HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 10/02/2015City of Ft.. Collins ro Plans
Approved By
Date 15
Kechter Farm Development - Filing 2
Addendum #1 to Approved Final Drainage Report:
"Final Drainage Report for Kechter Farm Development" i
Dated January 21't, 2014, by JVA, Inc.
Prepared For:
Toll Brothers, Inc.
10 Inverness Drive East, Suite 125
Englewood, CO 80112
September I st, 2015
Project No. 39713.00
Prepared By:
JR Engineering, LLC
2900 South College Avenue, Suite 3D
Fort Collins, CO.80525
J•R ENGINEERING
A Westrian Company
J'R ENGINEERING
A WeStrian Company
September 1st, 2015
Clint Jones
Development Services Engineer
Larimer County Engineering Department
200 W. Oak Street, Suite 3000
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Kechter Farm Development - Filing 2 — Addendum to Final Drainage Report
Dear Mr. Jones:
JR Engineering has prepared construction plans for the, Kechter Farm Development, Filing 2. The
drainage improvements associated with Filing 2 are intended to tie in to infrastructure completed with
Kechter Farm Development - Filing 1. The approved Filing 1 plans, entitled "Utility Plans for Kechter
Farm — Filing 1" were prepared by JVA, Inc., and dated April 9, 2014.
The approved Final Drainage Report for the Kechter Farm Development, entitled "Final Drainage Report
for Kechter Farm Development" was prepared by JVA, Inc., and dated January 21, 2014. The Final
Drainage Report delineates drainage patterns and proposed infrastructure for the entire Kechter Farm site.
The purpose of this Addendum is to update the Final Drainage Report with the stormwater conveyance
infrastructure design and grading and erosion control improvements needed for the five phases proposed
in the Filing 2 construction plans. The proposed Filing 2 improvements are generally in accordance with
the findings of the approved Final Drainage Report. Changes to aspects of the Final Drainage Report are
described herein.
Location and Description
The proposed Kechter Farm Development Filing 2 is located in the east '%2 of Section 8, Township 6
North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado. The site is bounded by existing
residences and the Homestead Pond to the north, by Ziegler Road and Kinard Middle School to the east,
by the Westchase subdivision and Mail Creek to the west, and by open space and Fossil Creek Reservoir
to the south. Filing 2 is located at the north and south ends of the Kechter Farm Development.
7200 South Alton Way, Suite C400, Centennial, CO 80112
303-740-9393 • Fax: 303-721-9019 • w jangineering.00m
Kechter Farm Developmem — :addendum to Final Drainage Report Page 2
The 170-acre Kechter Farm Development site is partially developed. Kechter Farm Filing 1 roads and
infrastructure are currently being constructed, portions of which were completed in late 2014. Residential
unit construction is ongoing. The Filing 2 areas have been overlot graded and erosion and sediment
control measures are in place for the site's current configuration
Historic Drainage
Historic drainage of the site was split, with the majority of the site draining to the south towards Fossil
Creek Reservoir, and a portion of the north end of the site draining north to the Homestead Pond. The site
is shown in FEMA FIRM panel 08069C0994F, dated December 19, 2006, and is located in Zone X. The
site is located outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
According to the Final Drainage Report, the onsite soils chiefly belong to Hydrologic Soil Group C as
classified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Hydrologic group C soils have a slow rate of
infiltration when thoroughly wet. Water movement through these soils is moderate or moderately slow
and they generally have a restrictive layer that impedes the downward movement of water.
Irrigation ditches and laterals exist in the Kechter Farm site. Per the Final Drainage Report, Mail Creek
Ditch will be piped and routed through the site. This has been designed and approved with Filing 1.
Kechter Farm Filing 2 is located within Basins HI, H6, and H7 as depicted in the Final Drainage Report.
Basins HI and H6 are located in the Fossil Creek drainage basin as shown in the City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Master Plan. Runoff in these basins drains south to Fossil Creek Reservoir and ultimately to
the Cache la Poudre River. Basin H7 is located in the McClelland's Drainage Basin as shown in the City
of Fort Collins Stormwater Master Plan. Runoff from this basin historically drains north to the
Homestead Pond.
Proposed Drainage Basins
The drainage basins and general drainage patterns established in the approved Final Drainage Report are
maintained with this addendum. In the Final Drainage Report, the developed conditions discharge from
the majority of the Kechter Farm Development is conveyed to Fossil Creek Reservoir via two outfalls at
the south end of the site. Level spreaders are located at these outfall locations to provide water quality.
This plan is followed for the Filing 2 improvements.
Filing 2 is located within Major Basins A, B, and E as shown in the Final Drainage Report.
Area A Basins
Major Basin A is located at the north end of the Kechter Farm Development and generally drains from
west to east. Basins Al, A3, A6, A8, and A10 are located within Filing 2. Runoff from these basins is
collected in on -grade inlets and conveyed to the eastern outfall, which is located at the south end of the
Kechter Farm Development — Addendum to Final Drainage Report Page 3
site. Basin Al 1 contains a sump inlet, which captures the bypass flow from Basins Al through A7 and
A10.
Area B Basins
Major Basin B is located in the center -west of the site, generally between Zephyr Road and Trilby Road.
