Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 03/09/1992Final Approved Report 1,(Date L DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR E GATES AT WOODRIDGE SECOND FILING AND OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE SECOND FILING pROPERTi OF FORT COLLINS UMITIE4 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE GATES AT WOODRIDGE SECOND FILING AND THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE SECOND FILING March 3, 1992 Prepared for• Woodcraft Homes 1501 N. Cleveland Ave. Loveland, Co. 80538 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (303) 226-4955 RBD Job No. 434-005 I 1 r. 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T:WINC. Engineering Consultants 2900 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 303/226-4955 FAX:303/226-4971 March 3, 1992 Ms. Susan Hayes Stormwater Utility Department City of Fort Collins 235 Mathews Street Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for The Gates At Woodridge Second Filing and The Overlook At Woodridge Second Filing RBD Job No. 434-005 Dear Susan: We are pleased to resubmit to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for The Gates at Woodridge Second Filing and The Overlook at Woodridge Second Filing. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. Thank you for your time and consideration of this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants C56Ln -" Stan A. Myers, P. . Project Manager Kevin W. Gingery, P.E. Project Engineer cc: Mr. Gary Berger Mr. John Hutchinson Other offices: Denver 303/778-7338 • Vail 303/476-6340 • Longmont 303/678-9584 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 A. LOCATION 1 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -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. HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA 3 D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 3 E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 3 A. GENERAL CONCEPTS 3 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 3 V. EROSION CONTROL 5 A. GENERAL CONCEPTS 5 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 5 VI. CONCLUSIONS 6 A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 6 B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 6 C. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 7 REFERENCES 8 APPENDIX VICINITY MAP 1 SECOND FILING HYDROLOGY 2 DETENTION 5 DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM SEWER AND SWALES 7 RIPRAP DESIGN 15 EROSION CONTROL 17 CHARTS, TABLES AND FIGURES 20 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE GATES AT WOODRIDGE SECOND FILING AND THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE SECOND FILING GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The Gates and The Overlook at Woodridge P.U.D.Is are ' located east of Taft Hill Road (County Road 19) and north of the existing Harmony Road. The development is bounded by Webber Junior High School and Regency Park PUD to the ' east and open space (proposed future filings) and Imperial Estates to the north. The site location can also be described as situated 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 Second Filing of The Gates and The Second Filing of The Overlook at Woodridge together contain 17.1 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. Native Colorado grasses cover the property presently. The topography of the site generally slopes ' from the west to the east at approximately 1.5 percent. II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. Maior Basin Characteristics The proposed developments lie within Basins 75 and 80 of ' the McClellands and Mail Creek Major Drainageway Plan prepared by Cornell Consulting Company. A natural drainageway runs west to east along the northern edge of ' The Gates at Woodridge Second Filing boundary within Basin 80. Runoff from Basin 80 is routed by open channels and culverts 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. The Overlook at Woodridge development lies in both Basins 75 and 80. Runoff from Basin 75 is ' routed through the Regency Park development (east of the Woodridge property) in an open channel along the north *AMF— B. side of Harmony Road and eventually into the existing Regional Detention Pond. Sub -Basin Description The project site has been divided into four sub -basins of which three were assumed to be developed and the other one was off -site undeveloped. The three developed subaL basins incorporated the proposed building lots and most of the street improvements. The one undeveloped sub - basin consisted of natural ground cover and portions of Harmony Road improvements. These sub -basins are shown on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in the back pocket of this report. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. B. Recnlations The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the subject site. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints From The Final Drainage Report for Regency Park P.U.D., 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. A newly constructed open channel along the east side.of Regency Drive transports storm water runoff from the 42" culvert, north to the existing 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 east side of Regency Drive was sized for undetained on -site as well as undetained off -site 100 year developed runoff from Basins 79,80, and 85. A current SWMM model analysis for Basins 79,80, as recently 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 the Woodridge property at Seneca Street and the east property line. The City is considering acquiring a portion of the Woodridge property for another regional detention pond. 2 1i 14-NME C. Hydrologic Criteria The Rational Method for determining surface runoff was used for the project site. The 2 and 100 year storm event criteria, obtained by the City of Fort Collins, was utilized in calculating runoff values. These ' calculations and criteria are included in the Appendix. 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 Concept All on -site runoff produced by the proposed development of The Gates and The Overlook - Second Filings will flow easterly to the existing drainageway along the east side of Seneca Street and eventually arrive at the Regional Detention Pond. Included in the back pocket of this report are the proposed drainage and grading plans. ' B. Specific Details The Second Filing of The Overlook at Woodridge was combined with the First Filing of The Overlook at Woodridge for the basin delineations. This combination and the basin numbers used relate directly to the recently approved Preliminary/Master Drainage Study for the Woodridge Development. Runoff from basin 7A is to combine with runoff from basin 0-3 and be transported to the existing off -site regional detention pond by a series of streets, culverts, roadside ditches, and open channels. From the calculations in the ' appendix, the existing 21" pipe under the temporary access road to Harmony Road can convey the runoff from the developed basin 7A and the undeveloped basin 0-3. Thus