB NO.
NC
PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR lNl
)TTEe eYL /
Engineering Consultants
MADE BY-Za-DATE Z-9Z CHECKED BY DATE
SHEET Z OF 7-'_
.1
o PG:999
o sr Ui to In
U) wwww
4
43
1
0 o,rnrnrn000000
o 4444tiUiUiInUiIn
d' wwwwwwwwww
0 WOOMMMOOMMMMOOO
o vvdd�wd�vvv�rd'vinuiin
M w w w w w w,w w w m w w w w w
o n w w w rn m rn rn rn rn m rn rn m rn rn rn o, rn rn
o vv�r�v�vv�rw�vv�r<r�a��r.r
N w w w w w w w w w w w w CO w w w w w w w
O 0M-010WWwwnnrnnnnnrnnnwwwwww
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 o vd d �r�rvd wd d vavvd w�rvd d d d d w�r�r
[� .-� ooc00000cowwoowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
O
o coc.�ri�r�nm0kowwwwwnrnnrnrnnnwww
a M Mvwd vd vwvd �rav�rd d d �r�rvvvv�ra�r
O Oocowwwwwcowwwwaowwwwwwwwwwwww
U
0 W0NMd-Q0Minlnwwwwwwwwwwnnrnnr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
!n w c4 d' d' 4 4 d' d' d' d' d' d' sT d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' 4 d' d' d' d' d'
z wwwwwwwww00c0MW W M00www'wwwwwww
H
O . d' 01 H N M M d' d' vow Ln U1 1n Ul U1 U1 U) U) U1 w w w w w w n
a. . ..... ..... ..
O n f'1Md wd'd"d' V'vv'T-t Krd-41; rd d d'd ai'ad'd d'
U w w O0 w CO w w w w w w w w CO w w w w w w w w w w w w
[A O 0to000 H riNNMMMMd'd'd d d'd'd"d'U)tnto1f)W%D
a
O U) M M M d' d "Cr sT d v sr d' d' d d' d d d d d d d d d IT d' d'
w w w w w w w w w CO CO w w w w w w w w w w CO w w w CO w
�a 0 lnNU1rw(n00r-IrIrINNNNNMMMMMd'd' trd'v
I O as . . . . . . .
00 W `'U) NMMMMM d'd'd'd IV IT d'd'd d'd's, d'd'd d d d d'd
0000ODCOw00w000000ww00ww0000000000000000000000
W vI W
afa n.Ln HcoH(n ;r U1lnwwrrrwwwwwwa%a%oN00000
p ad' NNM CAI M MMMMM M (4 c4 C1 M c4 M M M r4 Md' d'd'd';
&4 is En w 00 w w w w w CO w w w w w w w w w w w w w CO w w 00 00
0 %o Ln co 0 -1 N cn v cr tn inLnkowwwwrnnnwwwm0
[1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(A sT rl N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
w w00 w00www w.w wwwwwww W wwwwwwww
W
U in H r4 Mr-W 00rINNMMM V -tV V d'd'UlMMWWwnn
M M M M (4 M M M M M M M M M M M
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
O O MNwwm0rINNMMMd'd'd'd"d'd'U)U1U1U1wwww
(x M O H rl ri r1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W w w w w w w w w w w w M W w w w w CO w w w w w w w w
a
U) U)U)O1NMd'UlwnnnwwwC1G111C10�'01000000
a
N 0%0'0rlHHHr HHrlrirl.-1rlr HHT-1rINNNNNN
r CO w w w w w CO CO w w O 00 w CO w w CO w w 00 w w 00 00 CO
W
z 0 d' In O M In w w w ON 000 rt rl rl rl N N N N M M M M MM
H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N 00 O1 O O O O O O o H H H r1 H 4 rI rI r1 4 r1 rl rI rl rI ri 11
___nnwwwwww0owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
U1 wNwrid'�nnnw010�00r1r1r1.-i.-INNNMMMMM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
rl www0�0;0;0 (0 C0 0;(�C 0 000000000000
nnrnnnnnnnnaowwaowwcowwwwoowww
O 0M0d'r010r1NMMsV%VM MU1U1wwwwrrwww
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
rl d'w n r n r w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
nrnrrrrnrnnnnrnnrrrrnnnnrn
U) 010d'wnwwnr wwwUld'd'MMNN01wd'r101w
. O O N N N N N N N N N N N N. N N. N N r. N.r 4 4 4 4 8 8 nnnrrnnnnnrnrrnnnnnnnnnnnn
x
3H-� 00000000000000000000000000
OC7H o0000000000000000000000000
az[�.-�NMd'�nwnwo�o�-INMd'Inwnwrnolnolnoino
(a,� W`-' rl rl rl r{ri ri rl rl riNNMMtT d'U)
a
n_n
nmrKi rPITFPIA
4/
1
1
Table 88 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values.