The majority of flows from Basin B are conveyed to the outfall at the southwest corner of the site. Of the
Basin B sub -basins, Basins B3, B4, B5, B7, B10, Bll, B12, and B14 are located in Filing 2. Basin B3
contains an on -grade inlet that captures runoff and carryover flow from Basin B2, and conveys conveys
flows to Basin B5. Basin B4 flows are conveyed to Basin BI 1 via curb and gutter. Basin B5's flows are
conveyed to Fall Harvest Way, and taken by curb and gutter to an on -grade inlet. Basin B6 is a portion of
existing Trilby Road and is not a part of Filing 2. Basin B7 collects tributary flows as well as carryover
flows from Basins B2, B3, and B5 in a sump inlet. Basin B10 is located north of Eagle Roost Drive and
flows are captured in a sump inlet and routed to the Area B outfall pipe. Basin Bl 1's flows are routed to
a sump inlet on Heron's Nest Place and directed to the Area B outfall pipe. Basin B12 flows are
conveyed to an on -grade inlet and routed to the Area B outfall. Bypassed flows travel to the Basin B7
inlet. Basin B14 drains to the west and into the irrigation ditch lateral on the west side of the site, which
discharges into Fossil. Creek Reservoir.
Area E Basins
In the Final Drainage Report, Major Basin E is divided into 21 sub -basins, all of which are located in
Filing 2 except for Basin E17. Basin E stormwater runoff is split between the two outfalls at the south
end of the site. Basins E1-E5 runoff is captured by on -grade inlets and conveyed to the western outfall.
Basin E6 is conveyed to a sump inlet that captures bypass flows from Basin El. Basin E7 contains a
sump inlet that captures bypass flows from Basins E2-E5 and sheet flows from Basin E8. These flows all
discharge to the western outfall. Runoff from Basins E18-19 is collected in swales and discharged to the
western outfall.
Basins E9-E17 and E20-21 all drain to the eastern outfall. Basin E9 drains to an on -grade inlet which
discharges to the eastern outfall. Basin EIO drains to an on -grade inlet that collects runoff from Filing 1
Basins C6 and D8. Basin Ell drains to a sump inlet that also collects the bypass flows from Basin E9.
Basin E12 drains to a sump inlet that also captures bypass flows from Basin E10. Basins E13-E17 drain
to respective sump inlets and are conveyed to the eastern outfall. Runoff from Basin E16 will sheet flow
to Basin E15's sump inlet. Runoff from Basins E20-21 is collected in swales and discharged to the
eastern outfall.
There are no changes in proposed conditions drainage patterns with the Filing 2 improvements. The
patterns in the approved Final Drainage Report will be followed with Filing 2.
Kechter Farm DeN elopment - Addendum to Fuml Drainage Report Page 4
Proposed Improvements
All of the aforementioned inlets and outfall piping have been constructed with the Kechter Faun Filing 1
improvements, except for the inlet and storm sewer at Design Point 10 (Basin A10). No other storm
sewer improvements are necessary with Filing 2 to complete the drainage system proposed with the
approved Final Drainage Report.
The Basin A10 inlet and storm sewer are labeled "future" on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plans of
the Filing 1 construction drawings. That inlet and pipe were previously sized in the Final Drainage
Report. The Basin.A10 inlet was sized in the approved Final Drainage Report using the Urban Drainage
and Flood Control District's UD-Inlet spreadsheet program, resulting in a 10-foot Type R curb inlet at
A10. For the 100-year event, the A10 inlet captures 9.4 cfs of 19.2 cfs, sending 9.8 cfs to Design Point
11. A 10-foot Type R curb inlet in a sump condition is shown at Design Point 11 in the approved Final
Drainage Report.
The sole storm sewer in Filing 2 is shown as 18" RCP in the original approved report's StormCAD
modeling, with slopes varying between 0.50 and 1.90 percent for the respective component pipes.
Attached are the proposed Filing 2 storm sewer plan and profile drawings for comparison to the approved
Final Drainage Report., The 18" pipe size is maintained from the Final Drainage Report, and slopes on
the proposed line range from 0.50 percent to 1.85 percent. The hydraulic design of the proposed Filing 2
storm sewer is generally consistent with the design shown in the Final Drainage Report.
Roadway Grades
The proposed Filing 2 roadways have been designed at grades similar to the street grades identified in the
approved Final Drainage Report. Some negligible differences in grades result from changes made during
final design of the overall earthwork, streets, and utilities of Filing 2. Where street grades exceed the
grades shown in the approved Final Drainage Report, street capacities were found to not be adversely
affected by the proposed grades. Where street grades were designed to be shallower than in the approved
Final Drainage Report, calculations were performed to verify that the street capacity could support the
known flows from the approved Final Drainage Report. No proposed street grades adversely affect the
capacity of the roadway section to convey flows in accordance with the patterns established in the
approved Final Drainage Report. Calculations are provided as an attachment to this addendum. No
additional calculations were necessary for the capture capacity of the inlet at design point A10, due to the
negligible change in slope of the roadway leading up to that inlet.
Keehter Farm Development — Addendum to Final Drainage Report Page 5
Stormwater Pollution Prevention
The goal of structural and non-structural BMPs on this project is to protect areas downstream of the site
from turbid water, sediment, oils and other contaminants which may mobilize during storm water flows.
The structural BMPs that may be utilized and/or added on the subject site are detailed in the Phased
Grading Erosion Control Plans for Kechter Farm Filing 2 (attached).
Temporary Erosion Control
A temporary erosion control plan will be implemented during construction of each phase. Because of the
proposed phasing strategy of Filing 2, we have allowed for grading activities and temporary erosion
control measures to be implemented by Phase. Such practices may include straw bales, silt fences, earth
dikes, drainage swales, sediment traps and basins, inlet protection, outlet protection, etc. Previously
placed inlet protection on inlets within Filing 2, which were built with Filing 1, will be protected in -place
and/or maintained as necessary to ensure the integrity of each BMP.
The General Contractor shall remove all temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs after stabilization
is achieved for the site or project Phase, or after temporary BMPs are no longer needed. Erosion control
measures are the responsibility of the General Contractor to inspect and maintain. Any existing erosion
control devices that are removed in order to complete the construction of the utilities shall be replaced
immediately following the construction that required its removal unless directed otherwise by the
construction plans.