no further storm sewer systems are required for ' basins 7A and 0-3. Runoff from basin 9 is to be redirected at Harmony Road and head northerly in a temporary swale. The temporary swale is proposed to day light to match the existing ' 3 5AI- F ground north of Overlook Drive and Harmony Road. The concept being utilized will let the runoff spread in a sheet flow manner once the swale day lights so the runoff can be distributed over the existing ground and not remain in a concentrated manner. Due to the existing Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Water Line running north south along Overlook Drive, and the desire to not lower the water line in the area of the regional channel crossing at this time, the ground over the water line can not be lower. A temporary swale is being proposed around the northwest corner of the Gates at. Woodridge Second Filing to convey runoff around the developed lots and over the District water line. Thus we are proposing to let the runoff from basin 9 combine with the historic off -site runoff and be collected and redirected around the northwesterly lots of the Gates at Woodridge Second Filing and over the District water line at the existing water line ground elevation. Runoff from basin 18 is to be directed northerly to the intersection of Silvergate Road and Overlook Drive. At this point a sump condition was created in the streets to convey the runoff northerly through the open space and into,the regional channel north of the Gates at Woodridge Second Filing. Due to extremely tight street working elevations, the inlets and storm sewer system from this sump {location to the regional channel were modified to collect the 100 year storm water runoff rather than only the 2 year runoff. In the event the inlets become plugged, water will pond up, cross the crown of Silvergate Road and proceed northerly through the open space. The water will also begin to flow easterly along Silvergate Road after ponding some 0.20 feet above the crown of Silvergate Road. Thus if the inlets become plugged, storm water runoff will have two relief points to drain and thus no damage should occur to the residential homes. A portion of the regional channel was build during the First Filing work in the summer of 1991. Therefore we are planning to continue the regional channel westerly to a point immediately downstream of the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District water line. Storm water runoff from basins 9, 18, and off -site areas will be collected in the regional channel and directly easterly to the existing 42 inch culverts immediately north of Seneca Street. Storm water runoff exiting by the existing 42 inch culverts (at the east property line immediately north of Seneca Street) travels east via 42" culverts and open channels, and eventually reaches the Regional Detention 4 4, M e-- Pond at Wake Robin Lane and Regency Drive. The City of Fort Collins is currently studying the possible reconfiguration of these two existing 42 inch culverts to provide a more efficient transmission of storm water to the east. For the subject developments, the developed runoff is proposed to be directed to the existing 42 inch culverts by the above described storm sewer system and temporary swales. The existing 42 inch culverts have a combined capacity of approximately 114 cfs. As the City of Fort Collins completes their study of the existing 42 inch culverts, their possible reconfiguration future use in the main drainageway of this development will be incorporated with future filings of the Woodridge development. MA The existing downstream culverts, open channels and al streets have the available capacity for The Gates and The Overlook Second Filings runoff. V. EROSION CONTROL A. General Concepts ' Both developments, The Gates and The Overlook Second Filings, lie 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 completing the Second Filing improvements, due to the existing and proposed site slopes of 2.0 % more or less. It is also ' anticipated that the project site improvements will be constructed during the spring and summer of 1992. Thus, the new 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 both sites was computed to be 79.8% per the criteria in the City of Fort -Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites. The Effectiveness (EFF) of the proposed erosion control plan was calculated to be 95.45%. Therefore, the erosion control plan as detailed below meets the City of Fort Collins' requirements. B. Specific Details Sub -basins 7A and 9 incorporate The Overlook at Woodridge Second Filing. After the overlot grading has been completed, all disturbed areas, not in a roadway, should have temporary vegetation seed applied. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch should be applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre (min.) and the mulch should be 5 adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. After the utilities have been installed, the roadway surfaces should receive the pavement structure. Sub -basin 18 incorporates The Gates at Woodridge Second Filing. After the overlot grading has been completed, all disturbed areas, not in a roadway, should have temporary vegetation seed applied. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch should be applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre (min.) and the mulch should be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. After the utilities have been installed, the roadway surfaces should receive the pavement structure. After installation of the curb inlets, the inlets should be filtered with a combination of concrete blocks, 1/2" wire screen and coarse gravel (3/411). All other disturbed areas should have temporary vegetation seed applied. If the other disturbed areas Attlal will not be built _on within one arQX1Bg season, then a �ermanen _ d should be applied. After seeding, a hay tor straw mulch should be applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre (min.) and the mulch should be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. In the event a portion of a roadway pavement surface and utilities will not be constructed for an extended period of time after overlot grading, the temporary vegetation seed and mulch should also be applied to the roadway areas as discussed above. 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 Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. In addition, all computations are in compliance with the Preliminary/Master Drainage Study for Woodridge prepared by RBD in December 1991. B. Drainage Concepts The proposed drainage concepts adequately provide for the transmission of developed on -site runoff to the existing drainage devices at the eastern property line of the subject site. The proposed storm sewer system will collect the 100 year runoff generated within basin 18. The storm sewer system will discharge into the proposed regional channel. The 100 year runoff from the site is 6 ' proposed to be carried to the existing off -site regional detention pond by the series of existing off -site culverts, open channels and streets per the Preliminary/Master Drainage Study for the subject property. 