Treatment C-Factor
P-Factor
1
BARE SOIL
Packedand smooth................................................................ 1.00
1.00
Freshlydisked........................................................................ 1.00
Roughirregular surface........................................................... 1.00
0.90
0.90
1
SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP................................................................. 1.00
0.501"
STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ 1.00
0.80
1
SILT FENCE BARRIER..................................................................... 1.00
0.50
ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... 0.01
1.00
1
ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. 8-A
1.00
1
SODGRASS................................................................................ 0.01
TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.4512'
1.00
1.00
HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE "'
SOIL SEALANT.............:......................................................0.01-0.60141
1.00
1.00
1
EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS............................................ 0.10
GRAVEL MULCH
1.00
1
Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately
1 /4" to 1 1 /2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05
1.00
HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH
\.,
'1
After olantinsa crass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately anchor,
tack or crimp material into the soil.
1
1
Slope M
1 to 05.............................................................................0.06
S to 10 .. 0.06
11 to 15 . . 0.07
16 to 20............................................................................. 0.11
21 to 25.
........................................................................... 0.17
25 to 33.. .0.1
> 33 ....................... . 0.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1
NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation.
(1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading.
(2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11-4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required.
(3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated.
1
(4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation.
1
1
1
1 MARCH 1991 8.6 DESIGN CRITERIA
43
�3
Table 8-B C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values (continued from previous page).
Treatment C-Factor P-Factor
CONTOUR FURROWED SURFACE
Must be maintained throughout the construction period, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. Maximum
length refers to the down slope length.
Basin Maximum
Slope Length
(°,61 (feet)
1 to 2 400..........................................................................1.00 0.60
3 to 5 300..........................................................................1.00 0.50
6 to 8 200. .1.00 0.50
9 to 12 120..........................................................................1.00 0.60
' 13 to 16 80..........................................................................1.00 0.0
17 to 20 60..1.00 0.80
> 20 50 . . 1.00 0.90
' TERRACING
Must contain 10-year runoff volumes, without overflowing, as determined by applicable hydrologic
methods, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00.
' Basin
slope M
1 to 2..................................................................................... 1.00 0.12
3 to 8..................................................................................... 1.00 0.10
' 9 to 12.....................................................................................1.00 0.12
13 to 16..........................................:.......................................... 1.00 0.14
17 to 20.....................................................................................1.00 0.16
> 20..................................................................................... 1.00 0.18
NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation.
' MARCH 1991 8.7 DESIGN CRITERIA
N
> I tl
__ _i _ •�
__---------
\1 I
'• :. .. / � - T.F. ] I I
__ _� °y' S` 4 • ..' Tf 6 z I \eLVIERGIATE ROAD
B TT—
I
KAU T'=50' Nso
sz If
-
II BCax sccnanA-A�-W
66
d .,m34 1 t sI 4
III MATCH EIDSNND q ♦ �� _� 1 '��i I� i ✓{� Y •f
_
sub e ss --�y ---- --
ii
� I I
%
I � I ____ - _ - - � � � %� �` tl ,__ _ ____ x �$ I 1 i '•? I � <r, I i Imom
FlillI
`Noa I I II I 1
A j' ♦ i tl 1 .. 1 4.
i
IN,
y4T 1 \. ' % 9)
r-
mv
�'i 6
Q
j
23
- -♦�-- I� i I 1� v e ��J
i �- II I
A � I I •m I I I E �/ I I < 1 r I
CT I 1 I - v 1 1
I '\
<� � ✓` 1 I i M YA � i 3 i I i II, I I
�I I � � I . � �� � �_ I I� u_.m 6 i I •/ __- �' �Y`6
1 �_ Lm � v 1 • ... �� I - .I � ��\ _:. -Ns-- +wr I r_ A 1 v 1 �_____
IT $ i
Be
, I \
I III p
III y b T♦'.�1'vvv �� THE OVEIFRSI AT WOOORIDOE 'V T
�4 j e -i FRET FILING
--�1� 1 •\ , NOTES .