Permanent Erosion Control
Permanent erosion controls used throughout the development include water quality features, storm sewer
outlet protection, and seeding and mulching or sodding of areas pursuant to final stabilization. Permanent
erosion control for Filing 2 is limited to seeding and mulching and sodding. Following construction,
maintenance of these features will be the responsibility of the respective property owners.
Stormwater Management Plan
A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) is submitted as a separate document. This report serves as a
consolidated document and contractor's guide for information on water quality protection for the subject
site and areas immediately adjacent. It should also be noted that this SWMP is a living document that will
need to be updated and maintained throughout the construction process. The intent of the SWMP is to
provide the contractor a tool to consolidate records, logs, permits, applications, etc. as well as guidance on
water quality protection. The plan incorporates elements that can be found in the contract plans and
specifications as well as Latimer County Standards and Specifications, the Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 — Best Management Practices, and the
Colorado Department of Transportation Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide. It also serves as
the basis for meeting the requirements and standards for stormwater quality and erosion control set by the
City of Fort Collins and the State of Colorado.
Kechter Farm DeNclopmcm - .Addendum to Final Drainage Report Pogo G
Conclusions
This Addendum to the Final Drainage Report for Kechter Farm Development - Filing 2 has been
prepared to comply with the "Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards (Addendum to the Urban
Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals - Volumes 1, 2, and 3)" adopted June 20, 2005, and the approved
"Final Drainage Report for Kechter Farm Development" by JVA Consulting Engineers, dated January 21,
2014. In accordance with these documents, the proposed changes to the drainage system are designed to
safely convey the developed 100-year peak stormwater runoff through the site to its respective drainage
outfalls. No significant changes to the site hydrology/hydraulics are proposed and the findings of the
approved Final Drainage Report for each phase of the proposed Filing 2 continue to apply.
If you have any questions or require additional material, please contact me at (970) 817-1010 or
thalopoff@jrengineering.com.
Sincerely,
JR Engineering, LLC
Tim Halopoff, P
Water Resources Group Lead/Client Manager
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
This Addendum #1, to the currently approved "Final Drainage Report for Kechter Farm Development",
dated January 21", 2014, by JVA, Inc., is made for the Kechter Farm Development - Filing 2 areas and
was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision). This Addendum #1 is in accordance with the
provisions of the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards (Addendum to the Urban Strom Drainage
Criteria Manuals - Volume 1, 2, and 3), and was designed to comply with the provisions thereof. I
understand that Larimer County does not, and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by
others.
Timothy James Halopoff, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
State of Colorado No. 37953
For and on behalf of JR Engineering
Project:
Inlet ID:
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm)
I s T. T� Tcrsowu ir
agar WTx
Strool
Crown
TY
Ham �
rum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
ring's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
:e from Curb Face to Street Crown
Transverse Slope
Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ttfM
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ig's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.02D)
Allowable Spread for Minor 8 Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
Tana. =
25.1
ft
Se+cx =
0.103
ri r =
0.020
HcuaB=
4.e8
inches
Toaowm =
15.0
ft
W =
1.17
It
S. =
0.0zo
Nit
Sw =
0.083
fi
So =
0.012
Itift
nsraeer =
0,016
Minor Storm Ma or Storm
Tvu =
14.8
15.0
d'''""=
4.7
10.7
inches
-- check yes
STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion O,,..' 7.8 84A cfs
torm max. allowable capacity GOOD -greater than Flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
Corm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than Flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
U0.lnlet_v3.14 B10.xlsm, (?Allow 3/24/2015, 11:01 AM
i
Project:
Inlet ID:
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) 11
«wa d
de
rum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
ring's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
it of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
nce from Curb Face to Sheet Crown
;r Width
,t Transverse Slope
rr Cross Slope (typically 2 inches war 24 inches or 0.083 tuft)
it Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ring's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
=
25.1
h
Z:Te
=
0.103
tilt
na =
0.020
Hcune =
4.68
inches
Tcaown =
15.0
it
W=
1.17
it
Sx =
0.020
f ift
Sw=
0.o83
fun
So =
0.012
fVft
nsraet=T =
0.016
Minor Storm Ma or Storm
Twos =
14.8
15.0
dunx =
4.7
10.7
inches
— check yes
t STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
R STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qnar 7.8 54A cis
storm max. allowable ca paciry GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet'C-Peak'
storm max. allowable capacity GOOD. greater than flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
Udlnlet_4.14 B11.x1sm, Q-Allow 3f242015, 11:00 AM
Project
Inlet ID:
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) 11
I� T
I ca.�� T T� cAowr
'enac �W+_ Tx SVsel
Gown
Ow Q.
H� d y Sx�r
a da i
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
ring's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
Curb at Gutter Flow Line
from Curb Face to Street Crown
Width
Transverse Slope
Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 Poft)
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ig's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at G utter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm
r Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave dank for no)
Teach = 259
Seam = 0.020
nsau = 0.020
Hcuae= 4.W inches
Toxovw = 15.0 It
W= 1.17 ft
Sx = 0.020 fffl
Sw = 0.083 litift
So = 0.024 flift
nsmaeT = 0.016
Minor Storm Mabr Slorm
T. = 14-5 1 15-0
dimx =1 4.7 1 10.7 jinChes
check = yes
NOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
UOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion a.... IFo 10s.3 cfs
nor storm maxallowable capacity GOOD -greater than flow given on sheet'C-Peak'
ijor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
UD-Inlet v3.14 Et.xlsm, C-Allow 3/24/2015, 11:05 AM
Inlet
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) 11
T, T,,,,,
Tk
y
8
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
iing's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
ht of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
nce from Curb Face to Street Crown
e Width
it Transverse Slope
er Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftM)
it Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ring's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
Tear = 28.9
Sanoc = 0.020
nenck = 0.020
Hcune = 4.68 inches
Ttaovm = 15.0 ft
W= 1.17 ft
Sx = 0.020 fflft
Sw = 0.083 ftift
So = 0.024 fUlt
nsraeer= 0.01e
Minor Storm Major Storm
T. = 14.8 15.0 R
It..4.7 10.7 Inches
i Check =yes
STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
STORM Allowable Capacity is STORM Capacity isbas�on Depth Criterion Criterion Gaor' 11.0 106.5 cfs
torn maxallowable capacity GOOD - greater than Flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
torm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than Flow given on sheet'D-Peak'
C
UD-Inlet v3.14 E2.xlsm, Q-Allow
3/242016. 11:04 AM
Project:
Inlet ID:
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) 11
Tcaowr�
T, T�
Tx
Hwrr Trr-.