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 42 inch culverts may or may not be reconfigured. For this development, we have designed temporary swales and extended the regional channel in order to deliver ' developed runoff from The Gates at Woodridge Second Filing and The Overlook at Woodridge Second Filing to the existing 42 inch culverts along the east property line. In addition to the 42 inch culvert study, the City of Fort Collins is also evaluating the capacity of downstream existing improvements in regards to the new ' SWMM runoff flows which exceed the previously used downstream criteria. For The Gates at Woodridge and The Overlook at Woodridge Second Filings, adequate downstream capacity in the culverts, open channels, and street systems exists to safely convey developed runoff to the existing Regional Detention Pond east of Regency Drive. ' Developed runoff from a portion of The Overlook at Woodridge Second Filing is planned to be transported in the. existing roadside ditch, along the north side of Harmony Road, east towards the City of Fort Collins existing Regional Detention Pond along Regency Drive. A 42 inch culvert carries the flows under Regency Drive, ' into the existing channel and northerly to the existing regional detention pond. ' At the time of construction, if for some unforeseen reason ground water is encountered during construction, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit would be required. tC. Erosion Control Concepts ' The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control of wind and rainfall erosion from The Gates at Woodridge Second Filing and The Overlook at Woodridge Second Filing. Through the construction of the proposed erosion control concepts, the City of Fort Collins performance standards 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 SAa�t� REFERENCES 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1984. 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. The McClellands and Mail Creek Major Drainageway Plan by Cornell Consulting company, December 1980.E ' 5. The Final Drainage Report for Regency Park P.U.D.=by Parsons and Associates Consulting Engineers, March;30, 1987. 6. Preliminary Drainage Report for the 1990 Junior High School by RBD, Inc., February 5, 1988. S ' 7. Final Drainage Report for Poudre School District R-1 Elementary School by Engineering Professionals, Ibc., April 1987. 8 �;A-M�- 1 APPENDIX No Text 2/-3 Z SECOND FILING HYDROLOGY u t° u VI k �I SQ v r ro � N w II II II .I T I� w N I LL 2 cc LL it Z U) L, O 3/32 � tNW p N W p v N W o W V L4 O a to U `l h N, U Gl. �� N O O ¢ O h c p V1 U U ? o II II II II W w iL(7) s �• 0 to L? 0 a. a J N N N N N N W �- �4 LLJ Q a O u Wv : I _ O 1 J N N I'^ Ih dJ W f _ 1 I Z J�� ' a ,s r T f as r c r W-^ a C O� o In `� O a- o O f JW co » m Z o 0 0 c o 0 0 Z v W � O M M n, m N N C U U .� N N V) In 19 C v u Z o 0 0 0 0 o C � a Q N N T T mQ o O to In Q In Ll C N N h = cM m � � a- a m m C .. o j o r` \ Q U z z FE w w _z 0 z W V a t� ���1111�11111611111111111111111111111 B I I I I� 111118111111111111111111111111 ��611�11111�1111�1��l�sl�llllllllllllll �911�I IIII�IIII�I�S��11�11111111111111 �81111�11111�111111�11111111111111111 �@1111011111�IIIIIIIIIIl��1111111111111 �BIIII�IIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIc�lllllllllll BII�11111�1111�1�11@I�11111111111111 �611611111�IIII�IG11�1�11111111111111 @1111611111�111111111111111111111111 @11111111111111111l11111111111111111 �9�19111�I�III��si61�Q1�11111111111111 �9�1�1�1�1�1�l���111���11111111111111 �0�1�1�1�191�l����IE�1��11111111111111 �C�1�1�1�1�1�11�1�11���11111111111111 �0�1�111�1�@II��i��11�1811111111111111 �O�I�I�I�I�IAii�G�i191�11111111111111 �O�IB1�191AI�IIQIQ11�1�11111111111111 ���I�III�I�I�II�I�II�I�III�IIIIIIIIII MAY 1984 5-3 V32 m Q Q 0 Z 0 cn w 0 } I= Q ZOF c� IL w m ~w �� } C � � L w m z —i Q� Er O m c� OE �� �� 0 LL 2 cr- LL J Q U a } DESIGN CRITERIA DETENTION FMINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT LU^na!r+!`-" No m'i JOB NO. I A PROJECT '22-,10.ri Pr. .^ 2^-^lir.n CALCULATIONSFOR= MADE BY DATE i'Z7'^ 2 CHECKED BY_ DATE SHEET c OF KR- de be4weerr h%s4rrtc r :,iG C?{P.^Lion Soiprrnn Grrinn. .:.yr:l C)O.— /2-a7-9/ ' J L / o'er F�iP,•ry Lr•i •..d 7/3 z 0 DESIGN OF INLETS, STORM SEWER AND SWALES I CLIENT '��"±�•-i :.,rn i�ia n^mac JOB NO. -ncl r. i. INC PROJECT =Uma r1�=i% < '.%c, CALCULATIONSFOR --r'ee Engineering Consultants MADEBY!<tD(� DATE l.221. n. CNECKEDBY_DATE SNEET OF 3z- j P/C.l>...; rar, //%�a G?^_/' (%r?-f rn nC /''o.• �' fa ' r,�,.• ,. i ifs, Qz- 5,7cf5 l�estori =^r Ulfinra�e ,(=vnc,�"= �C�e - .r'iUC -a SYr^_,•.- c1rL; ..;. Can��"/ri'Y. -fre( 0 l7ncj ilE �n-l.:nfL� /ilOn [t W/ .'.ir/ C>'. F7�011 V Couela,).. lUaier Gftfr+c= cucc?er Lire./ the in /e-% Cr i,/a and S;%vCrogw.i� F:G+acL n'^'.l b�dc's;n/,':c! e_ i%eG the c✓/i f/C- /u0 �f1r %':%nr"= c-. 44; ELe f. 47 Svn /o On SCril% .. ie/P ^-� Jil✓.�i .n": F�'� . - �- = r ror- o� ' %neM_�'0rc. r✓iQi, Non�incr dP/:�/, avw''r: •'C - � ,J;n- z�.0°a �, y'! r_4_ Cora cfe,t',•,, f;pic;;�-- Oj.S J C /a� rt". i cn -Trr..'rr -far IS 'c urpb faci--/ inif.T = 9✓ , (Tab /e 5. �� USinc/ r n -Z /// /E 45, in ''n"'/ h a So 2. / cps . 1 h,e�r LfJl�a-il F7 5- _ i9 /i71/8 Cell; T he on. ?hc -70r- A >i�e n� 7hA s{rer , T/�e e arm ' inf.E. R Sr TY FQ- '.K „ �'veylN iL' (A), side) 'rDr m:••�, c. ;�/.?;✓$ . �.. NorE : 1Y, f/e Eve. �/e 2o'c�rG/;✓gJ /oan�^� µJn'�r w;ll cross 1!,e crown+ of Siver�cr*c. Kct+< a>•c� be.,ir� nar-/ne/ rr fhrce�h r/[ :r open 5�ace Swale bc^or� -fhe rvncff p o,Je,� waTer CfK'�'.!::_ "i'u'_ .I'1'ia it �.i-F. on 5)lver,a.7n �ca� S. F/cwhr,e and rn/ows eac;r.-/y -ie �P.nccn .%+r�, f / CLIENT Won,)cra:`` �OrrP- JOBNO. u%rl-pn d L INC PROJECT "'� " '� " 2 '� CALCULATIONS FOR Jim Engineering Consultants MADEBY LUL DATE/-2 -'? CHECKEDBY DATE SHEET OF - - c rr,-0 `r Over!eok 1 ,r`.G �iO�I G;n nne.l Ivor'>• v= �i/;nq # � %a.c i� La'�ccrn*ram U V ✓/S CtiM/Nf L //✓!/ IS,9 v5!( IP.,53 Kb=100 r /n/D riB �7�^r, -'.arm S-'.•r_i r�:.C. ti� pa55 nt!06' J�%, 5^G. /NVER.T OP7 2C6ior.ai Chonne! `ricKle_ pq.r7 a{- P1• i O� SIC-r7+.. SE.�•Y-.r- Cr ri r;Pa"•i.^,n = /S,y Se- Inv Of 51Orr.• Se�:J�r cr: elr.'J� IS,.9 /naXL..vm dey-o' 0-,"- =!ow 7n kec ian,41 C::nr.nEl �, „("!r1C ¢- 170 •`, fsif `,'''+r ,:• �>:'r i;` (��.�i n.!�, r,�i i/AIA:'r �'r- U / C a.Je 2/Ol 3S- ) = 2,/03 re'c r' /l rc. C crC ra' i'a'-L+��er �nic:J10.�'�?0n.',J /}7aX. �5 cJS"/ =. /S,u-T (e.�Tr;c pan d-�=i• -'-� 2r63 �_ ![�•$ 3 EGJ J. /yr0;t• �/5 (in channel) I : hf Slc?e = O,SSy 1 h=,013 J$7ncf ri?anriu.�gn ///pp r'aX• /J ��J P_ �i•<- .,� '•? r^! 37, S cf5/- 30 '�/ 37,7 ^� Use- 2yIIx 3a ` HERC/0 Us e S/cp e = o, SC c fir, !•o!/: r.� _- , �•✓r:P �u:�T=.r' �inC J J?5i✓/i S'%oim £•v!