>NF. THE OVERLBAW.\ AT WOODRID \ :If ,. ALL D,wn*D•uart sMua vwm
4 'rI :n It
•:FAIMIIY SVEMzA 1 4
__ 72 1� < �. 9E�a�%\�111:i 1,• 1 I% :
IIIII fi III I' / �:=_ Cw nuaon'xne TINY IV ewnrFARM
�ri
^...�`------ It 1 :'v .ewAnas
BY
I MINIMAL MI. rawLm� WALL
III I, < r v I ✓"`�'- 1 •, I U xom WA srzv Suers MAv a A ���
Y'76� I ✓ A\ Dorm TO KNOWS ,�c aaFE MAI In
I.
IJ II 76
A Y V l I 1' : 1 .\r" 6 Be MINIMUM
IMO ELBME AI lA
�)'��"^•- -%' 1 1 Ww.s oLrs awL eE r
v, - Ii •
I
I III I/ I _A
r s VI IR . vwsmSK T nW
=�e Mx inr -w.c oxutil,
aw WIN • e mGREAanLrffaxuiw�c WA -
wou:s -15 w. ILmmwa WM;..A xEr ING......
LEGEND i
\ i
1 IN Told - x KT4lED ��A wuu 3u'E 6 •d TO49w EXISTING Cg1iWfl 0�'�' �`� / •'''"
SECTOR A A ME SANITARY SflWn MAN.�__ 5 �. ;. '•
ID 41 rvn•c mwEun xqw / PR0ao5E0 DNISMD coxTgm
.I r o LWw" UMUCS mIRMNE OMIX
� H 101MLSS3PMI.211FA111 lq B.O.W. BACK Cf WM%
1 ne xausE K sruun Lr iL. W ..w rwg Cf M( PoEt Colllnu CD41ndM
K IIOL w,.cW.r aW\wAlc mLnc s,.0 Iq
a Illyp I ,'� _ - v t =z> �♦W Hp. HIgI Paxr i1TD1TT CLAN AEP%OVAL
A - t6 •IXrd T.e an 1 SUS MM IMR AT TIRE OF CEMEAICIICM. LP. LDW PgNT npflOYEn:
F 4 B r\ \1 ` \ ♦ IN
15 DCOBOTTU 1ME J
n.. 1 51 M SAIMAN SKIFY REMIAD. -0' SPOT EUVAPON
✓ '�? Z6 ) T .•,, 4 r w m:1 I It
IRE MINIMUM OM AI i e TvoFRIM v.W�irc�.u.� � rtOw wfl[cnon w.in
1 . `. _ n AJ • V .®m PROPOSED STORM MAN
V� `;� �•• y` n NA RATOR MIMf ANDRINSHOOBASIC
,CV OF YMm✓ LYt
� •L
SCALED
a•
U\ .IU _ _ : UWLLMM MEYAlNM15 4¢ e44D U A A « B FHA GRADING 0E9CNATg1 CHCCxEU BY.
.V A - - `� i i'� SEE DRAINAGE, EROSION CONTROL AND asona s - s _
to ��� �,, ,� - `�•`� �A ♦� OFFSITE GRADING PLAN, SHEET 4, ALONG IoiWK aura s[mo, � TY INS I TIT IA&C NAV';� ?F. TOP CIF CaNCREa FWNDAnox weu Pm�BMW
WITH STORM DRAIN PLAN S PROFILE, ��'4e'+^m Mre C< OR WADING sg ENuR ENT MA. *CKBD an.
uMCM IASwrU WARRANT
TIN CIMF IMIA w A1cvVAnm LNMelm
ADe <v � SHEET 10, FOR DETAILED DRAINAGE DESIGN. SM:nm vsr OF MMrwr wLn. 'ro`"A"" iCPO BY RED, INC. FIELD SURVEY ICCAEO aY: Da
_ MAO oEjgNjok CxeaB�n WMI,c Engineering Conedtsms THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDIGE, P.U.D. -
p� MINI sen«nso-.l a.mW.MUA=..sM+SmWeDR ms""�j� 'ter'°' THIRD FILING I FHA GRADING PLAN p� g
ceCOABER 1992 IJ4- rLn EaYrs, wdme LLsn KNWr ON V N VV' Wq MMMLr'
N0. BY DA RENSION DESCRIPTOR mPRDu-a DAIS PRO,ECi xC. M3 / ♦ 2-59z1•rz-