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
ring's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
Curb at Gutter Flow Line
from Curb Face to Street Crown
Width
Transverse Slope
Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 tuft)
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ig's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
Taw = 28.9
Sa = 0-020
new = 0.020
Hcuae = 4.68 Inches
Tonowe = 15.0 ft
w= 1.17 It
Sx = 0.020 fVft
Sw= 0.083 ftm
So = 0.032fVft
nsrirf = 0.016
Minor Storm Major Sbrm
Tn 14.8 15.0 ft
dmm 4.7 107 Inches
.... check=yes
t STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
R STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion O.,.. � 12.8 97.0 cfs
storm max. allowable capacity GOOD -greater than Flow given on sheet 'O-Peak'
UD-Inlet v3.14 E3.xlsm, a -Allow 3/2412015, 11:37 AM
r
I.
i
Project:
Inlet ID:
a
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) 11
T, Tii,,u,
— rx
I y
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
ring's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
ht of Curb at Gutter Flow Llne
,nee from Curb Face to Street Crown
er Width
A Transverse Slope
�r Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083ItM
A Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ring's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.D20)
Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flo line for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
Tee« = 26.g
Sava
navel, = 0.020
Loupe = 4.88 inches
Twowa = 15.0 ft
W= 1.17 Ift
Sx = 0.0m fuft
SW = 0.083 fUft
So = 0.010 ftfft
nsmeet = 0.016
Minor Storm Ma or rm
Tvix= 14.8 15.0
dmx= 4.7 10.7 inches
check = yes
t STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Ma'orbrm S
R STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion owl. 7.1 86.0 M
storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on Sheet 'O-Peak'
starm max allowable capacity GOOD -greater than flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
UD-Inlet v3.14 E6.xlsm, O-Allow 3/242015, 11:40 AM
Project:
Inlet ID:
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) I
ad
T, Tex W�� TxtreetCrownV
Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0,012 and 0.020)
of Curb at Gutter Flow Line
; from Curb Face to Street Crown
Transverse Slope
Cross Slope (typically 2 inches aver 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft)
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ig's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
Allowable Spread for Minor 8 Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor 6 Major Storm
F Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no)
Taor 14
Sa
nH+Cx
Hcuaa= 4.88 Inches
Tcrtow = 15.0 It
W= 1.17 If
Sx = 0.020 Wit
Sw= 0.083 fUlt
So = 0.008 In
nsraear = 0.018
Mirror Storm Major Shim
Twu 14.8 15.0
dww 4.7 10.7 inches
check = yes
t STORM Allowable Capacity Is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm
R STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion O,ii,,,' 6.4 84.9 Ids
storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than Flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than flow given on sheet'O-Peak'
UD-Inlet v3.14 El 4.x1sm, O-Allow 3/24/2015. 11:44 AM
Project:
Inlet ID:
ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) 11
e
3 Tie,,,,T��
nxrs W
T
Ctrs rorvn
Qw Qx/!
Td
Hcuw $x`
y�
mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb
Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb)
ring's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
Curb at Gutter Flow Line
from Curb Face to Street Crown
Transverse Slope
Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 tuft)
Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition
ig's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020)
Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm
Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm
Flow Depth at Sheet Crown Qeave blank for no)
26.9
�x = 0.020
^e�ac= 0.020
Hcuae = 4.68 inches
Taom = 15.0 ft
W= 1.17 It
Sx = 0.020 hytt
SN= 0.083 ftlft
So = 0.008 ftft
rl m = 0.016
Minor Storm or Storm
Tnwx = 14.8 15.0
d""x = 4.7 10.7 inches
"- check=yes
t STORM Allowable Capacity Is based an Spread Criterion Minor SOorm Major Storm
R STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Q.,_ 6.4 84.9 cis
storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than now given on sheet'O-Peak'
U0.lnlet_v3.14 El 5.xlsm, O-Allow 312412015, 11:43 AM
•
•
TYPE 3 SOEWALI( BARRICADE - PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION " EACH SDE)
(TO BE REMOVED DURING PHASE 5 CONSTRUCTION)
TYPE 3 ROAD BARRICADE - PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTON
(TO BE REMOVED DURING PHASE 5 CONSTRUCTION)
i/
I
111FE R'l� LNI
YDm 4
I
PHASE 3
I I I
I
YDR !
I
PHA
1
1
I I
I I
EXIST TYPE 3 ROAD BARRICADES (TO BE
REMOVED DURING PHASE 5 CONSTRUCTION
�atklsE 1
YOYI a
I
EXIST
REMOVED
YOot e I _
I
I
--�
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I I
TYPE 3 ROAD BARRICADES (TO BE
DURING PHASE 3 CONSTRUCTION)
acka e
—
Ykat 3
-I-
YOOt 4
-_
--
--
\ T
I' I I 1 ? `CN I )I Jiri I jj B �`.,! _�ci CC
w
[C
LO
LJ
3
z 11 ! _ Z : I r; � < _ !