_.r /00 yr' �Jen � 1a r"l0u� under fre55urc. wl cL woX. (L/5 0j SEG= Z`F a pi�: /br�,'i d�Jrlr� /00✓E, 5.Jrr' NOTE Per Chy crlic,2,a -mar, .1,::.,i 12y 'a o, 30" cP L OU05FW6-,e PIPE Vdn�t/,FC !fawn e ev, _? i£' _=,7G-23•c`r = On 5 CJro i!!._ 'fib =0.6c1 i9 %)o\ 30.E relax. w5F/ 03.9(o Zo' curb %r 'ems /A/✓ 1/a.Yy Ka = 0,7s ' 10 /3Z REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 3 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 UD AND FCD POOL FUND STUDY - DENVER METRO AREA ON DATA 01-30-1992 AT TIME 15:01:35 ••* PROJECT TITLE : ' WOODRIDGE FILING NO. 2 STORM SEWER ANALYSIS ••• RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 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 37.50 19.50 18.53 OK ' 2.00 N/A N/A N/A 37.50 23.30 19.56 OK 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 37.50 23.34 21.10 OK 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 37.50 23.34 21.64 OK IMEANS 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 D NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE' DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGN) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ID NO. 1D NO. (IN) (FT) (1N) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 1.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 36.36 42.00 30.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 ARCH 36.36 42.00 19.00 30.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 ARCH 36.36 42.00 19.00 30.00 �MENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES MENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER = COMPUTED; SUGGESTED DIAMETER = COMMERCIAL OR A NEW SEWER, FLOW IS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, ISITNG SIZE IS USED i ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN 0 P-FULL 0 DEPTH CRTC DEPTH VELOCITY FROUDE COMMENTS ID NUMBER IN CFS IN CFS YN FEET YC FEET IN FPS NUMBER 1.00 37.50 22.53 2.50 2.06 7.64 0.00 V-OK 2.00 37.50 13.13 2.04 1.93 11.45 0.00 V-OK 3.00 37.50 13.13 2.04 1.93 11.45 0.00 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS -------'------------------'.-------'.--------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS � ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM X (FT) ---------------------- ---- ---- 1.00 0.30 16.27 15.90 4.53 1.10 OK 2.00 0.30 16.44 16.27 5.32 5.45 OK 3.00 0.30 16.44 16.44 5.32 5.32 OK 10K 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 124.00 124.00 18.77 18.40 19.56 18.53 PRSS'ED 2.00 56.00 56.00 18.02 17.85 21.10 19.56 PRSS'ED 3.00 0.10 0.00 18.02 18.02 21.64 21.10 PRSS'ED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUSCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS �--------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER UPSTREAM MANHOLE FRICTION DOWNSTREAM MANHOLE ID NO. MANHOLE ENERGY WATER LOSS MANHOLE BEND MAIN JCT ENERGY ID NO. ELEV FT ELEV FT FT ID K K LOSS FT --------------------- -------- ------------------- 1.00 2.00 20.47 19.56 1.03 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.91 18.53 2.00 3.00 23.14 21.10 1.37 2.00 0.64 0.00 1.30 20.47 3.00 4.00 23.68 21.64 0.03 3.00 0.25 0.00 0.51 23.14 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. MAINLINE LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD JUNCTURE LOSS= 0 IF THE ABOVE DIFFERENCE IS LESS THAN ZERO FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES DROP AT MANHOLE 1,/3Z 1 FMINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT %J On,.: C !-.�_.,.. �O aY ;: 5 :�� -,• JOB NO. d, . PROJECT •% r �' Z r'r: u�• CALCULATIONS FOR %eii'G • - %'I '= MADE BY DATE /-j �=CHECKED BY DATE SHEET (Z OF" -- via f - f red. ce d a 6 -0 jDj5 l AJe H orad %:,- �PSlnn 'r: r' 33:$C"y ry '7:1— � so -F- Deg « Te,rp awn 2 e' f i I Swa(' Z 'j'Q i ON g, Cha.,;ne.l Or'l-i, ,iie' r.T- !�7 ncrl ri,l rvF '7l /eo= 52,y Cf,; �Pe _r:r 20 �i5`-„Icy Div_ ?c•Z =!'g =rs .... ;, /:_ .. Use SZ,'' C2.P- pl,Zcfs %sew chn,1. -- Sw'ACE 2 6ro7 6.GI sic/_ �IaPr =i. ,,/ F= O. (o? 13/32 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SWALE AT NORTH PROPERTY LINE 7E57MRM99 Y Swg( c Z STA ELEV 0.00 24.50 10.00 23.00 25.00 23.00 35.00 24.50 'N' VALUE ---------- SLOPE ------------- (ft/ft) 0.035 0.0090 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. 23.10 1.6 0.8 1.33 0.48 23.20 3.3 1.3 4.28 0.54 23.30 5.1 1.7 8.56 0.57 23.40 7.1 2.0 14.09 0.60 23.50 9.2 2.3 20.83 0.62 23.60 11.4 2.5 28.77 0.63 23.70 13.8 2.8 37.94 0.65 23.80 16.3 3.0 48.34 0.66 23.90 18.9 3.2 59.99 0.67 24.00 21.7 3.4 72.93 81.2c4-.. 0.68 24.10 24.6 3.5 87.18 �- 0.69 24.20 27.6 3.7 102.77 0.70 24.30 30.8 3.9 119.74 0.70 24.40 34.1 4.1 138.10 0.71 CaICU tafla"!L use Manniny5 � e�4ion Q= I,Y86 p735/2ff n No Text RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION ULTIMATE GRASS LINED CHANNEL WITH CONCRETE TRICKLE PAN STA ELEV 0.00 50.00 4.00 49.00 14.00 49.00 24.80 46.30 27.80 46.30 27.80 45.80 31.80 45.80 31.80 46.30 34.80 46.30 49.60 50.00 N VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.033 0.0060 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) 4 f. N 0 � m 0 P°vw Q 4 3 a FROUDE Q I ou = V SE NO. 46.00 0.8 1.1 0.90 0." 46.20 1.6 1.7 2.69 0.47 46.40 3.0 1.4 4.30 0.47 46.60 5.4 1.9 10.15 0.51 46.80 8.0 2.3 18.31 0.53 47.00 11.0 2.6 28.87 0.55 47.20 14.2 2.9 41.96 0.57 47.40 17.8 3.2 57.69 0.58 47.60 21.8 3.5 76.20 0.60 47.80 26.0 3.8 97.63 0.61 48.00 30.6 4.0 122.12 0.62 48.20 35.4 4.2 149.80 0.63 48.40 40.6 4.4 180.80 0.64 48.60 46.2 4.7 215.27 0.64 6 Z 4.6 cT5 Q+ 48.80 52.0 4.9 253.33 0.65 49.00 58.2 4.3 247.71 0.63 49.20 66.6 4.5 303.12 0.65 49.40 75.4 4.8 363.85 0.65 49.60 84.6 5.1 429.96 0.66 49.80 94.0 5.3 501.50 0.67 ..V NFVll 1 RIPRAP DESIGN F CLIENT WQQdC.r2f-n y;a <, JOB NO. � •� �� INC PROJECT LUGbJ r; ACQ !� '; i't e. P!- "� CALCULATIONS FOR /� !� r Engineering Consultants MADE BYL5L-SbATE '�uJ� CHECKED BY- DATE SHEET OF = .30 " A4a . F.lc i S=,30h Qrvo = 37, Scr-s F/n/D Tie /,7v)rek r;/arnP atlhe eo /ef .504UT/0%./ O5�' 4h E Uriian D r'Air7aAe- 9 Placal ier 1E 7,4 y -Fos Ta;lwaft_r Jr Fly, STEP I Lam{ tA2 M..q "t/Pe e ,4 r r- o -ror era.si _-,., /� ier-l-; cr• AL D 4 b ZS — �_ 375_9,y9 Froe, ry $-7 U e Tyo L ` G/o_ !o riPra;P C�xlictnC•ir.nf'r Y2'�"anbl = 3 7q >-�rf s--� %z fan a = 6,7 STEP3 Del• -f-ha_ �e/%'f•H o-P /`)O/'ap �r'a{e;?ian f�f-=v �;dea1 V=.S/f�o�UUi -37 7,SO L = 6. 7 C(7512,63) — 2.5� L= 2.q r S7-ErI/ CAeck if rn1n, l)h,;f eiovzrn, L Ga nno� be less 4yQn 3 D 3 CZ.5) = 75 r U s e 7,5 7ii Ic: •; ; F- r;,. . STEPS Det• rr+ax, r I �o J.? yr ay. ,epy 2dsv �:cP (o D? �- • bed d) nr., i ab GLgSS ff 13e�d off CT /TI l 3 2�SJ = 7,S LISe 7,5 f-'� r.uic�.r'n � V 1-7 EROSION CONTROL 10/32 PROJE COMPL DEVEL SUBBA 7f 9 18 IU OTE Lb = Lb Lb = 5L _ Sb = Erod RATNFAII PFRFORMANCF STANDARD FVALUATION QBO,.Zn/C. ----------------------------------------------------------------I :T: WOoneloGE sEcoroU . F/c/r G Hay-ooJ STANDARD FORMA I :TED BY: KUIG DATE: /-30 - If I ----------------------------------------------------------------I )PEDIERODIBILITYI Asb I Lsb I Ssb I Lb I Sb I PS i 3IN I ZONE I (ac) I (ft) I (') l(feet) I ---I-----------I------- 1-1/61/ I-x z.H I ------- Ix 700 I ------- 11,41s I-------I-------I-------I I I I I I //l6 // I 1* 7,ov I �-X 700 I 1 /, Hs ! I I I I I I I 7,GH i -100 17,06 I I SLa es A F i gz� i /,y3 i 79-g '6 A5IN 5 7A1- 9 ,f 1 w EKE MOP U N /,1.019L DI— oA?&Ev I I I I I 4 LN5 wl TNl5 ,c /L/NG . I I I I I ,9 ENS SHOW/ /a wr" TvAI 1 Y -77l e TOTA/C nl-T �r'ecL•' s=k' ,;. FGr I P 4T, ( I I I I I I I I I I I s om 19:5b I I I l I /7.0 �zs�f i I I I I J sum A56 (/,q Xz,''r /.y13 I I i I II I I I I ;bit. I �-77 T/ 2,eP f- I � I I I I I I i I I I I I I I ---------------- DI/SF-A:1989 ---------------EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS R�'D, i/.)G. ---- ------------------------------=----------------- PROJECT: W000,01v6 SEco,vo r ici.�✓ � y'3 y-oo5 STANDARD FORM B 1COMPLETED BY: KW G DATE: /-3o-9z Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment -----------------------:-------------0------------------- Roo is d Cur} O d I /,o pa vec( a �pn F;Ifers 1100 0160 Ifur or Sire to Male',', 0, B6 boo i f ,----- _______________---- ______________________________________________ MAJORS PS SUB I AREA BASIN (%) BASIN) (Ac) CALCULATIONS ----- ------ ----- ------ -------------------------------------------- 79, a 7,9 Z y 'ecaclS W Cur/ s, 5JOI&wa/k-- = 0, y Ac #10c.t7 = Z'0 ,9c. (includes }e»�,�•� Net C Fa,', -or = Z,Y Nei- P Fator = /.00 79,8 1 q 7,od I Roads,- Caro IJ n N;ulcti= s,8q Ac C%ncivd Net G Fe, _ /15- o1)t5"? c:, rr '?y4 iIII Ne.� /d Faaf0r al,0o Eff=Cl- cxPix;co= (I—(,OSXI)}X/00= r. W A,:,,,i /,yS Ae terra 79,8 !9 I 7,(oy koads orb U /iem/�•Sce} a� -ale; /Mulch - G,19Ac I Net G Foc;^r 0. 7 6Y _ I I I I Et^"F=(I-CXP)KIOo =���(.OSx,Sai�7C loo = �l6 ,O jrj EF�Ne.t Svrrt REF'; XAt J- Sum f?sb _'RS(z,y)f 95(744)+9 J--7�4/ fti'e.0 = gS,YS % use. �er- orNne.r• reo�oS�j rJSE A 7-Ems/'°�H�eY CK STk�f? Lu /b'1 L.0 / ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------� HD'I/SF-8:1989 19A13 Z CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PROJECT: uJDODRID6� :5E"coN.0 F1611)5 R6D)rvc. y_aas STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE. FOR 19 a Z ONLY COMPLETED BY: 1CW 6 DATE: I 30 9 Z Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer. YEAR I tZ MONTH I A I IYllsl ,! 1 L71 51 OI ,'JI DI I I OVERLOT 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/Blankets Other -------------------------------------- STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR DATE SUBMITTED HDI/SF-C:1989 MAINTAINED BY APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON CHARTS, TABLES AND FIGURES DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF Z(/3Z 50 30 F- 20 z w U w IL 10 z w a 0 5 W W cc 3 M O U 2 IY w H Q 1 9 _.■.,, '-, 031110I_ MEN % ON r � oil IN ►A0 r I■m■l� moll / �I��/I III ■I./�—/����■■■■� 5' .1 .2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELOPED" LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical Release No. 55. USDA, SCS Jan. 1975. 5-1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE 3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT No Text I.L. K4 a 8 Fi .3 2 0 O z3/-�r s=06'/ F - 0.8 5:0.4% F:0.5 I ISTREET BELOW ALLOWABLE MINIMUM GRADE I I I I ..I i� 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 SLOPE OF GUTTER (%) Figure 4-2 REDUCTION FACTOR FOR ALLOWABLE GUTTER CAPACITY Apply reduction factor for applicable slope to the theoretical gutter capacity to obtain allowable gutter capacity. (From: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, 1965) 4-4 DESIGN CRITERIA I CLIENT In ; 1. TiG Y•+r_' ` JOB NO. _13 ��0 INC PROJECT Wood rI'd e E I) A Z �-rt":t i 9 /1 � CALCULATIONS FOR ''' Engineering Consultants MADEBY 904DATEI �Z CHECKED BY DATE SHEETOF 3Z C(oo yEA,9 ) SURFACE UM/T i i 0 • l I MYA/oR SrcR/✓' CZyewRe) SU,2FirGE .G/M/1.' , HLLOWNBCE .S7*6-&r CAPNcc.lTy'� 59'R.O.6J, 33.G6 SPA✓E MEMr W/DT// (Ro[.LouER CCG) Yi= 0,O(ro .Cfor. ..9 nor 3%r...) /!= /4y,+nc i4 _ 0•o35 C74)'10.0 /G 027 ye)_ p, 026 (>�rmaLor P = 33.30 vt ,ve v7,ye Ste. �) i Equation used: MANNINGS EQUATION Q=c/nAR2/3S'/2 Q = Discharge C = Chezy Coefficient = 1.486 n = Roughness factor A = Area R = Hydraulic Radius = Area/WP WP = Wetted Perimeter S = Slope Let X = C/n AR2/3 then Q = X SI/2 Minor storm (one side of road only) Area = 2.63 ft' Mannings "n" = 0.016 Wetted Perimeter = 16.65 ft. �I Hydraulic = 0.16 ft. ' X = 71.99 Major storm (both sides of road) Area = 42.52 ft2 ,l Mannings "n$' (composite) (97.17ft)(0.0161 + 124 25ft1(0 005) = 0.026 47.42 Wetted Perimeter - 94.96 Hydraulic radius - 0.45 X - 1427.08 ! To find "Q", multiply "X" by the square root of the slope and then by the reduction factor, Fig. 4.2 P. 4-4, of Fort Collins, specs. 0 is for both gutters combined Reduction factor is included Minor Storm Major Storm Slope (X) V (fps) 0 (cfs) V (fps) 0 (cfs) RF 0.40 1.4 4.6 1.9 45.1 0.50 0.50 1.7 6.6 2.1 65.5 0.65 0.60 2.0 8.9 2.4 88.3 0.80 0.70 2.1 9.6 2.6 95.4 0.80 0.80 2.3 10.3 2.8 102.0 0.80 0.90 2.4 10.9 3.0 108.2 0.80 1.00 2.6 11.5 3.2 114.0 0.80 1.10 2.7 12.1 3.3 119.6 0.80 1.20 2.8 12.6 3.5 124.9 0.80 1.30 2.9 13.1 3.6 130.0 0.80 1.40 3.0 13.6 3.7 134.9 0.80 1.50 3.1 14.1 3.9 139.6 0.80 1.60 3.2 14.6 40 144.2 0.80 1.70 3.3 15.0 4.1 148.6 0.80 1.80 3.4 15.4 4.2 152.9 0.80 1.90 3.5 15.9 4.3 157.1 0.80 2.00 3.6 16.3 4.5 161.20 0.80 2.25 3.8 16.8 4.7 166.7 0.78 2.50 4.0 17.3 4.9 171.2 0.76 2.75 4.1 17.7 5.1 174.9 0.74 3.00 4.3 17.9 5.3 177.7 0.72 3.25 4.4 17.9 5.4 177.3 0.69 3.50 4.5 17.8 5.5 176.0 0.66 3.75 4.6 17.6 5.6 173.9 0.63 4.00 4.7 17.3 5.7 171.0 0.60 4.25 4.7 17.2 5.8 170.4 0.58 4.50 4.8 16.5 5.8 163.2 0.54 4.75 4.8 16.3 5.9 161.5 0.52 5.00 4.8 15.8 5.9 156.1 .049 5.25 4.9 15.2 6.0 150.2 0.46 5.50 4.9 14.8 6.0 147.0 0.44 5.75 4.9 14.5 6.0 143.5 0.42 6.00 4.9 14.1 6.1 139.6 0.40 Minor: n = 0.016 A = 5.26 ft2 R = 0.16 C = 143.89 Major: n = 0.026 A = 42.47ft2 R = 0.45 ft C = 1,425.02 0 = 1_48 AR2/3S1/2 C = 1.486 AR2/3 n n 0 = CS1/2CRF1 V = 0/A 25/3Z CHART 1 O 18o lo,000 168 8,000 EXAMPLE (2) (3) 2 6. 156 6,000 0.42 inch" (3.5 feet) 6 l 144 5,000 Q.120 cis 5 ` 4 4.000 hw 6• S. � � 132 0 test 4. 3,000 (1) 2.5 8.8 ° 4. 120 () 2.1 7.e z 000 (3) 2.2 7.7 a. 3 108 3. 196 e0 in feet 1,000 3. 800 84 600 500 �/--2.-2- 72 400 in / = 300 �y 1.5 1.5 f z to •,r�r 60 u 200 Lai 1.5 lg Z _ Z / W 0 54 a C 100 Z �^ 48 z 80 = . a a I L0 /? N �00 HW ENTRANCE +ar n c 40 ALE 0 TYPE W 1.0 e�lr 0: F 36 f• 9 .9 r W 30 (I) sguer I with 3 33 sad■all O .9 a 0 e: (21 Groove slid ■its W C 30 _ hsad■all = •8 8 ' 13► Groove end8 it 27 prolwting 0 4 8 24 .7 6 To we "ale 12► or (3) project 21 5 horisontally to wale (I), then t /_. 4 ate straight inclined line through 0 and 0 wales, or reverse oe ,6 3 ill"trawd, 6 •6 i 18 (..i 2 -Y 2.l RcP Pro�ec?