I I i � Ilt
'
I /�l
`nFYR nOga\' a'l
SPRIKE CFM OAK
.
�:
A
I
}
II
II
5
KEV MPP
so 30 0 60 120
ORIGINAL SCALE: I' - 60'
PHASING PLAN NOTESE
I, FOR PHASED GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL SEE SHEETS 7-11
1, FOR PHASED UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. SEE IMOVIDUAL NOTES ON
OVERALL UTILITY PLAN.
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT "Via_
PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERNSON
� � a
A
TIMOTHY JAMES HALOPOFF, P.E. RTC _
FOR AND ON BEHALF" OF JR ENGINEERING, LLC. ccs'>
U
Z
ZWZ
O
�IN�_
Fi€WU 7
wmwo m0
F r
V Cymy���WUyyK L�IQi
JyO"VO 6IO
?..o-0ZwF�
�raaaaooa
u z o a
= \ Y Y
r
0
w
City of Pon Collins, Colorado 'uI^ ma a u
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL w o
A PNDeto:
GI7 &,al¢er
Dae
OKIX[➢ 9Y
Waerk Wmrnkr IA:BN
D.I.
N
scam B.
Sl—.w ULU,
Dae
CMEaED 9r
Z
Pahak R¢avalen
Dale
O mw 51:
V
TnAr El,aie¢r
Dale
LHECXVD BY:
Eoeveemmlal PNneer
Da.
O EMEO Bv:
Q
Ly
Dale
Larimer County, Colorado
d'
UTILITY
PLAN APPROVAL
=
R EWD 91
W
E.r ¢Count' ee,c.¢a
DIM
Y
Z
Q
J
a
0
Z_
V)
Q
_
a
51EE3 5 OF 73
,IDa No. 3971300
71A,I. g
\ 1 iL
i / '�., I, 2 �/ �t �:'=_ i !i, 5 'I� �) L AA �//A
r
i
4 m^a
kt 0 131-OCH �No
29
eas wW-"r awmienli��—_. ' 7� ./✓ �'�C/- `` �.\7F ` �� SO ♦ �' KEY MAP
fy a 1 BLOCK v •Ulan
/
I r•
rF I
u. PHASE 2
3
1 1 vm Orb wus=3 tm t
rW
eW.M. vCft mrf rI
PHASE 1
r Wne rrAww
rW
rW uW
uW
.S.
I
/ ��'� i•wr,0"P'ir nw p.w / �/r !�/ .\` r/ 4 B y\ \ .75
36
v G EY.
S Y
f \ z
49
XAI
a /43
1
Ak 45 I
1 i i4'ACi 2
;7 100 50 0 100 200
/ r __y I i�___ ORIGWAL SCALE: 1' = 100' m
i /"Ap\ 3 22
BLOCK
z
PHASING PLAN NOTESt
1_ FOR PHASED GRADING AND ENC90N CONTROL WE SMER T-11. T
:� I r OVERALL FOR PHASED UPLN. 14PROYEMENTS, SEE INDIVIDNAL NOTES ON
\` 1' 1 _1!y` 11 III 1 ii 2,FORPHASED
PLAN.
H, 1,. W >
-
\'� �' B ENGINEER'S STA.
\ � \ PREPARED UNDER NY DDiECT SUPERVISION ?�f=3-U"�ti
E35j
`$mV
COLORADOANOS 3J95L)P P.E. $m m m
/ FOR ANO ON BEHAOf .Ni ENGINEERING, LLC. <
LF < o
AUE
i \
PHASE 4
100
LWrimor Cou ty,CDlorado
d
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
RVAEM£D WY'
L.Imer Ceeelr EeEinm DAY
U
W
W
MESS PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE OTY OF FORT COURT$
FOR CONCEPT MY. M MWW DOES NOT RIPLY RESPONSB W W
ME 11ENCMNG OEPMTYENT, THE Ott FN dICCR. pi THE CITY Cf
FORT COLLINS FOR ACCURACY AND COPo1ECMf`3 OFME
CALCKATONS NRMEAMWE THE RENEW DOES HOT ,4PLY THAT ME
WANPPES OF THE ITEMS ON RE PLANS ARE TIE FINAL NANT125
REWIRED. THE REVIEW SMALL NOT BE CONSTRUED H ANY REASON AS
SHEET 6 OF ].3
ACCEPTW OFRMANDAL RESPONSBNTY BY THE CITY OF FORT
—
�� ND- 5971300
COMINS FOR AWITOAL WANPTES DF ITYA5 SVOYM THAT WY BE
REWRED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PRASE
e 1RIlBV RDAD_
— PHASE
�. `-
'
►'_� /!% ✓ ,% //ipW
PHASE 1 INTERIM GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
u N
� p gEI wM
a
A i[Ni�rcwTX >z
o'
Know 6dt'5 below. N
'�c
Call bemTByou tllp, r=woouownnwu>iTn�
jF6¢6<00<
EROSION CONTROL NOTES,
1. LOCATE/RELOCATE, AND MAINTAIN STABILIZED
STAGING AREAS, VEHICLE TRAFFIC CONTROL AREAS,
AND CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAS AS REQUIRED DURING
CONSTRUCTION. -
Z. LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE UMITED TO
UTIUTY/GRADING AREAS AND PROPERTY UNES.
3. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ACROSS ALL
PHASES AND FUTURE ROW AREAS PER STANDARD
DETAILS.
4. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ACROSS STE
AS REWIRED DURING CONSTRUCTONN.
S. ALL LOTS SHALL HAVE EROSION CONTROL
PROTECTION.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
T. REFERENCE "GEOLOGIC AND PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RECHTER PROPERTY BY
CTL THOMPSON, DATED JANUARY IT. 2013 FOR
GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
B. ALL SATISFACTORY SOILS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO
951E OF THE MAXEM M STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY.
9. EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPORTED MATERIALS
SHALL BE RENEWED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
TO VERIFY SATISFACTORY SOIL CHARACTEENSTCS.
100 50 0 100 ZDO
ORIGINAL SCALE. 1' = 100'
City of Fort CollinsN Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
MPROKO'
Car Eesi—
DMe
CHECREB BY:
W.Ie'&WuI—kr Uliliy
nak
CHECKED a,
Blorm.aler UWuf
Uak
CnEOCED BT:
PaF.t Ramlea
0.k
pram aY
Tnak eealAar
Dam
CH[CNn BY:
eorimmcnlal Phaan
pale
CHCMCB aY
DAL.
Old
N C.D Z
C9 Z J
Z CL
-�� -g"_ -SF- �Z
ri8_N`g__- F
___P i
'g; to zz
Latimer County, Colorado � 5
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL U W O
i Y En Q W
s =
Y (L
a
SHEET 7 OF 73
doe No. 3971300
ENGINEERFS STATEMENT - "'g` AENEao BY:
' ,.F� L.rimn Caunlr eusiuv. D.M
PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION :�••'•''r•''a' MESE X.WS HA\£ BEEN RENEWED BY THE Ott OF NIT COLLM
�� '}"'; FOR CONCEPT OM-Y. THE RENEW DOES NOT IMPLY RESPIMMa[17Y B
` THE AENEWNG DEPARWEHE M Ott n1ONEER. OR THE Ott
FONT COLLMS FOR ACCURACY AND CORRECTNESS OF m
_ GLCIRAIIDNi NRTIERMOEE. i1Q ACNEW pCfS MOl WPIY TNAI M
�. QUANTITIES OF THE REMS m TK PLANS Ali T1F nNAL QIINTITN
TIMOTHY .LAMES HALOPOFF. P.E •'•��'�� REOPRED. THE RENEW SHALL NOT BE 00ISTRMED M ANY REASON AS
COLORADO N0. 3J953 N ACLEPUNCE CP FINM A. RE9'DN98RlTY BY THE CIiT OF
FOE
' ' \1\ COLLINS FOR AomnaNAL awnnES OF ITEMS 4wo MA
u/.r
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF JR ENGINEERING, LLC. •"`ti-yo REGARED DURING THE CONST EON PHASE.
I•
I
_-_- —E TRILBY ROAD_ laa ta
'11011111-_.. �r
I I I 1
\ II 1 I
HAhr
S Pf
R
C/Y (qnf
i ✓'
IP
too -
I< am
I1 1
_ 9!
PHASE 2 INTERIM GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
� A
PHASE 1
-
Larimer County, Colorado
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVIS-ON REVIEWED BT:
L.m.0 .q ER,juvr D.M
•: i f THOSE PLNIS HAKE BEEN PFNE90 BY THE On OF FORT COUSKS
,i FOR CONCEPT QNLY. THE RENEW DOES NOT TRIPLY FOSPCN5180.m BY
V+' THEE RENEWNG DEPARTMENT, THE CITY ENMNEER. ON THE OTY OF
TIMOTHY JAMES HALCPOFF, P.E. ia9�.iE: •� FORT CQUIN9 foR ACCURACY AND CORRECTNE69 OF THE
COLORADO No
37953 ,y., II.1tI CALCULATQS, FURTHERMORE. 1HE RENEW GOES NOT IMPLY THAT 1Hf
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF A ENGINEERING. TLC.~ ....> CUANTTEs a I E HEMS ON THE PLANS ARE WE FINAE WANT
spry
v� �z
zw D�
Zu�¢wwwhi
Know whars bW*W. gYaw-gD<�
woo.
Call bNa�you dp. zinuLinz��
�raaaaooa
N
=� zw o0
_,, w -
U
FFOZ z(i:
o
i,
KEY MAP
°z
EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
1. LOCATE/RELOCATE, AND MAINTAIN STABILIZED
STAGING AREAS, VEHICLE TRAFTIC CONTROL AREAS, R
A/ji AND CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAS AS REQUIRED DURING /\
CONSTRUCTION.
2. LIMIT OFCONSTRUCTION TO BE LIMITED i0
UPPITY/GRRAREA
ADING AREAS O PROPERTY LINES.
3. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ACROSS ALL
PHASES AND FUTURE ROW AREAS PER STANDARD
l j / D4. E PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ACROSS SITE
AS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
s * S. ALL TOTS SHALL MAYS EROSION CONTROL
POTEC6R CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
7. REFERENCE GEOLOGIC AND PRELIMINARYIt m
' o CCTL 1HOM SAON, DATED O JANUARATION Y 11 E2013 FOR
n BY
o GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
8. ALL SATISFACTORY SOILS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO
95n OF THE MAXIMUM STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY.
', 9. EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPORTED MATERIALS
SHALL BE RENEWED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
TO VERIFY SATISFACTORY SOIL CHARACTERISTICS.
41
01
` G
�H 00 "
Too so o Too Zoo ° x Y
0
ORIGINAL SCALE: 1' = TW m m m
u u
� � w
�\ City of Fart Collins, Colorado I,
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
N 0 Z
Z J
z Qa
0o
m IY
— Z
�L)
W� �z
1 N O
C.)w O
w Q of
o_
PFs SHEET B of 73
F FORT
MAY Be JOB NO. 3971300
VA
L.1 'c. ,RAF�D , _ O IP I- - ®L J L J® Iq
IP
i I
PHASE 3 INTERIM GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Know what's below.
Call before you d1g.
KEY MAP
011"
`O1?-G
EROSION CONTROL NOTES,
O ` 1. LOCATE/RELOCATE, AND MAINTAIN STABILIZED
STAGING AREAS, VEHICLE TRAFFIC CONTROL AREAS,
AND CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAS AS REQUIRED DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
2. LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE LIMITED TO
UTIUTY/GRADING AREAS AND PROPERTY LINES,
3. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ACROSS ALL
PHASES AND FUTURE ROW AREAS PER STANDARD
DETAILS.
4. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ACROSS SITE
AS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
S. ALL LOTS SHALL HAVE ER090N CONTROL
PROTECTION.
B. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
7. REFERENCE 'GEOLOGIC AND PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NECHTER PROPERTY' BY
CTL THOMPSON, DATED JANUARY 11, 2013 FOR
GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
B. ALL SATISFACTORY SOILS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO
BSS OF ME MAXIMUM STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY.
9. EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPORTED MATERIALS
SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
TO VERIFY SATISFACTORY SOIL CHARACTERISTICS.
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
,Aa
IMOMY JAMES HALOPOFF. P.E.+�`Y
COLORADO NO. 37953
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF JR ENGINEERING,
-LC.
50 25 0 30 Too
ORIGINAL SCALE: Y . 50'
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
APPROWD:
CBr Eetl—
D m
CHECKED ON
W.I.,&W.....F U011N
D..
cream Be
SMM.. H,. UIBBr
pae
CKE0, B Bn
P.. & Rvc .lbe
D.1e
mKIXm SY'
TMC<E.yoee.
p.H
oKLxED BF.
ERn4.ememd PMRner
DMe
vMmW Er
D.I.
Larimer County, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
RVAPBER BY
L.Fimm Gmnr BntlR..T DM.
D N
Z Z
aN WZma
u rcw- >
s< a w<
I'n�inwS"<
ia.uwa �R�
zaaunzw0
��a<aa0oa
6
a
w
m
7
•RY
z J
Q CL
O
�z
aZ
0
U
? Z
M 05
Q LLLI
a
THE F` .5 ARE THE nnAE HH Es SHEET 9 OF 73
NOT m CMSIBUEO IN ANT BEASCN AS
IESHONSIBIUTT BY THE CITY OF FORT
anTAS Or ITEMS $110. THAT MAY BE JOB N0. 3971300
JCTIM PHASE.
1
It
I -
CONSTRUCTION -
ANO IRPRAP PROTECTION
TOE Ol11RN6 PN 4
®",.AW
PHASE 4 INTERIM GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
22
�ow
a
�u zwwwri
F
Know what's below.
U<o< IAg
O<rc
Call bears you
oD o �o
a�a�a�
c3y �o
= op
0
i
r
a y0� V) 0
w mzU=30
l l
a �
z O
JF,
zn
o
I I
I
yyyzoil
�
._ z
l ` 111 KEY MAP .J
EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
1. LOCATE/RELOCATE. AND MAINTAIN STABILIZED
S / TAGING AREAS, VEHICLE TRAFFIC CONTROL AREAS.
/ AND CONCRETE WASHOUT AREAS AS REQUIRED DURING
/ CONSTRUCTION.
r 2. LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE LIMITED TO
UPUTY/GRADING AREAS AND PROPERTY LINES.
M 3. PROVIDE EROSION CONTRA MEASURES AALL
/ PHASES AND FUTURE ROW AREAS PER STANDARD
DETAILS. o
/ A. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ACROSS S1E
5. ALL LOT
REOUIR S OARING CONSTRUCTION.
S SHALL RAVE EROSION CONTROL a
PROTECTION. m
B. CONTRACTOR NHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
` 7. REFERENCRMWATERE
MANAGEMENT PLAN.
/ ). REFERENCE 'GEOLOGIC AND PRELIMINARY
/ CTL THO PSO INVESTIGATION JANU KECHTRY11, R PROPERTY" BY
/ (y CTL THOMPSON, DATED NDATIOY . 2013 FOR
8. ALL HNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
SAL
/ S. ALL SATISFACTORY SOILS SHALL PROCTOR COMPACTED TO
/ 9. IS THE ND IMAM STANDARD TEMAT DENSITY.
/ 9. EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPORTED MATERIALS
SHALL BE REVIEWED OR THE L CHARACTERISTICS.
ENGINEER
j TO VERIFY SATISFACTORY SOIL CHARACTERISTICS.
/
/ / z
O o
\3cp _
it
N
' O O Z O 2 of
100 50 0 100 200 Y Y
/�` r Y o
O``EFfORIGINAL SCALE: 1" = 100' m m pm
< < L2 W W
OI
N VI YY
<p 05 4 W
W O u
N 0 z
VI Z <
2 < EL
7
0o
�z
Wo
U
� z
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT LArimer County, CDlomdo
_z
d.0
'TV' UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERV19CN .'T•�
U
LLl O
RLYTFWCO B
Co.." E.,i— O.k
-( ✓, :-.- `y L.Fimn
• �w
Y
<W
THESE PLANS HATE BEEN RENE ED BY ME Ott O FORT COU NS
FOR CONCEPT MY. TIE RE\1EW DOES NOT IMPLY RCSDCNMOILM BY
FF, P.E. ._'ttp ,,,,./mac`.'.` THE REIAEWNO OWARTMENT, ME ott MP-M. OY THE OTY OF
`�
TIMOTHY JANO.
EL
7953 ��.. FORT COLLINS FOR ACCURACY AND CWRCCiNESS of ME
COLORADO N0. ]795J AD'"=`^s^"' j
THE RCMEW ODES NOT IMPLY TNAT ME
FOR ANO ON BEHALF OF JR ENGINEERING. LLC. 15 IN ME
SHEET 10 of 73
THENMORMORE.m
,.TIES W THE TONS RI THE FUNSARE D 1 FAN
REWIRCD. THE R[NEW SHALL NOT Bf CWBTRUED IN ANY KEA ON AS
R,W ED.