�r.ry 15 Q = 9 scf g s y+L Q- 17 C S 100YK 5 5L.5 1.0 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS MEADWATER SCALES 2&3 REVISED MAY1964 WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU or PUBLIC ROAM JAIL 1983 181 Preceding page blank . iS' 2713 Z 1.0 12 5 II 10 4 9 8 10 3 6 .8 F w 9 0 4 -H 2 .7 8 a 3 � Z 1.5 .6 ` b v> 2 0 7 z 1.0 z 5 ExampleI.0 .9 , Part a z -. _ J -.8- w 5.5 0 - - - - a .8 0 v> .6 u_ w 5 = z o .7 z 4 .4 E' ? w x z 4.5 a ( 6 z o 3 w t " U- = 0 4 _ .2 0 5 z CD z H Z 0 o w '3 3.5 w W a -.4 � o I O w 0 0 0 .08 F .25 3 f- _ = O .06 3 c� (D ow z_ _ = o: .04 Cr .25 2.5 w w a 2 .03 a >- 3 c .02 0 2 a = 2 a F a .15 .01 0 .15 L u_ 0 0 Yo ~ 1.5 X 4.10 Figure 5-2 NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2" Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA No Text 21/3Z DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 6C an o 4C 0 2C RIPRAP mmmmmmiwAmm NONE PAAFE MEN 'I III 7 .2 .4 .6 .8 C Yt/D 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 DRAINAGES FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL L- 9 = Expansion Angle INEENEENE INN rAdEAVAVAMM mummEMNE Emmommum Emmmmmum mummmmom Inammmom MR �md 0 0 0 0 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .5 TAILWATER DEPTH/CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D RIPRAP FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 3o/3Z I 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 5 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 3v32 PAGE 23 i O i rnrnOoo 1 1 1 o I MMto Ln LO 1 L/7 I qq MM i O I 0,(7 rn(7 (= G 0 0 0 O i G I V :I* -:r C'U•)LO LO LO Ln U-) 1 1 00 g q q q q q q N q I 1 I 1 t O I C'C��ctv�v�vvctnLnLn t M 1 g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 1 1 1 O 1 ON ON 0)C1)qC�O)D)D)0)tT D)D)cl mtT 1 O I C C' C 1 N 1 0000 g q 00 00 00 q q q q q q 00 g 00 q 00 00 q I I I C 1 OM C'LO to to tO tO r� r-% r� r� r� r-_ r� r� r� r� r-- r� 0000 q 00 co co I O 1 C-cra'C I O I O N M �r Lo Ln Ln ki; t0 tO tD t0 t0 r\ r` r\ n n r\ r\ r\ r\ 1'-- q q q C 1 1 q O0 q q q 0p qqqq 00 q 00 qqqqqqqqqqqq q ` I 1 O 1 O I LO O N M C' V'Ln L1'f to Ln l0 t0 t0 tO t0 t0 tO t0 t0 t0 t\ n t\ t\ n n J 1 1 O i q I Mct U t 1 00 00 00 00 q 00 00 00 0000 q q 0000 00 00 00 q q q q 00 q q q q 1 I 1 O I C CT,r N M M a' �' V' V to LC)Ln n Ln LO LLn Ln LO tD tO l0 t0 t0 t0 t\ V) 1' . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z I r \ 1 M en �r C' -�r -!I- V ' -*, C f • S �r V �r .z- ma- -cl, C' -zr C' - 01 .1; C' .-. I I g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q'OO g q q q q q q qq J I 1 J I O 1 OtOgO�.--INNMMMM�ct�Cf' Tr � Ct � Ln Lf) In U')lO tO O I . I U I t0 1 MM C44 CQ I 1 g 00 00 g q q 0000 g q q 00 q q q q q 00 q q q 00 00 g q 00 114= 1 Lo N Ln r� q (7% CD C)14 � 14 N N N N N M Cl) M M M C�'�C�t W 1 vLn I NMMMMM 4444441; 44 CC' C' 44�1 lo:.1; I 1 ggqqqqqqqqqqqqOOqqqqqqqqqqCO 0 1 W 1 Q I Cl- I ..w. m � LO Ln tD tO r-.r\ r�ggq��qD)Q) mC O. O OO 1 J-cr I N N M M M M (Vf M (4 M M M M M f' M ('•') C) M M CM M C' e t• 7 Q t Ln I V) I g 00 CO CO 00 CO qq q q qq 0000 Coc o q 00 00 00 00 q 00 00 Co co = 1 O 1 t0 LO 00 C) rI N M d' -Cl* Ln Ln Ln tO tO tD to tO r� n t-. r\ q q q (M D) 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 Z i 1 00 00 00 q CO 00 M M W M q q M M q M M M M M M M M q q q Q I I I— 1 Ln I .-y r- Lnr\gOO 1INNMMM a' �'C' tY �r Ln Ln Ln tO tO tO r\ r` V) I . 1 1 M I.- L N N N N M M M M M M M M M (h M M M M M M M M M M M W I 1 00 g q q q q 00 00 g 00 q q 00 q q q q q q 00 q q q q q 00 t) I I Z I O 1 M N tD q q O .--L N N M M M C' V' v Ln Ln Ln to t0 tD tD tD Q 1 • t E 1 M 1 0N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O_' 1 I g q q q 00 q q q q q 0000 q q 00 q q 00 q q 00 g q q 00 q U- t to I Ln Ln a% " m om Ln tD r\ r\ n g q q T m m C+ On On O O O O O O W 1 N 1 D) O O N N N N N N d I I r� co 0000q q co co 00 00 000000 0000 q00 00 00 q q 0000 qCC) q 1 I I O I . .. . . n t 0 co 00 T O O O. -1 .-. . e -. . . . . . M M M M M 1 N 1 00 cn O O O O O O O • .--1 r1 N .--I .--i .-.+ r. . . r 1r1 ." -- 4 I 1 r, r� 00 g q q 00 q 00 q q q q q W M q q q q Coco OOg q OO I t I Ln t q N q .--I C' In n D. . . . . . ..--. r'. . . . . . . . . I r-I t t0 q q D) C) D) LT 0) N m 0) 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 nr�r�r�r\r�r\ r� r� co co 00 co 00 co0000 co CC) 00 g q qq 1 1 \ 1 CD1 tO M, O � n D) CDrl M M Cf -cr Lf') to In LO t0 to t0 tO f\ n to t0 tO I r l 14 t0 n r\ n n 0 0 q O 0 q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q 0� co 1 I nnnnnnr\r�nnnnnnnnl,^nr\nnr�nnr� I 1 I Ln I D)O et tD r-Iq 00 r.. f\f\tp tO to to �t C'MMNNQt lO C•-+Q)t0 I O I O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .--I O 1 I ran r\n ran r\r\ nn nn r\n r\r\1`r�nn r\nf\f\nr\ I S 1 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I _J Z li I .-L N M V In t0 n CO D) O M V In l0 n q O) O to O Ln O Ln O I li W v I .--� rl .--L ..-I .--1 .�+ rL r-I .•-1 e--1 N N M Cl) TT* Tr l.n t J 1 TABLE 5.1 PAGE 24 Table 5.2 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values. Treatment C-Factor P-F actor ' BARE SOIL. Packed and smooth . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 1.00 Freshly disked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.90 ' Rough irregular surface . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.90 SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.50(1) STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG. 1.00 0.80 ' SILT FENCE BARRIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 0.50 ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT. . 0.01 1.00 ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS. . . See Figure 1.00 SOD GRASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 1.00 TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS . . . . 0.45(2) 1.00 HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE. . . . . . . . . 0.10(3) 1.00 SOIL SEALANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01-0.60(4) 1.00 EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS. . . . . . . . . 0.10 1.00 HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH After planting grass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons acre (minimum) and adequately anchor, tack or crimp material into the soil. Maximum Slope Length W (feet) 1 to 5 400 0.06 1.00 6 to 10 200 .- 0.06 1.00 11 to 15 150 0.07 1.00 16 to 20 100 0.11 1.00 21 to 25 75 . . . . . 0.14 1.00 25 to 33 50 0.17 1.00 > 33 35 0.20 1.00 L NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation. (1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading. (2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 7.4 thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required. (3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated. (4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation. 1 O,w rd•Lo MIN. =335 BOB1 now now DBpeI = D.BD If t� J I Side slope = aH:1v A 4 SWa4 Slope - 03tHl 20 0®0=10 ft. =51]DO; F=D41 SECTION 1 We 1 SWALE rd•LS'MIN. Dow -61.2 DO;1 FIOre Dif-1VR t MLI Bde Slope - 4H:1V Swis":ale Slope IF0.90% IS 09d-140ft. -1381 da / SECTION 2-2 -069 \' SWALE 1- Ow'i.L3' 02 = 51.9 ds i 41, Depth -tAls fps \ 9 D m = m4pie Vr 4' 1k 3M1. o b 3eBeV I. W Ips SECTION 3 — 3 INTERIM REGIONAL CHANNEL FNLLY DEVELOPED CONDIT III Bel TN4 rd. VWw,,AN/a,"w, bOuu im Nn+ a y+m OF T+mgr+ry mi+t♦ ifel BAR, N, Rr+muw l+mRnq/Gnae per Sol 1DEWy FEANSF Sam �e ,3nL11 P Pou hn WGw 95E3 ICa Gpre 30!F i So, woo. pre KORNAIpool DONE OR Mu p1. Mee31 )fee A 1e.Mry1 nw MIKE - spew; Dow Net N, Too HAS, µ Y GM we ol. Al We Henna s se, '^" n o1.OE.� � v, Ye, wARE sae••^' wnm 10 PI Sn Ten Ta M Pl+mtry emA FF, OF I&I Il OFF He LF a 'I nn� wEFF'oea4i'dm..ou+a+eed mRu+•mmul ern, F FIT FAM gyp= � ..ice v � � I TV � S 17, 17 10 F HARMONY ROAD OFF +.+_ +Ft.3., 1 meme.4„L+s+u nr YY4_ Mrzr11.n+ ti I1A1 r alnl TlTnar or .r ul I_r n to T T_ is ")' sa �z G 11 t5 r 1 nt,� I 0 I b FT \� i I• 4 �� I Rio M' v. �� \EE, Fill The 40Fn Y + j 0 1 \ 6:0 / \ %\ \\ • ^\y/\/ � ERf91ON MLE / � CMELK CAM 1 / KWG s9g mmmm.n snea to �c,,g s OR OEUDNED L ONW,f Oree IDLn 6]B95T /H CHECKED Nc Engineering Consultants +-tT 2392 4M-COS 3WJ Sal College Benue 1155 IJallnson BwJ-Suite IN KSU FmneY a. We¢L Selils 2ll Cnbv0o01652 E flEVISION DESCRIPTION APP O�i I ED —LL DATE PROJECT N0. Pon Conrns CORONA& M25 Comraft Ss mg¢. celoraOO MM DLa280.N0 yiyyyaS55 2191509u02 4 A 5 't e•1 ER 10N COA loss I'll G MLET DIEGO!, SET E%18T./FCLWD 2:\ ° WATER LINE / FBI T a/ OGINT 14 Gates atill Firsl a9.8 ..-e 23 p STING SITE HYDWLOSY DW Nu'. 1706s ft"V,, AA WAM Rwl Psn Be: Ol -132 ft °rv'Sl W, WOOL BE) (she FEES DRAINAGE BASIN arm Pupae Mea'. stensncs 1 AD me evem : M NaPe1W Me: E z Nei Panty Ml'C'. Ol Dnorm: pdow r . dwun rx 4 wnr6w ui MZM Javi M^6 mum. 7s, 9.1B Scale IfII YV lw = 100' -NB -ea a ear FIFF X/vl 1\\ �Y LEGEND. BASIN DESIGNATION -BASIN AREA BASIN BOUNDARY 1 B E%ISTING -DESIGN (POINT / EEGIONpt. L' `'A"> III va J\RTIALyYr�TE) I _r - DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION --5oUl -EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSIED CONTOUR z 4%5T, 4z' LVEETs 4 80 H.P. -XICX POINT HISTORIC @2 42'GULVEIE75 19.2 of L.P. - LOW POINT isl See FHA Grading Plan Sheals Band 12 or addb nal / tinisl.Bled lot elev lions. P / \ Fit EXIST TEMPoRARY CCE55 RQ`OLD Y/ / BE, k�� \9514 \. W. INV. = 5120.351 E. IM/. = 512"I.BB THE GATES AT WOODRIDGE - SECOFI FILING THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE - SECOND FILING EROSIONS CONTROL see" 2A e B NOTEB AFTER THE OVERLOT READING HAS B(FMR£TEO ALL N OSRDEO AREAS, m SHALL NAIVE �MMR/ny VERFETATIONE THE SWESCRICATION ON BAR SHEET ALFRED SEEDING.OR BIMW Mel SHANNIT BE APPLIED OFFER THE SEED AT A RATTE OF 2 CPEEA( ) s E ASS/ INTO THE TRACKED, IM rtrenTHE ETHroPED s VE BEE NS 0 PECETr EP VE BASIN 10. aFIEA TXE IX " . 9NPA='O F TEMPORARY Nespil LIHILD APPLIED PER THE SPEGDGPO O AFTERSEED11,15,AJOYOR sTERAwM OF 2 TONS/ACRr ARM) FRED THE AllAl BE ADEDUATELY A%s`VAAN TAREAD. D°MLOTTHE D T sroJ11lD HAVE SERE 3l '.l£B RJNMAv R�BNB �. BELOW ABE 11B NE1& BE ,"ES Mm: f MBW OF GO4JCTEO �ACE CONENE R SE ld/ 1 COPOW RI THE I DETAIL. SKEET. THE ALL OTHER ALL OTHE MBED AAEAS SHALL HAFT TEkALAMY DISTUREAD SEED POED E EA RICIFICNADIONONCH ME VAREA „OSTATO AFFAIR EE.' Hill OR S APPLEDO TBSEo DATE OF 2 TONS/ACPF JMW.1 ANNEUTHE MUDEM SHAILSE ABADQUITTELYARCHEMED, TACRE°. OR CRIMMUED Al TWO SOL PER THE METHODS ON THE SHEET. NOTE INTHE EVEM A IYARTION OF ROAAAAAw PAVEMENT SURFACE AMID LEIRLETERS ABU MOTU CONSTRUCTED FORAN EnENDED PERODO ME EPONEFLOHONAl APHLYIYE NDEARY EDETATIO SEED'AND IF- eBBOABWE. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN I 18 I 6 I m I� m Scale 1 = 50 IN A 0R % FHA GRADING DESIGNATOR / PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION L 2' EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED CONTOUR --sxp-- EXISTING CONTOUR T.F. TOP OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL 1. ALL CVERWIT DRAINAGE SHALL BE GRADED TO A MINIMUM SLOPE OF P%. 2 ALL LOTS Sci BE GRADED WITH A MINIMUM FALL OF 0.5' IN THE FIRST IQ AWAY FROM FOUNDATIONS. 3. THE MINIMUM COVER FOR FlNISHED GRADE TO LOWEST EXTHEMRY OF FOUNDATION WALL SHALL BE 39'. a. THE FINISHED GRADE AROUND THE LOWER ENO OF HOUSES ON STEEP STREETS MAY BE DROPPED TO MINIMIZE THE SLOPE DOWN TO PROTECTVE SWALES A3 LONG AS ]S' MINIMUM COVER IS MAINTAINED. 5. THE MINIMUM FOUNDATION IXPoSURE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE SHALL BE S., 5. SLOPES OP 3.1 OR GREATEN SHALL BE SODDED TO MINIMIZE EROSON. ]. THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE HIGH S1DE OF THE LOT IN ALL CASTES UNLESS LOTGRADING IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION OTHERWISE. S. ALL LOTS WITH OVERLOT GRADING FlLLS OF W OR GREATER SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DATA SHEET TBG (FHA). 9. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM SLOPE OF p TO THE SANITARY SEWER WIN. 10. THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY CENTERUNE GRACE SMALL BE 1G% UNLESS SEPARATE SIDEWALK TO THE HOUSE IS INSTALLED AT 10 41N WHICH CASE MAXIMUM ©RIVEWAY CENTERUNE GRACE SHALL BE 14%. t L EACH LOT SHOULD BE EVALUATED BY A REGISTERED SOILS ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTOR, TO DETERMINE THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF THE SUBDMAIN SYSTEM REQUIRED '.2 THE MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM HOUSE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION TO SANITARY SEWER MAIN INVERT SHALL BE 12 VERTCALLY. i. THE FINISMEDGRODE AND FINISHEDTOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATIONSARE BASED ON A SCALED BUILDING SETBACK SHOWN FROM PROPERTY LINE AND AN ASSUMED HOUSE ENVELOPE OF NxS0. ANY VARIATION OF SETBACK OR BUILDING SI2E EN WiGEMENT MAY REQUIRE THE FINISHED GRACE ANO FINISHED TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATIONS TO CHANGE. 7 t 1 H 8� H II o G1,�NV $ `@ S J '11 r --------_- _ 25 ` 5 24 POR RY 1 / vp�, VA6ivlpMD `11 A 1 1 CIN OES � �5'B.tl \ nh\ / ^ TF •58.2 G f 9 1\ 1\ 29 28 1 7�/ G \ 14,A to jAzz= y 1$ \-�S \'p, 31 17 V ( 32 rF �V a 20 3Au, i9 I r 1`I 1 33 � J SEE 6RAINAGE PLAN SHEET 8 --- _ -- 34 FOR DETAILED DRAINAGE DESIGN- _._ 35act S 37 TF.53.L 1F..424 2 sa 41 38 40@SifFT \ �� \ —_` n J OF &IUSTOR, I REMWE 1 01zF'd,E OF BWSTIUG RIPRAP fteLOLATE EI05i. 20'VyIDE 4GCE55 EOA���CY ft 110b DRAW 103 500 PaXman, ONION ADIFF&asai raeo THE GATES AT WOODflIDGE- SECON A FILING Ii DESIGNED CHECKED Nc Engineering Consultants 451--D09 DOW 3a11M1 WHage Aenue 11551(elly JMna"n OhE-Salle 1N N"'Co°'"as m'onp wers mwxDSP�mga com.eao erozg 9p b" FNnla R°. Waal, bulls AI �'bsT may, THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE- SECOND FILING AP>RBveO DATE PROJECT Na. 6�,1AAo ]py1T6.a95 T1915Adb] Imf, FHA GRADING PLAN THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE - SECOND FILING 1$ 12 me '" Scale 1= 50 II I SEE DRAINAGE PLAN SHEET 6 AND I STORM DRAIN PLAN & PROFILE SHEET 9 I� I FOR DETAILED DRAINAGE DESIGN LEGEND I A OR B FHA GRADING DESIGNATION PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION�- L17.� EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION —16 PROPOSED CONTOUR ,1 / --vaa-- MISTING CONTOUR T.F. TOP OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL Nags 1. ALL OVERLOT DRAINAGE WALL BE GRADED TO A MINIMUM SLOPE OF M,it 2. ALL LOTS SHALL BE GRADED WITH A MINIMUM FALL OF DYIN THE FIRAT 10' AWAY FROM FOUNDATIONS. 3. THE MINIMUM FOR FINISHED GRADE TO LOWEST EXTREMITY OF FOUNDATION WALLAU-S SHALL BE 35'. a. THE FINISHED GRADE AROUND THE LOWER END OF HOUSES ON STEEP STREETS MAY BE DROPPEDTO MINIMI$ETHESIAPE DOWN TO PROTEGaVE I I \ SWAIES AS LONG AS W MINIMUM COVER IS MAINTAINED, 5. THE MINIMUM FOUNDATION EXPOSURE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE SHALL BE I II I it �1\11 II u�Yl 6. SLOPES OF 31 OR GREATER SHALL BE SODDED TO MINIMIZE EROSION. 11 7. THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE HIGH SIDE OF THE LOT \D1L . �. -- "' IN ALL CASES UNLESS LOT GAADYY ISSPEGFICALLY DESIGNED TO ALLOW 111 \�I \ \✓ 34 --\ DRIVEWAY CONSTItUCTION OTHERWISE. B, ALL LOTS WITH OVERLOT GRADING FILLS OF B' OR GREATER SHALL BE WI(MA) CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE NTH DATA SHEET M FHA II 13 S. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM SLOPE OF M TO THE SANITARY SEWER MAIN. \ 10. THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY CENTERUNE GRADE SHALL BE WX UNLESS \ \ \ 11 Y \ 11 \ \ 1111 14 \ �\ SEPARATESIDEWALKTOTHE HOUSEIS INSTALEDAT IOMIN WHICH CASE MAXIMUM ORNEWAY CENTERLINE GRADE SIULL BE 16%. \ II \ 1\ \ \I 57A rt T'F'w CM tt EACH LOT SHOULD BE EVALUATED BY A REGISTERED SOILS ENGINEER AT1\I THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, TO DETERMINE THE TYPE AMID EXTENT OF R ' TT' IS. THE SUBDPAIN SYSTEM REQUIRED. \ 1`I\ \ 11 \ g 12. THE MINIMUM AFROMHOUSE FINISHED FLWR ELEVATION TO ANMAIN / • \ \\Il \ \� SANITARY SEWER MMAININ INVERT SHALL BE 12' VERTICALLY. 13. THE FINISHED GRADE AND FINISHED TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION¢ARE,n'D y BASED ON A SCALED BUILDING SETBACK SHOWN FROM PROPERTY LINE 1` \ 1 TS L " 1 AND AN ASSUMED HOUSE ENVELOPE OF �'a50'. ANY VARIATION OF \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ I 11 G SETBACK OR BUILDING SUE EN WiGEMENT MAY REQUIRE THE FINISHED \ TJ \ \\1 \ A \ \ 1 a F GRADE AND FINISHED TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATIONS TO CHANGE, //\ \\ o \\1 , \ \ \/ 96' a 'ounaaF�` \\\ \ 16'- r-Y gall as' / f A SECTION \ \ \ \� \\\\ zN TIo1E: 9 NTS. I \\/ TH16 CWGS SECTION REPRE5eklT5 THE I� \ I \ / l i I KT'L .yqa INTERIM GRADING & REGIONAL CHANNEL. {I-- \/ r / G \A\ 1 .� I � � �\� \ j \ A H 17 d1: LP oh AX. 4i s :1 M MIN H+ la Iz' lo' NOTE: FLNft Of '4 LUAN4EL f SEE PPoFILE ra nATLH ON 5HT.9 OST USK GWL40 WATER LINE 9 ECTION E SECTION D \ evF PAc slw remmen sun.lav oRAwN— L"re^am. cao„o eosin DESIGNED CHECKED Engi re ring CanfulNlRq 3B1file S5M 3' L 9N PoS R9[G Buu10 CGllepe Awnua 1155 Kelly John o Biws ulle ICO Fonlag; R,I Weal Sulle M REVISION DESCRIPTION APPRO GATE vROJECT MO. FOH Dam" a.c"lo�eao eBszs eal"mo soH"os. COMob mvm Wll om,eaa6857 T7E ]JY23BaRs 71P5B6A1W A16B'TIB i1,A 8 5 FA 7�� a \ 22 I THE GATES AT WOODRIDGE - SECOND IFILING THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE - SECOND FILING 2 X� ��5 I 2 YsEFEREU BUILT WITH SHALL No aE BUILT WITH ASEMENT F,W%HE0 FIAOG IEVATIONZ FOR WAL"UT9 A MWIMUM 61,EOA1 tOPo II ED IXJ RDO FIELD\ MAk 09 I992f SHEETS SHEE FHA GRADING PLAN THE GATES AT WOODRIDGE - SECOND FILING 16 6 SEC ON fl B B1 17 sub B w .5� JA I` �� y •,. N 9 +EV N ,a,� .� �. �" �� „✓ - 419 ' 1, 11 b 61 S i.F.M� iF. se. LF. ! T.F. > , 3 I y — — 1 Iy /jay r,� L Boil if % '_ I � _-c-`_-'., SILVEROATE ROAD, dd SCALE I'=50' .qt T._._._._ _ 00 BG>•4 BM 'T n '- - 'Cc -''- ATE )� ` -- _ �� - eEdN SECnoN A A% } _ MATCH E%ISUNG 1 m "+94 !/ 'I. V) L. 3 �V 'F 1 'f m 2 $ \, _ 5'x ..., `n AR 4 _ 'Yi' A 11 ♦ A .2° ¢ i n i� �, w �cRouaO r ----�7 - - ,�".i2. I r I I % �� t // \ O'O/i 119 . ��1 _ _' k,Y �� 0Y �;9i14 ,. �I ?• m 3 as i �+�✓ � � I � I 6 ¢ % •k � � j I 9 ,III0007 it II li it I �``. "'. Lam* -` - • + rL/ 21 21 B g ICI I i ee i I Is 07 �. aF\O5 B �Wi , eRs yx.b B6.iy �' p I ;k• n i 1 I l � � .,N < i 9 y, II a i I• ((ff��'' ti N9Le n._B4.3 B r B Yi� i� �5 B TR T.f.+!w I, MEADOWVIEYV CT. _ - _ - •a li a p 3 'p,�y + ti 1m it-. vi II I I ,1 i r- wtesra I � _ Oas29 0� 1 1 L EPIa '1 1 rule' F ASs.4 IIJI I _ � �_ ..,�I:1. a I 1�1 I I 111 7 n 1 yC J �I I '4 ! a 1 2] 1 aoa ak+ \ y._� 1 , IP i \ AO Cytei l . I 1 Y r � b.. � � _ ', ��iP�� • �'z„ �� w u s ,a s,W \ 41 I _ II IiII l I I I \ 6 61 .,y,vv �W d�7 7 y vo v A 1'� s v 1 1 V v III r w F �\ \ \ ; i ! , THE ' 0VEel.00K AT WO( RIOGE � �i Iglu lye Is IN 1F Q IAAR4Ls sf w '11 •,vn TOTES fmsr FLING i It v\ 14 'N I'Yi -- -- - I _.lN. THEOVERL-IONI AT WOODRIDGE1 -�:'A 1.CALO T MAMAOC MALL BE MADE[) M <4 I !off $y / v "� BBCONDVLINO .. .-'0 1il CS1 �\\ aor aNsru BE GRADED Wm AMMN-W 7 II n�1N�n 1i1 1 2ALmRON �IxmEFORM 16AWAY ,MIM SRI / - z ME DM m\ER ran RMmm MADE 19 \ i 1.t ..Ay bxa r ( „,. _ / t\ IKs IXNE11r cf RUMDAnQI WAu ( l ' •.1.., f .a7ily 78 �yyqq a / 11 1 u BE x /i:'>" �'•` : � �' \ ? \\ 1;. �\ 1 m 6 1PIT> II ,1 4. TK MB W GRADE ABROAD THEE LOKR VWY i \; Y�Q�1I PIT IDJBEs M STEEP STREETS MAY BE 1 70 0 I�3'DV i I�( y • =`�- �� SS � :' �" y 1 .11 DROPPED SWAL�! u Lam u a umi i \ \; 1`, \ .it DOWN IS MAIMmxm �1 r./ u� I A65.2 -J 10 VY a \ 1!R .r �� \,: } n ME MED MADE SNAnw EwmWE AwW \ i `\ A Wl T.F. Try' / 1 > _ \ ? S It "MINED MADE MAu BE e• �t 1 ` i Y I V i �fi' .p \ : 1 :' 1 n 9UYS IN 3'.1 LP IAdTd SX4L BE YWm �IyI I M A(ae 0 1O v,. II 6zn ! NME p ME a mE wr w`'ALLC MES MALNE sES N ;P LLI o AL DR R e IS SPECIFICALLY N ONER ry y r ' ♦ i I B�1 1 I �I -I ,{' '. •'I fP.J_ I al XAY RYCOM OMMW � _ � 1 ° ALLOW DRAWAY CCxS S \ \ _ • • rb V n Au mrs'Ym oWCG1 WE S C ar I _ __ I __-. - - n°S. Dam.oIN III ON MMWMALLK MEET W LEGEND +I 0 MIE SIaE a M Wl. A[mONICE WIN MIA MEET ]BG MA1 .> e. LE 4 SANITARY Ep5 MI Sg11W2 MKS NE YE '� V s✓ .I 1 tiPRA1RIE 01 �( '? 1 WBrASLm ON Ym A DE 8aE a ]i TB, ..SM 11NC Ld1T0UR ` i.- I 'pN . •:_,EP.-CT �I �I •.'IO 1 b \ 1 SECTION A - A TIME !SANITARY MADE M.w � /,' � .✓ < - I0 Ci BI NAmmI1Y Im.D 130 PROPOSED R IU Ep CONTWN A A �L Q It wWw tlOWVAv1£x A1T DRALE I A •�'( ~Y' IM�E HO oDs` INSTALLED AT VOX NNNYp NO B.O.W. BAa AF WUR � ' \ BE 14; N.P. HIGH PUNT / yq" �...." 1 / ` i.E•>M11 1 \ \ ' N 1L EAMI LOT 91Au WE ENA MATED BY A KO$ MINED q. ,I 1Cy' \ a, • 1 O®GRABS era SCLS EMNEa AT ME TIME 6 MSTNCINm, LP. LOW PONT \I ,•{ ly n B�'2 )\ ,P Jf. ? L �^` 11 # BOIIINN 15 TO P.BMWMINE ME REWIRED. EXTENT OF ME Mw 4 // I 11 IA I'I// .W9 < y- \ \ 1 SPOT ELEVATION # -7a \ R \ \\ _ I I _ _ IL R YNXpM DISTANCE TM MOOSE MX � �. / / `\ 1�I 6 IA P • Ta 0 cM1 Mry ROW dRERION ✓""A=/. T �® \ + �..... s _ now SMALL BE 1° FTCAUEKR MUX >. y M$m - zr a/ \, : \\�\ w. av M PROPOSED STORM Dean G.�^ .,L,1y'-f) f \•, 11 BE rw Mm MADE AND RAINED TOP a �W SEE DRAINAGE, EROSION CONTROL AND SECTION B - e POLNDARON EUVeTwI! ARE BASED ON A A Or B MA GRADING DEscNAnON �^ 1 WW' 4%f \ +� \`,,: \ 1t� \ 2PP�FiY NE AND AN ASSUMED SHOWN UMED nM �Q , t/ ,' ? � `�It 4 ,;\ OFFSITE GRADING PLAN, SHEET 4, ALONG IN'f1i1 IEQUI OPENING. SECTION LryWyaE C' MPII. ANY �mEnT"mO+7 T.F. TOP OF CONCRETE FOUNDAnoN WALL 11, WITH STORM DRAIN PLAN d PROFILE, mLLY °E"`°PED `°"°T°": sEre.« mN BMLDIXC NU MumxMEMr MyY ` j 1 ? 111 \ (� - KA J \ + SEE DETML MEET 20 ra III MMINEL REWME E RN 91ED MADE AND I1NIMm 'I I f II,, \'� `� \ 4rf. ^\�\`� V• '� • ' SHEET 19, FOR DETAILED DRAINAGE DESIGN. - SEcnwl CAST W HARMONY ROAD TOO a TOM MAraI EIEVAnws TO aAx02 ., j 1 V+"'. 1., \ \�\\•. �\ DODO BY RBO, INC. FEW SURVEY pa.F tS Si-' ENANN— ocH as THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE, P.U.D. XSICNI IFS '� 11L. Engineering Consultants rmlNgm M.M aNT I FHA GRADING PLAN DAM mD am MMPwx Snell 24M M. JBI, AM. mar IBU. RAW B BSI Y.IMxN ells) THIRD FILING 21 6 REVSION DESCRIPRON PPPftOVI DEC MAR 1992 Tell cam wl>w, emT D.N.. EaM.'mo Bm+ll va. V 4>s�LDI