4CRPTANCE OF F1NANOAL RESPm%BWTY BY THE CITY OF FWT
Jpg ND. 3971300
COLLINS FOR AmITOIw- QUANTITIES OF M!M9 SHGW THAT MAY RE
REWIRED WRING ME CONSTRUCTION PHASE.
279 LF
(CMU
ENO
IP IP
PHASE 5 INTERIM GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
U.
Know what's below.
C811 before you di®.
ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION �. �•'•�N`.C. e
TTM
o
OHY JA ES HALDPOFF, P.H. CL VL tee_ '
FFOR AND
N0. 37953 A1y'tAC ;l,i; .qy
OR AND ON BEHALF OF JR ENpNEERING, I.I.C. aa�
U
Z W
3=C I¢WJ ryWWwm�
3mFS��FyF
U¢U�V1 yN y'FN_
NO0d W>O<
1„ooi'ioW Aid
FN2¢ OJ
= W O
OnDo ^O
a O U1
KEY MAP g �i�p30
za
o w
50 E5 0 SO 100
ORICINAL SCALE: 1' = 50'
City of Port COTE
UTILM PLAN
ch, E4..
D.le
CHECKED ay.
WNaa Nult�.Q.umlry
Due
cHmNm Im
91.N.1.r wear
D.Ir
am.m ar,
P.h.a RmnnbN
D.I.
CHECKED er
T.M. E.0—
D.m
CHemm eM
Ee.i...mm1.l P6ma
D.l,
o2DrED er
O.M
11
V,1
z\mlm
m m m
U U W yW
f,
z
Larimer County, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL S
REMEosD evn W
L.N .r CwW, Eno. D,H. Ld
.18
0 z
Z J
oa
0_' J
00
2fl—,
U Z
W U
Z Z
u)2
En
Q W
a
rHE nNAL m=`HtsA9 SHEET 11 OF 73
D IN ANY MA9O
THE Cm OF FORT
SHED THAT MAY at J09 No. 3971300
I
1
1
Ic I:
x� 1
1 _
1 I
1
i -
1
1
r -I.
ry
Bk„ -
_ BAJ9 a B" RCP Jeo.eB LF tB_RGP 1t17m LF
c ESPALIER LANE
1 wMHs+ls
aeea
-- --
77
. TIE INTO EIDSTINC 1B' Ra _ —
STA: 10+00.00
E
M100e05.53
@09YYL4B 50 25 0 50 100
L I I I I I I
I I I I 1 I HORIZONTAL
I 1 I I I I I ORIGINAL SCALECALEr 1- — 50'
ESPALIER & TREE ROW LANES STORM LINE PLAN VERTICAL
(PHASE 3) ORIGINAL SCALE: I" = 5'
O1?-
STORM LINE PROFILE _`0
STA 9+50.00 TO 18+40.00 `_
a940
-
+9.9-
�g
494
'aEa
s$
�Ss
N
a s
a
E§E��� o
fif
+Y"c
rd: a
+"�+$
dg
4935
'a
a'a
493
--;Ag
gig--------------
- -
- ---
492
4930
A11911 GRADE
__
ED.
4925
-
--
-- -------
0169e
LF 1S PCP
O 0751<_
18"
�
m1W
.
495
ensnAro
GRADE
- _
'—
ie. RE9 e T.eSe
WATLOWEMER MAN
1Gr
4920
• RCP
• u2o><
11.49
LFC 1Rae
0.e09
495
--_—
.�
1e
BB.JBO
ROP
4915
491
4910
L 1-
9+50 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00
5
5
D
5
4910
18+00 18+40
W
Know whafs b9l0W.
Call before you dig.
U W
66 WG12�K�
>V
N�W2IX
]U 6W—Zy
p_KV�I~U�
v'io�'d oS"g<
F aaws> =
��aaaaooa
N
�
O
E-0I
] ^ V 00
w
N n
[
a Co6�v�i o0a
W ...
0 W
z
KEY MAP
z §r
a
PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
3ISi p'
TIMOTHY JAMES HALOPOFF. P.E. NIt
COLORADO NO. 37953
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF JR ENGINEERING, L-C.
ar
0
a
s
rc
II �
t`
— o
To y
m
u w To GO
< < 0 o
V
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
=
w
o
PPRo 0
cur eRaln<rr oar
enEaeD ar.
N
W
warn: wmr..Wr uMner No
CHfCltm BY.
J
BMrnnvla Dlllly D.I.
CHCCNm BY:
Z
J_
O
Of
P.INrRRxmanv Dar
C CCNCO Br
LL
EL
Tmlr SAID— D.M.
�
cncam eY
�
Z
BnaeormeNMM PMnov D.Ir
exerxeD er
�
J
One
IL
Larimer Countyl Colorado
UTILITY PLA TAPPROVAL
2
RENEMB BY'
W
O
Lremrr c..mr e.ahm. Dalr
]C
V)
MERE PLANS HAM. BEN REWEWEO BY ME CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FOR CONCEFT ONLY. THE RENEW 00ES NOT IMPLY RESPONSIBILITY BY
ME RCNEMNO DIPMINENT, TIC al M—EER, m ME OTY OF
FORT COLLINS FOR ACCURACY AND CCMECTNEBS OF INC
CALCULATIONS NRT rNNIOE. TVE RENEW DIXS vOl IMPLY 1N.T ME
SHEET
18 OF
%3
wANTTCS Of T f ITEMS ON THE BANS ARC Mf "AAL p1ANTITES
RECRAWO. THE RENEW SMALL NOT BE CONSTRUED IN ANY RGSpI AS
ACCEPTANCE OF FINANCIAL NESPCNABNTY BY THE CITY OF FRi
JOB N0.
39%1300
GOLD" FOR ITONAL ADOWANTTES OF ITJAS SHORN THAT YAY BC
REWIRED WRING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE