The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage Reports - 06/16/2016INTCRWl8T CONSULT 1 N G GROUP FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT Harmony Cottages City of Fort Co lins Approved Plans Approved Date: Prepared for: Habitat for Humanity 4001 S. Taft Hill Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970)223-4522 Prepared by: Interwest Consulting Group 1218 West Ash, Suite A Windsor, Colorado 80550 (970)674-3300 - May 18, 2016 Job Number 1255-028-00 INTERWV T C O N S U L T I N G G R O U P May 18, 2016 Ms. Heather McDowell City of Fort Collins Stormwater 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Final Drainage Report for Harmony Cottages Dear Heather, I am pleased to submit for your review and approval, this Final Drainage Report for the Harmony Cottages development. I certify that this report for the drainage design was prepared in accordance with the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Manual. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Skylar Brower, P.E. Colorado Professional Engineer No. 44248 ii r1' b'.P��' LI cF� Off .• Pp Bqo' ;P- O .0 U �. 44248 9 9 �<u �SS�ONA�•EN� TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS............................................................................................................ iii 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION................................................................ 1 1.1 Location...........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Description of Property................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Floodplain Submittal Requirements............................................................................. 2 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS.......................................................................... 2 2.1 Major Basin Description ..... :.......................................................................................... 2 2.2 Sub -basin Description.................................................................................................... 2 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA...................................................................................... 3 3.1 Regulations......................................................................................................................3 3.2 Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) Discussion .......................................... 3 3.3 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints...................................................... 4 3.4 Hydrological Criteria...................................................................................................:. 5 3.5 Hydraulic Criteria.......................................................................................................... 5 3.6 Floodplain Regulations Compliance............................................................................. 6 3.7 Modifications of Criteria............................................................................................... 6 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN....................................................................................... 6 4.1 General Concept.............................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Specific Details................................................................................................................ 6 4.3 Stormwater Detention.................................................................................................... 8 4.4 Water Quality Treatment.............................................................................................. 8 5. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................10 5.1 Compliance with Standards........................................................................................ 10 5.2 Drainage Concept......................................................................................................... 10 6. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 10 VICINITY MAP AND DRAINAGE PLAN.............................................................................. A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS..........................................................................................B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS (PROVIDED AT FINAL) ......................... :....................... C STORMWATER DETENTION POND ANALYSIS............................................................... D WATER QUALITY AND LID INFORMATION..................................................................... E EXCERPTS FROM REFERENCE REPORTS......................................................................... F SOIL REPORT AND FEMA INFORMATION....................................................................... G iii 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 Location The Harmony Cottages development is located in Fort Collins. It is located in the Southwest '/a of Section 34, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 0h Principal Meridian in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Please refer to the vicinity map in Appendix A. The project site is located in the southeast corner of Harmony Road (County Road 38E) and Taft Hill Road in southwest Fort Collins,'Colorado. The site is bounded by Harmony Road on the north and east, Taft Hill Road on the west, and The Overlook at Woodridge Fourth Filing on the south. Adjacent to the northeast corner of the site is a water pump station owned by the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District (FCLWD). The legal description of the site is a replat of Lots 1 and 2, Innovation Island. 1.2 Description of Property The project is a site development of a Habitat for Humanity neighborhood. The property consists of 4.45 acres of land and lots will be designed for single family and duplex housing units with private drive through aisles and parking areas. The site currently consists of open space and is sparsely vegetated with native plants and grasses. Offsite flow contributing to the site includes adjacent public street right-of-way and the FCLWD.parcel. The soils in the area are predominately Altan-Satanta loams (86.3%), 0-3 percent slopes (soil number 3), Hydrologic Soil Group B and Fort Collins loam (13.7%), 0-3 percent slopes (soil number 35), Hydrologic Soil Group C as reported in the Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado. According to FEMA Panel 08069C 1000F there are no mapped FEMA Floodways on this property. Please refer to Appendix G for the NRCS soils report and FEMA information. 1.3 Floodplain Submittal Requirements Because the project is not within any FEMA or City of Fort Collins mapped floodway, a Floodplain Submittal is not required and a "City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklist for 50% Submittals" has not been included with this report. 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS 2.1 Major Basin Description The site is located on the upper end of the Mail Creek Drainage Basin. This site is known as sub -basin 89 in the master drainage plan and there are no offsite flows that pass through this site. The impervious area for the site was assumed to be 95% in the master plan. Excerpts from the "Mail Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan Hydrology Technical Appendix" are included in Appendix F of this report. This site is also included in the "Master Drainage Study for Woodridge" (1991) and the "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Overlook at Woodridge, Fourth Filing" (1995). In the Final Drainage Report for the Overlook at Woodridge Fourth Filing, this site is known as Basin 1 and 2A. These basins were considered . to be neighborhood commercial sites with a C-value of 0.85. Fully developed commercial flows from this site were considered in the stormwater system plan design for the Overlook at Woodridge. Excerpts from the "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Overlook at Woodridge, Fourth Filing" report are included in Appendix F of this report. 2.2 Sub -basin Description The southern portion of the site drains to an existing Swale which carries stormwater runoff along the south property line to a depression and into a concrete pipe located in Tract A of the Overlook at Woodridge. The remaining portion of the site drains via overland flow to the curb and gutter along Harmony Road and into two existing 15' type R inlets on the south side of Harmony Road. All of the stormwater runoff from the site is conveyed to the existing stormwater conveyance system in Harmony Road which passes to the existing concrete lined drainage channel north of Seneca Drive and then to the existing regional detention pond located adjacent to Webber Middle School. `� 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1 Regulations This report was prepared to meet or exceed the "City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual' specifications. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage CriteriaManual" (UDFCD), developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, has been used. 3.2 Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) Discussion Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) recommends a Four Step Process for receiving water protection that focuses on reducing runoff volumes, treating the water quality capture volume (WQCV), stabilizing drainageways and implementing long-term source controls. The Four Step Process applies to the management of smaller, frequently occurring events. Step l: Employ Runoff Reduction Practices To reduce runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads from urbanizing areas, implement Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, including Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious Areas (MDCIA). Runoff for the northern portion of the site will be routed to a rain garden which slows runoff and promotes infiltration. Runoff from the southern portion of the site will be routed through a grass swale with an underdrain and a second rain garden thereby slowing runoff, increasing time of concentration, and also promoting infiltration. Step 2: Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume with Slow Release 92% of the proposed impervious area will be routed through an LID facility; therefore, no additional water quality capture volume is proposed with these improvements. 9 Step 3. Stabilize Drainageways Natural Drainageways are subject to bed and bank erosion due to increases in frequency, duration, rate and volume of runoff during and following development. Because the site will drain to an existing storm system, bank stabilization is unnecessary with this project. Step 4. Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs Proactively controlling pollutants at their source by preventing pollution rather than removing contaminants once they have entered the stormwater system or receiving waters is important when protecting storm systems and receiving waters. This can be accomplished through site specific needs such as construction site runoff control, post - construction runoff control and pollution prevention / good housekeeping. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to develop a procedural best management practice for the site. 3.3 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The runoff from this site has been routed to conform to the requirements of the City Stormwater Department and the Mail Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan. Water quality capture volume will be provided on site. The impervious area for the site was assumed to be 95% in the master plan. The proposed weighted average impervious area for the proposed site is 50% which is less than the master plan. Fully developed commercial flows from this site were considered in the stormwater system plan design for the Overlook at Woodridge. The correlating basins 1 and 2A were considered to be neighborhood commercial sites with a C-value of 0.85. The proposed weighted average C-value of the proposed site is 0.58 which is less than the original design and therefore, downstream stormwater system will have capacity. Please refer to supporting documentation in Appendix F. Correlating Basin ID %I C-value Master Plan 89 95 - Woodridge 41h 1, 2A - 0.85 Site A, B, C, D & E 54 0.58 4 Runoff reduction practices (LID techniques) are also required. No less than seventy-five percent of any newly added impervious area must be treated using one or a combination of LID techniques. The project adds 110,940 sf of new impervious area. Using the rain garden LID technique, 102,020 sf of new impervious area (92%) will be treated which exceeds the 75% requirement. Please refer to Appendix E for LID calculations and information. 3.4 Hydrologic Criteria Runoff computations were prepared for the 2- and 10-year minor and 100-year major storm frequency utilizing the rational method. The storm systems were sized to convey the 10-year minor event. The 100-year major event will flow overland without impacting any structures to the existing storm structures located in Harmony Road designated at design point #10 and #21. All hydrologic calculations associated with the basins are included in Appendix B of this report. Standard Form 8 (SF-8) provides time of concentration calculations for all sub - basins. Standard Form 9 (SF-9) provides a summary of the design flows for all Sub - basins and Design Points associated with this site. 3.5 Hydraulic Criteria All hydraulic calculations have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria. The storm systems were sized to convey the 10-year minor event. Therefore, hydraulic computations were prepared for the 10-year minor storm frequency. The 100-year major event will exceed the capacity of the storm system (curb cuts, sidewalk culverts, storm pipe) and will flow overland without impacting any structures to the existing storm structures located in Harmony Road designated at design point #10 and #21. 5 3.6 Floodplain Regulations Compliance The project is not within any FEMA or City of Fort Collins mapped floodway; therefore, Floodplain Regulations Compliance is not required. 3.7 Modifications of Criteria There are no Modifications of Criteria at this time. 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 4.1 General Concept The proposed site generally follows the existing drainage patterns and is divided into five major drainage basins. Five off site drainage basins have also been delineated which — in addition to the site drainage basins - drain to the existing storm system in Harmony Road. 4.2 Specific Details A summary of the drainage patterns within each basin is provided in the following paragraphs. Please refer to Appendix A for the drainage plan. Basin A is 1.65 acres and includes the southern portion of the proposed site. Runoff is conveyed via overland flow to the proposed grass swale that runs west to east along the southern property boundary. This south swale discharges into Rain Garden A in the southeast corner of the property located at design point a. The outlet pipe for the rain garden discharges to the existing storm drain inlet #21 located on the south side of Harmony Road. Basin B is 2.24 acres and includes the northern portion of the. This basin is conveyed via overland flow to the private drive and then continues, via gutter flow to Rain Garden B located at the southwest corner of the intersection of the driveway and Harmony Road. The outlet pipe for the rain garden discharges to the existing 15' Type R inlet #10 located on the south side of Harmony Road. Basin C is 0.12 acres and includes the northern most portion of the private drive. Runoff 6 is conveyed via curb and gutter to a 4' cub opening and concrete sidewalk culvert that drains into Rain Garden B. Basin D is 0.20 acres and includes the northern half of the roof area for three duplex units located adjacent to Harmony Road. The roof runoff, in addition to any runoff generated by the landscape area between the units and the Harmony Road ROW, will sheet flow across the parkway and be intercepted by the existing roadway curb and gutter. Runoff is conveyed via gutter flow to the existing 15' Type R inlet #10 in Harmony Road. Basin E is 0.21 acres and includes the northern half of the roof area for four duplex units located adjacent to Harmony Road. The roof runoff, in addition to any runoff generated by the landscape area between the units and the Harmony Road ROW, will sheet flow across the parkway and be intercepted by the existing roadway curb and gutter. Runoff is conveyed via gutter flow to the existing 15' Type R inlet #21 in Harmony Road. Basin OS-1 is 0.40 acres and includes the existing landscape area in the Taft Hill ROW as well as the property located in the southeast corner of Taft Hill and Harmony which is owned by FCLWD. Any runoff generated in this basin will sheet flow to the east where it will be intercepted by a concrete pan or grass Swale located at the property line of the project. The runoff will then be conveyed via gutter flow to Rain Garden B and ultimately to inlet #10. Basin OS-2 is 0.12 acres and includes the existing landscape area in the Taft Hill ROW. Any runoff generated in this basin will sheet flow to the east where it will be intercepted by a concrete pan which drains into the grass swale located along the southern portion of the property. This grass swale drains to Rain Garden A and ultimately to inlet #21. . Basin OS-3 is 0.32 acres and includes the north half of the roofs of 5 lots from the Overlook at Woodridge, P.U.D. Fourth Filing adjacent to basin A. This basin sheet flows to the southern grass swale. Basin OS-10 is 0.80 acres and includes the south half of the roadway of Harmony Road as well as the parkway and existing sidewalk adjacent to basin B & D. This basin is conveyed via gutter flow to the existing 15' Type R inlet #10 in Harmony Road. rl Basin OS-21 is 0.34 acres and includes the south half of the roadway of Harmony Road as well as the parkway and existing sidewalk adjacent to basin E. This basin is conveyed via gutter flow to the existing 15' Type R inlet #21 in Harmony Road. 4.3 Stormwater Detention Developed commercial flows from this site were accounted for in the design of the storm drainage detention pond for the Overlook at Woodridge Fourth Filing (1995). Since the time that the Final Drainage Study for the Overlook was completed, the City of Fort Collins (CFC) has modified their stormwater design criteria to include stormwater quality enhancement requirements and the use of a larger design storm based on a 1998 precipitation study. The peak discharge using the old rainfall data for the site, only (4.45 acres) and a C 100-year value of 1.00 was calculated to be 40.1-cfs. The required detention volume under the new rainfall conditions with a release rate set to the peak discharge under the old rainfall conditions and a developed C 100-year value of 0.70 was calculated. The result was a detention requirement of -0.04 ac-ft with a storm duration of 5 minutes. Therefore, adequate stormwater detention is being provided and additional detention is not required based on the increase in the design rainfall rates. 4.4 Water Quality Treatment Water quality enhancement is being provided for fully developed conditions. Three water quality enhancement measures will be used on this site. 92% of the new impervious area on site will be directed to an LID facility. Therefore, no water quality capture volume is required for this site. The first water quality enhancement measure is the rain garden in the southeast corner of the site which is referred to as rain garden A. The rain garden is a depressed landscape area designed to capture and infiltrate the water quality capture volume. This area has an average depth of 12", has a flat bottom and will include landscape plantings in 12" depth of a sand media mixture. Water will be held in the depressed area and slowly drain through the sand media and then hit a 4" perforated pipe in gravel bedding which will discharge ultimately to the existing storm system in Harmony Road. This rain garden will treat 0.024 ac-ft (1,063 cf) of the water quality capture volume. 8 The second water quality enhancement measure is the rain garden adjacent to Harmony and the main driveway which is referred to as rain garden B. The rain garden is a depressed landscape area designed to capture and infiltrate the water quality capture volume. This area has an average depth of 12", has a flat bottom and will include landscape plantings in 12" depth of a sand media mixture. Water will be held in the depressed area and slowly drain through the sand media and then hit a 4" perforated pipe in gravel bedding which will discharge ultimately to the existing storm system in Harmony Road. This rain garden will treat 0.046 ac-ft (2,016 cf) of the water quality capture volume. The third water quality enhancement measure is the grass swale located along the south property line. The swale has been designed to have a low longitudinal slope in order to convey flow in a slow and shallow manner promoting sedimentation and filtration and limiting erosion. The bottom of the swale is not concrete lined in order to further enhance pollutant removal. The Swale will be constructed with a 4" underdrain in order to minimize standing water in the swale. There is a small portion of the site immediately adjacent to Harmony Road which will not pass through a water quality feature but will flow directly to the street gutter and into the stormwater system. This area,is accounted for in basin D & E. The majority of this area is landscaped with grass and plantings and only a small amount of impervious area from the sidewalk and roof is included. Since the source of the majority of pollutants in stormwater runoff comes from driveway and parking areas, this small amount of untreated runoff should have a negligible effect on the overall pollutant load. Several off - site areas will be conveyed through the site and treated on -site including the FCLWD parcel and the area adjacent to Taft Hill Road and this property. 9 5. CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Compliance with Standards All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. 5.2 Drainage Concept The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the construction plans adequately provides for stormwater quantity and quality treatment of proposed impervious areas. Conveyance elements have been designed to pass required flows and to minimize future maintenance. u If, at the time of construction, groundwater is encountered, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit will be required. 6. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins, "Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual", adopted December 2011. 2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2001, and Volume 3 dated November 2015. 3. Ayers Associates, "Alternative Analysis for the Design of the Mason Street Outfall", dated November 2010. 4. RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants, "Preliminary/Master Drainage Study for Woodridge", dated December 2, 1991. 5. RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants, "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Overlook at Woodridge Fourth Filing, Phase One", dated June 14, 1995. 10 APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP AND DRAINAGE PLAN rA ��- \'��/■1��\\III; IMMEN NOW 111111 ME BE aWINf- MIMI 1 �111� ��■1 "Em MEN III III/�j��♦O �, ■= ��,' ►� !�, ��,�� :: i _ � �_ -_�� 11� Wit■ ��t. �1�... ►� a �b O 0 f[ T X Z 0 Q. OEM Q I 1 �� "FF a 0 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r i I I I I I I I I I I _.. "TM' sue"--�-'�•��.,� "IJIM F------- I I I I I I I J IS T1F£ l ��\``• Sia, Maim. 0. N 0. i 1 _ _all _ ai wall�� _ _ _ �1 ! 1�-- Jt�Ir � r-1_e-- --DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE II 1 Ne Mn cnn cuw xnn 1°In] M1I1.] tl.xl a]hx hM1l a1aw1 Itl.l maaNM hM1l NOTES: I. SEE IANDSKAFE R FOR RAN:INGSTHR000HOU:THE SCE. 2THElOPOF FWNDATON E VATICN SHORN IS HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM E ATON REQUIRED FOR aROTCrnON FROM THE IQOVR STORM, I I -----L --- J--- 400 20 SCALE: = AO' CALL UTLItt NOMICATION CENTER CIF CCLCRADO 811 LALL x-OUVNEss IDAn IN ADVANCE BEFORE YW DIG GRADE, OR ERAVATE 6o FOR WE NARKING OF UNDERGROUND III UTUTIES all a w LD Q _Z Q 14OF20 APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS Interwest Consulting Group RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: Harmony Cottages PROJECT NO: 1255-028-M COMPUTATIONS BY: sb DATE: 411312016 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table FICA I of City of Fort Collins Stormwater Code, Volume I Recommended % Impervious from Table RO-3 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume I Type B Soils Streets, parking lots (asphalt). Sidewalks (concrete). Roofs. Pavers'. Lawns, sandy soil (Flat c2%) Runoff % coefficient Impervious C 0.95 100 0.95 96 0.95 90 0.50 40 0.10 0 SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (s9.lt) ROOF AREA (s9.a) PAVED AREA (s9.K) PAVERS AREA (s9-ft) SIDEWALK AREA ($9.ft) LANDSCAPE AREA (s9.tt) RUNOFF COEFF. (C) Impervious REMARKS Existin Lot 4.45 193,839 0 0 0 0 193,839 0.10 0 Pro see Lot 4.45 193,839 56,858 43,917 0 9,275 93,789 0.58 54 1, 2A 6.54 BASED ON WOODRIDGE 4TH FILING 0.85 89 5.90 1 BASED ON MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN 95 Equations Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C=£(Ci At)/At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, At Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai s Final FLOW(04-13-16).xls Interwest Consulting Group RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: Harmony Cottager PROJECT NO: 1255-028-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: sb DATE: 411312016 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table RO-11 of City of Fort Collins Stormwater Code, Volume Recommended % Impervious from Table RO-3 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1 Type B Soils Streets, parking lots (asphalt): Sidewalks (concrete): Roofs: Gravel or Pavers: Lawns, sandy soil (Flat <2%) : Runoff % coefficient Impervious C 0.95 100 0.95 96 0.95 90 0.50 40 0.10 0 SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq.ft) ROOF AREA (sq.ft) PAVED AREA (sq.ft) SIDEWALK AREA (sq.ft) LANDSCAPE AREA (sq.ft) RUNOFF COEFF. (C) % Impervious • REMARKS A 1.65 72,075 20,822 13,800 1,617 35,936 0.53 47 B 2.24 97,566 27,902 26,867 6,525 36,272 0.63 60 C 0.12 5,368 714 3,250 703 701 0.84 85 D 1 0.20 8,801 1 3,750 1 0 1 170 4,881 1 0.48 40 E 0.21 9,333 3,670 0 360 5,303 0.47 39 OS-10 0.80 34,905 0 21,225 3.455 10,225 0.70 70 OS-21 0.34 14,942 0 9,234 1,595 4.113 0.72 72 OS-1 0.40 17,591 0 0 120 17,471 0.11 1 OS-2 0.12 5,084 0 0 150 4,934 0.13 3 OS-3 0.49 21.503 BASED ON WOODRIDGE 4TH FILING 0.58 55 Eauations Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C = E (Ci Ai) / At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's Fnal FLOW(04-13-16).xls } 0 T M C m N Z 0 Q N N Z W O IJ w Z 00 LL 0 �0 N WW LG_ r r ao z E O � N F O W 0. oCZ0< 0. U 0 N m he W m d N o 0 0 7 d u» o o m Q C d Oi Oi lA N N N N fV OD r G? aD N N T M UO N d Z m C l7 tangy E� m ti o' w l0 r � cm N r T f0 =m V ¢ H m � U f � 3 O N d r V C 0 C 0 C N f0 O N 0 O 0 O N 0 = C p fV LL J w Oi N �O O O t0 IO d c? O O O ' m N N c;O T N C G N j �% O) N tD f0 0 0 �D tp 10 t7 O O N Ix C pi 0 0 0 O O O p O Ir m m 'o C C O 0 0 O O w � ` w�nnoo Qom ad oow m o� WE w Hhhoo no o00 v�iM f L Ql OI O Q W m m w M r lh 0 0 0 O O N O O m N N N N N N N NN �- N N N �.r 1TI m L N N N N N N N m N m dO O N v v J m J W O ' 2 o o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z N tp d N N 0 N N O m d N r r O d N T ml It Q N v� N y p 0 Z p N O M N M m am Uow co O cn O O O OO +- j 06 p + O m ; 2 z F ao H N O m a a N o N o N a a m Q o N C N Z U LL 0 Y — m O c E co O v d d M N M C E O LO C II N r � C ± E E E c E U N w r O z _O F Q N Q N z z W oZ op a V ZG LL F o m cW G F N II U Y i W R N (O O O O Rq O N Ci N O (U J eD I� vi In IN I� IN O H C n n � _ E n O( cC (h LC?cl N N d o c�i oicco vim ti vi 000i E � m U W Y O O O O O N N N N O O W� J n O e N N O tp d N c0 e N u 7 N (G N N N O (O u + 1"� III F 3 m d n o o N O (C fVN CV O O IN E u J- W A N (O O O tG (G a (Cl?0 0 0 N N G G N O C fV 0 a x R C 0 0 0 O 0 C O O O O O O C O N 22 O O W m(nn oo m m e e, ooeo m o o c o 0 0 W JL (NO tNp � N N (NO ONi ' t0p > a cc Jv f � 01 N <O q d Il� In (O A N O N N m O Mimi IfI m E (D 00000 00 (no 000 O e N 0 0 (O O O N N O O N O O t N N N N N N N m N GD e N C F e J m moom aoo a w(n (o C (on o mm n n �j oo � 6 C; o 00 0 C; 0 000 J U W 0 O _ J N uupp V On n N U M w w 10ff d w O C G O G 0 6 O O C C G z� (NON. .2 N N cop li n a a d N N 7 N N CO y 00 + Z N ^O N m N� DO m p p + 000 0 U) O O W Z m Z H N 0 1-1-1-IQIFl o N o N a s m m f Paoli N C E U LL LL O E Z O � (A Y Q } W N IL O c 0lu- U 0 J LL a o Z T O« a U it Qmm 0]Q Q aavae� vvv N mmm.... its atu mmm ¢ U' (7 C7 an d an d d m U' C7 C7 c c c c c c c c c c c c W W W W W W 2¢¢ ¢ cr cc Ir 'o Q f N V Q O m N m m m m m n N d O n O H Ez a ¢ 0 o � E a° c ¢ og ao U w o m m m m m n N e w o n o F N N q-q m n O m 0 b m E m N N 1n N N N N N N N 0 U umi m CS 6 y n n e ci U o o c c o c c 6 c o o c o V N o N Od � F oe a a m 1Np � (V C C N C O O m m O O O 7 N N O Q+ N q N ^ N Ch N m 0 S a a m U O W N N N Q Vl N fA 00 Q- 0 0 0 ¢ N 0 0 U Q W U m ¢ + Q G c m E 0 O Q m m m Q Q ADD# 000 y ¢ C7 (7 C7 d 'm v m m m C7 C7 C7 C C C C C C C C C C C C m m m x x x x x x m m m ¢ cc 2 2 W W W W W W K cc Q 0 F O f _O m w O O � a O U O N d N N N N vi of e e e vi a m m < a 6 IF_ It Ol O O O d H N O O N E N N N N N N N N N N N N U `.9 `a a v n n vNi a u`i U c c c c c o c c c o 0 ^c a q O Cf Cf O O O N py' QN LL u� O N °z2� A N amoow N N N o0 4.000 R N 0 U w �g ¢ a 0 c a R G L O N O H O H L L N Sa LL LL O Z Y Q W o. C 0 F- LU J Q Z a Q m m m Q Q d C C C d 'O d 'O L 0 O O '00 V N co IV 010 N N N N N N 0- 0-0 C_ C_ C C C C C C C C_ C_ C_ W N N N% X %% X% N tC N W W W W W W cr Cc cr `o O m O N N N N O d N d N U q ID c; N O O O 6 O Q f O N V O W O E 2 m U 0 O y O N N N N O d N d N C- iJ O O f7 O C N A N N T IA T N T N N O T O !� d V N ro e9 m O (O aG of Oi Oi Oi tC Oi I� (G h tC OC U c Un m o 0 o m o N N In o ro E t0 h N IA N h N O I(1 O 1� !� U m n o e m 0 0 o o n U o o � o 0 o ci c 0 0 0 V N d N O O d Iz ' O N m � fV C C N G [O G t'� O !� Ol l7 d O O d O N N O U W + O H O q N7 w N = m m 0 0 0 O W N N y U 0 w a U U 00 0 N + + 0 a m a a o N o N o N a s m om a } Q D N <mco 000Q C C C Y d d O Ocli r' r• N N N Ix _ cli_O N co N N(z kv w (D00 N N N N N N 00(j Ix C C_ C C C _C C C C ❑ C_ C.ia_ X X X X X X t6 co o cr ir cc w w w w w w cc cc fr 0 r0 V O O M N O O O M Q �O N 10 N r V M In O O O N n v O O Q O w O M M M M M n l!1 V r O n N V N M 0 0 0 O et N O O O Q O C 'p O O O Go O N M UN 0 w V v M o 0 0 r v `q M o o to E o m N N w T In N 6 N 6 C O O Go O � fD M r tD w n 0 f0 m i[I co O) n to .M-� n G G 0 0 O G C O O O O U o M M It ao n o N m r M eo LQ ro ao It It n U o c o 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 a m tD N N N 00 M n a < Q CV N 0 0 N A N O =a amU❑w duo F y ❑ fn U 0 m + Q c rn c y C ca -0 .O O N O N O N l0 d C N co (6 a DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF Table RO-0—Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Values Land Use or Surface Characteristics Percentage Imperviousness Business: Commercial areas 95 Neighborhood areas 85 Residential: Single-family Multi -unit (detached) 60 Multi -unit (attached) 75 Half -acre lot or larger Apartments 80 Industrial: Light areas 80 Heavy areas 90 Parks, cemeteries 5 Playgrounds 10 Schools 50 Railroad yard areas 15 Undeveloped Areas: Historic flow analysis 2 Greenbelts, agricultural 2 Off -site flow analysis (when land use not defined) 45 Streets: Paved 100 Gravel (packed) 40 Drive and walks 90 Roofs 90 Lawns, sandy soil 0 Lawns, clayey soil 0 * See Figures RO-3 through RO-5 for percentage imperviousness. CA = KA + (1.31i 3 —1.44i z + 1.135i — 0.12) for CA >— 0, otherwise CA = 0 (RO-6) CCD = KCD + (0.858i3 — 0.786iz + 0.774i + 0.04) (RO-7) CB = (CA + CcD )12 2007-01 RO-9 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (b) For a Project Plan or Final Plan submittal, runoff coefficients based on the proposed land surface types must be used. Since the actual runoff coefficients may be different from those specified in Table RO-10, Table RO-11 lists coefficients for the different types of land surfaces. The runoff coefficient used for design must be based on the actual conditions of the proposed site. Table RO-10 Rational Method Minor Storm Runoff Coefficients for Zoning Classifications Description ofArea or Zoning - Coefficient R-F 03 U-E 0.3 L-M-In 0.55 R-L, N-C-L 0.6 M-M-N, N-C-M 0.65 N-0-B 0.7 Business: C-C-N, C-C-R, C-N, N-C, C-S 0.95 R-D-R, C-C, C-L 0.95 D, C 0.95 H-0 0.95 C-S 0.95 Industrial: E 0.85 1 0,95, Undeveloped: R-C, T 0.2 P-0-L 0.25 For guidance regarding zoning districts and classifications of such districts please refer to Article Four of the City Land Use Code, as amended. Table RO-11 Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis Character of Surface- RrrnoJJCoeffteient Streets, packing lots, drives: Asphalt 0.95 Concrete 0.95 Gravel 0.5 Roofs 0.95 Recycled asphalt 0.8 Lawns, sandy soil: Flat <2% 0.1 Average 2 to 7% 0.15 Steep >70/6 02 Lawns, heavy soil: Flat <2% 0.2 Average 2 to 7% 025 Sleep >7°/u 035 (4) A new Section 2.9 is added, to read as follows: 28 APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS Cs] No Text c 0 V c G u F c co (� 0 n c O w ai OJ2 I�p O c � Y J V 2� Un C_ yqj ^ N O J U' C ^ V Cl> N S 7 UG c w 0 (D d J ; cn a E = n z Oo ar Go o m a o co^ J f/1� O1 O t: G m Cl) > J _ w O O t C 013 lh I > J cwx 0 tO m a c mx m U cC J y co C N C J (/1 _ O«« O V LL [� } O N Q N n C � J O J v C t y o- O c lL w m _ o � m a z _ c c JZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 to v (D- LO to Lo Ln 0 0 0 rn O m 0 r 0 to }nO 64'££ 9 '13 'AUI 00'6£69'13 W18 0 6 :Ul - £9'8ti+0 BIS i I 0 a 0 M O J N � W O UI 00'££ 9 '13 'Aul I i L6'8£l513 TWE) Ilegn0 - 00'00+0 eiS o 0 0 m V Ih M LO N N N W N� d 0 N N N C_ 0 O N a E Z N E N m N C J O N N LL d 'o a m im a 0 A A it E E rm C/ L A3 'A A E L. 0 CO� c O O C U U 7 H C C m m co � � O N C C O �J2 W m �p 0 C Cii co c " K J V C 7 M fcn c y .-. N co C O V O O N J CL co (m co y m w O am m a c 0 ui m � E C7 ^ vo LO z xox m m o m a IT in c0� o 0 N co LLn _r C J _ W LO to o n V C m 0 M CCD > J ^ C W — m Lo n co � m w C C ^ J m � N V fD m 0C U U L J m co co C N ^ 0 CD 0 10 p 2 a E N o m m T C J O J d O c U 0 O m Y LL � � m W F O z m d c O � N J Z CD O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O aCD LO W) to LO to to 0 }np 0 Z :ul szvlro+� ins o , 0 0 rn 0 co 0 o 0 t Cl W N O ul 10 AL RON :u, 0 co J N w O J S ul 6S Ilegn so 0 0 r— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, . •..• 0 < R Cl) M NLn LO N LO W N W Worksheet for Harmony Cottages - South Swale Flow Element: Friction Method: Solve For: Triangular Channel Manning Formula Normal Depth - Input DataMENEM Roughness Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft Left Side Slope: 4.00 ft/ft (H:V) Right Side Slope: 4.00 ft/ft (H:V) Discharge: 10.90 Wis Normal Depth: 0.96 ft Flow Area: 3.67 ft' Wetted Perimeter: 7.90 ft Top Width: 7.66 ft Critical Depth: 0.86 ft Critical Slope: 0.01811 f ift Velocity: 2.97 fits Velocity Head: 0.14 ft Specific Energy: 1.09 ft Froude Number: 0.76 Flow Type: Subcritical Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft Length: 0.00 ft Number Of Steps: 0 Upstream Depth: 0.00 ft Profile Description: N/A Profile Headloss: 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity: 0.00 ft/s Upstream Velocity: 0.00 fits Normal Depth: 0.96 ft Critical Depth: 0.86 ft Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft Critical Slope: 0.01811 ft/ft South Swale Cross Section for Harmony Cottages - South Swale Flow Element: Triangular Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Sectiom ata, _ . .- _00 Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft Normal Depth: 0.96 ft Left Side Slope: 4.00 ft/ft (H:V) Right Side Slope: 4.00 ft/ft (H:V) Discharge: 10.90 ft3/s 026 ft 1. V:1 L]. K, Culvert Calculator Report Harmony Cottages Private 15" Culvert Solve For: Discharge Culvert Summary Allowable HW Elevation Computed Headwater Elevation Inlet Control HW Elev. Outlet Control HW Elev. 40.40 ft 40.40 ft 40.37 ft 40.40 ft Headwater Depth/Height Discharge Tailwater Elevation Control Type 1.12 4.90 cfs 38.50 ft Entrance Control Grades Upstream Invert Length 39.00 it 35.00 ft Downstream Invert Constructed Slope 38.50 ft 0.014286 ft/ft Hydraulic Profile Profile Slope Type Flow Regime Velocity Downstream S2 Steep Supercritical 6.81 ft/s Depth, Downstream Normal Depth Critical Depth Critical Slope 0.71 ft 0.69 ft 0.90 ft 0.006548 ft/ft Section Section Shape Circular Section MaterQbrrugated HDPE (Smooth Interior) Section Size 15 inch Number Sections 1 Mannings Coefficient Span Rise 0.012 1.25 ft 1.25 ft Outlet Control Properties Outlet Control HW Elev. Ke 40.40 ft 0.20 Upstream Velocity Head Entrance Loss 0.42 ft 0.08 ft Inlet Control Properties Inlet Control HW Elev. 40.37 ft Inlet Type Beveled ring, 33.7" bevels K 0.00180 M 2.50000 C 0.02430 Y 0.83000 Flow Control Area Full HDS 5 Chart HDS 5 Scale Equation Form N/A 1.2 ft' 3 B 1 Project Engineer: Interwest Consulting Group x:\...\drainage\design\15-inch culvert.cvm Interwest Consulting Group CulvertMaster v3.0 [3.0003j 04/13/16 07:03:23 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 II ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) II (isasea on hteguhatea entena Tor maximum Anowam s mow ueptn and Spreaa) Project: Harmony Cottages Inlet ID: On Grade 4' Concrete Sidewalk Culvert - J� ' TBACK TCROWN T. TMAx SBAcK W + Tx Street _ Crown Qw Qx/ Hcusa it S x a 9f mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) zing's Roughness Behind Curb of Curb at Gutter Flow Line ce from Curb Face to Street Crown Depression Width Transverse Slope Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition ig's Roughness for Street Section Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) er Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) er Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) er Depth with a Gutter Depression ,vable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) harge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx harge within the Gutter Section W (OT - Ox) harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Imum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread i Velocity Within the Gutter Section Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth xeticel Water Spread )reticel Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) or Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) 3retical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, tarred in Section Tx TN al Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TCROWN) harge within the Gutter Section W (Qd - Ox) harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) it Discharge for Major & Minor Storm r Velocity Within the Gutter Section Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d > 6-) Storm Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied) dltant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) Atant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) TBACK = 5.0 it SBACK = 0.0200 ft. ven. / ft. horiz nBACK = 0.0130 Hcun = 6.00 inches TCROWN= 24.0 ft a = 2.00 inches W = 2.00 ft Sx = 0.0200 ft. van. / ft. horiz So = 0.0050 ft. van. / ft. horiz nsTReer= Tw,x dw,x SW = y= d= Tx = Eo = Ox= Ow = OBACK - OT= V= V•d = TTN = Tx TN = F-o = QxT = Ox = Qw= ()BACK = Q= V= V'd = R= Qd = d= dCROWN = Minor Storm MajorStorm 14.01 18.0 6.001 6.00 0.1033 0.1033 3.36 4.32 5.36 6.32 12.0 16.0 0.451 0.350 2.8 5.9 2.3 3.2 00 0.0 k0 9.1 3.3 3.8 1.51 2.0 Mirror Storm Major Storm 16.7 16.7 14.7 14.7 0.378 0.378 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 7.6 7.6 3.6 3.6 1.8 1.8 1.00 1.00 7.6 7.6 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 a inches X = yes ft/ft inches inches ft cis cis cis cfs fps cfs cis cis cis cis fps cfs inches inches Minor Storm Major Storm lowable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of QT or Q. Q,m. =1 5.0 7.6 cfs STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak' STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak' 4' Curb Cut-OnGrade UD-Inlet_v2.14c.xls, Q-Allow 4/13/2016, 8:11 AM INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Project: Harmony Cottages Inlet ID: On Grade 4' Concrete Sidewalk Culvert Warning Lo (C)�' H-Curb H-Vert we W L. (G) Desi n Information (Input) MINOR MAJOR CDOT Type R Curb Opening Type of Inlet Type = 2.0 2.0 Local Depression(add0owl to continuous gutter depression'a'from'QA1oW) a,,,,= inches 1 1 Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = I Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) L, = It 4.00 4.00 Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q-Allow) W. = It N/A WA Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) CrG = WA WA Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) CC = 0.10 0.10 Street Hydraulics: OK - Q c maximum allowable from sheet' Allow MINOR MAJOR Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Sheet Q-Peak) Q. = 3.30 5.60 cfs 11.6 14.7it Water Spread Width T= Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) d = 4.8 5.5 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at T.wz) dceosw, = 0.0 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E, = 0.537 0.430 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. carried in Section T. Q. = cis 1.53 3.20 Discharge within the Gutter Section W Q.. = 1.77 2.41 cis Discharge Behind the Curb Face Qmcs = 0.00 0.00 its Street Flow Area A. = 1.52 2.32 sq It Street Flow Velocity V. = 2.18 2.41 fps 6.8 7.5 Water Depth for Design Condition drop,v = inches Grate Analysis Calculated MINOR MAJOR Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = fl Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow E,aa,s,e = Under No -Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V. = fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr = Interception Rate of Side Flow R, _ Interception Capacity Q, = its Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClog = Effective (undogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet L. = fl Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V, = fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr= Interception Rate of Side Flow R. _ Actual Interception Capacity Q. = WA WA eta Carry -Over Flow = Q,-% (to be applied to curb opening or mud d/s inlet) % .1 WA cfa Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis Calculated MINOR MAJOR Equivalent Slope S. (based on grate carryover) S. =1 0.10951 0.0917 fl/It Required Length L, to Hasa 100% Interception L, = 9.111 12.66 It Under No -Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, L,) L=1 4.001 4.00 It Interception Capacity O, =1 2.131 2.77 cis Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef = 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0.10 0.10 Effective (Unclogged) Length L. = 3.60 3.60 It Actual Interception Capacity Q. = 1.97 2.53 cfs Carry -Over Flow = QMr TEI-q, Qe = 1.33 3.07 cis Surnman, MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity 0.1 1.97 2.53 cis Total Inlet Carty -Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet) Qn = 1.34 3.07 cis Capture Percentage = Q./Q. = C%= 59.6 45.3 X Warning 3: CDOT Type R unit length should be a multiple of 5'. 4' Curb Cut-OnGrade LID-Inlet_v2.14c.)ds, Inlet On Grade 4113/2016, 8:12 AM ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Harmony Cottages Inlet ID: 4' Concrete Sidewalk Culvert In Sump TRACK TCROWN T, TrAT SancK W � Tx , Street _ QzCrown Y Qw / -� HCURB d 5 , a 0�il num Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) ring's Roughness Behind Curb of Curb at Gutter Flow Line m from Curb Face to Street Crown Depression Transverse Slope Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition xj s Roughness for Street Section Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) er Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) er Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) er Depth with a Gutter Depression Noble Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) er Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) ,barge outside the Gutter Section W, carded in Section Tx .harge within the Gutter Section W (OT- Qx) barge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Imum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread r Velocity Within the Gutter Section Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth tretical Water Spread rretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) or Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) )retical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx TN al Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TCROWN) barge within the Gutter Section W (Od - Qx) barge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) it Discharge for Major & Minor Storm r Velocity Within the Gutter Section Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (d ? 6") Storm Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied) iltant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) illont Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) TaACK = 12 n SeACK = 0.0200 ft. veil. / ft. horiz nBACK = 0.0130 Hcma = 6.00 inches TCROWN = 24.0 ft a = 2.00 inches W = 2.00 ft Sx = 0.0200 ft. vert. / ft. horiz So = 0.0000 ft. vert. / ft. horiz Sw= y= d= Tx = E. = Ox= Qw= QBACK = Or V= V•d = TTM = Tx rN = Eo = oxT = Qx = Ow = ABACK = Q= V= V'd = R= Od = d= deROWN = Minor Storm Major Storm 14.0 18.0 6.00 6.00 0.1033 0.1033 3.36 4.32 5.36 6.32 12.0 16.0 0.451 0.350 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SUMP SUMP 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 Misr Storm Major Storm 16.7 16.7 14.7 14.7 0.378 0.378 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SUMP SUMP SUMP SUMP ft inches X=yes ft/ft inches inches 8 cfs cts ds cis fps ft ft J cis cis cis cis cis fps do inches inches Minor Storm MajorStorm towable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Q. or Q„ Q.W. =I SUMPI SUMP cfs STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than Flow given on sheet'O-Peak' STORM max. allowable capacity OK - Creator than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak' 4' Curb Cut -Sump UD-Inle1_v2.14c.xls, Q-Allow - 4/13/2016, 8:13 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Project a Harmony Cottages - Inlet ID a 4' Concrete Sidewalk Culvert In Sump Lo (C) H-Curb H-Vert wa NN La lG) Warning of Inlet Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from'Q-AIIoW) oer of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) r Information Ih of a Unit Grate i of a Unit Grate Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.1".90) ling Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) i Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) Opening Information Ih of a Unit Curb Opening it of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches it of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches t of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) ling Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) Coefficient for Multiple Units Factor for Multiple Units s as a Weir Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 1.64 cis curb) Row Used for Combination Inlets Only Depth at Loral Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 1.64 cfs curb) Row Used for Combination Inlets Only s as an Orifice Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 1.64 cis curb) Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 1.64 cfs curb) Itina Gutter Flow Death Outside of Local Deomssion ling Coefficient for Multiple Units ling Factor for Multiple Units as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice Depth at Local Depreuion without Clogging (0 cis grate, 1.64 cis curb) Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 1.64 cis curb) as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 1.64 cis curb) Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate, 1.64 cfs curb) Iting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression Inlet Length Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from Q-Peek) Itant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) Itant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) Item Flow Depth at Street Crown Warning 2: Dimension entered is not a typical dimension for inlet type specified. MINOR MAJOR Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening ate=1 2.001 2.00 inches No =1 1 I 1 MINOR MAJOR Le (G) _ Wo= CG (G) _ C. (G) _ C. (G) _ WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA L. (C) = Hwn = H� = Theta = W. = C,(C)= C. (C) = 4.00 4. 5.00 5. 4.95 4. 63.4 C 2.00 2. 0.10 0. 2.30 2. MINOR MAJOR Coef = WA WA Clog =1 WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA feet feet inches inches inches inches d„ = WA inches inches WA N/ ,=I WA WA Inches MINOR MAJOR Coat = 1.00 1.00 Clog =1 0.101 0.10 MINOR MAJOR d„ -1 2.481 4.16 inches d„ = 2.571 4.31 inches MINOR MAJOR da -1 2.621 4.16 inches it-= 2.721 4.61 inches 0.721 2.61 Inches MINOR MAJOR L = 4.0 4.0 feet Q. = 1.6 3.6 cis d= 0.72 2.61 inches T = 0.6 2.5 feet 4' Curb Cut -Sump UD-Inlet_v2.14c.xls, Inlet In Sump 4/1312016, 8:13 AM o e o d o. 0) r Y c .0 O = U l � al co ,� NLo cc 3 c ° U ' CL P _ Cn Q 7 p E a O ° 3 C x E w cn (5 ;EE 0 ° L al > c Y itm m y N (D a N O 7 CD O O r ci C N 3 0 -O QY c N u N o0 0 � c° UQ U ° y 0 o aa) °O o cL o L-� 3� o 0 a Wpo C a>� D 3 N m a>i d 0 ooiooioi wCO vni .�. .0 0 . V L _-tm co L 0 3 o yU�.E C� o 7 n u n O>> n n J J W O m CoNY cz —QOj N N H zj ; > 30� cz c>c>a — €Q O o u u u d co Qo ° a� �D O F. A ZZQw o U2 J 3--�' CO= a d 'o o� U)e`o Uco Q., ° w � d c m (7 oa U p pa F � UL n 3 of to w L OwaU�A w a Hoi� i /.19 w 01 INJkec STORMWATER DETENTION POND ANALYSIS 0 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins,100-Yr Storm - OLD rainfall) LOCATION: Harmony Cottages PROJECT NO: 1255-028-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: 12/5/2015 100 yr storm, Cf = 1.25 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRY OVER TOTAL REMARKS Des. Point Area Design. A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (in/hr) Q (100) (cfs) from Design Point Q (100) (cfs) Q(I OO)tot (cfs) 1 site 4.45 1.00 5.00 9.00 40.05 40.1 Allowable release under old reainfall conditions Q=CiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from OLD City of Fort Collins IDF curve A = drainage area (acres) Old LIT of Fo9:-r Cot.t.t KJ5 INTZ OLA= VMjms n a 100 yEM nrMj,:TISS Tc Value IS. 00 9.0 %/--- - 5.10 9.0 5.20 8.9 5.30 8,9 5.40 8.9 5.50 8.8 S.60 '8.8 5.70_ 8.7 5.30 8.7 5.90 8.7 6.00 8.6 6.10 8.6 6.20 8.6 6.30 8.5 6.40 8.5 6.50 8a5 "5.60: 9.4 7700 8.4 6.80 8.4 6.90 8.3 7.00 8.3 7.10 8.2 7.20 8.2 7.30 8.2 7.40 8.1 7.50 8.1 7.60 8.1 7.70 8.0 7.80 t 8+60 7.90 8.0� 8.00 7.9 8.10 r 7.9 8.20 8.30 7.8 ;f 7.8 8.40 7.8 .8.50 7.7 8.60 7.7 8.70 -7w7 8.80 "7.6 8.90 7.6 9.00 7.6 9.10 7.5 9.20 7.5 9.30 7.5 9.40 7.4 9.50 7.4 9.60 7.3 9.70 7.3 9.60 7.3 9.90 7.2 10.00 7.2 DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method 100-Year Event LOCATION: Harmony Cottages PROJECT NO: 1255-028-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: 12/5/15 Equations: Area trib. to pond = 4.45 acre Developed flow = Qp = CIA C (100) = 0.70 Vol. In = Vi = T C I A = T Qp Developed C A = 3.1 acre - site only Vol. Out = Vo =K QPo T Release rate, QPo = 40.1 cfs storage = S = Vi - Vo K = 0.9 (from fig 2.1) Rainfall intensity from City of Fort Collins IDF Curve with updated (3.67") rainfall Storm Duration, T (min) Rainfall Intensity, I (in/hr) Qp (cfs) Vol. In Vi (ft) Vol. Out Vo (ft) Storage S (ft) Storage S (ac-ft) 5 9.95 31.0 9298 10814 -1515 -0.03 10 7.77 24.2 14515 21627 -7112 -0.16 20 5.62 17.5 21010 43254 -22244 -0.51 30 4.47 13.9 25054 64881 -39827 -0.91 40 3.74 11.6 27960 86508 -58548 -1.34 50 3.23 10.1 30220 108135 -77915 -1.79 60 2.86 8.9 32069 129762 -97693 -2.24 70 2.57 8.0 33634 151389 -117755 -2.70 80 2.34 7.3 34993 173016 -138023 -3.17 90 2.15 6.7 36195 194643 -158448 -3.64 100 1.99 6.2 37273 216270 -178997 -4.11 110 1.86 5.8 38251 237897 -199646 -4.58 120 1.75 5.4 39148 259524 -220376 -5.06 130 1.65 5.1 39977 281151 -241174 -5.54 140 1.56 4.9 40747 302778 -262031 -6.02 150 1.48 4.6 41467 324405 -282938 -6.50 160 1.41 4.4 42144 346032 -303888 -6.98 170 1.35 4.2 42783 367659 -324876 -7.46 180 1.29 4.0 43388 389286 -345898 -7.94 Required Storage Volume: -1515 ft3 -0.03 acre-ft APPENDIX E WATER QUALITY AND LID INFORMATION E Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: sb Company: Interwest Consulting Group Date: January 19, 2016 Project: Harmony Cottages Location: Basin A 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I, I, = 50.0 (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = 1e/100) i = 0.500 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.17 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8 , (0.91' i3- 1.19 " i3+ 0.78' i)1 D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 77,160 sq it E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume Vwocv = 1,061--1 cu 1t Vol = (WQCV / 12) " Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of dg = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VwooV OTHER cu it Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VwocV USER = cu it (Only 0 a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum) Dwocv= 12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., honz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area A.. F it = sq D) Actual Flat Surface Area A�= 725 sq it E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) AT, = 1400 sq it F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 1,063 cu it (Vr- ((AT. + Ab,=J / 2) ' Depth) . 3. Growing Media Choose One O 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Q Other (Explain): Standard City of Fort Collins Spec Choose One 0 YES O NO 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided? B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol,3=cu it iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum Do = _ N/A in Rain Garden Basin A.xls, RG 1/19/2016, 6:48 PM Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: sb Company: Interwest Consulting Group Date: January 19, 2016 Project: Harmony Cottages Location: Basin A 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? Choose one — Q YES QQ NO . 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control Choose One I Q Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required I Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation ProNded 7. Vegetation Choose One Q Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) (] Plantings Q Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Choose One Q YES Q NO Notes: Rain Garden Basin A.xls, RG 1/19/2016, 6:48 PM n Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: sb Company: west Consulting Group Date: ary 19, 2016 Project: ony CottagesLocation: i n B 1. Basin Storage Volume - A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I, 1, = 50.0 (100 % if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = 1./100) 1= 0�500 j C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = j. _. 0.17 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8. (0.91' is - 1.19' i2+ 0.78 ' i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 124,007 sq tt E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VwOGv =[ 1,705 7 cu tt Vol =(WQCV/12)'Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of dr = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Vwocv OTHER =(p�� cu It Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume Vwocv USER = cu ff (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum) Dwxv= 12 in ` B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. disc per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ft / ft (Use "0' if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area Aw„ = 1137 sq ff D) Actual Flat Surface Area AAe„ y = 1465 sq it E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) AT,o = 2567 sq tt F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 2,016 cu ff (VT= ((Arm + AAd.� / 2) ' Depth) 3. Growing Media Choose One 0 18" Rain Garden Growing Media Other (Explain): Standard City of Fort Collins Spec 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrams provided? Choose One 0 YES ' 0 NO B) Underdram system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol„=f N/A cu It iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8' Minimum DO = N/A in Rain Garden Basin B.xls, RG 1/19/2016, 6:49 PM Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: sb Company: Interwest Consulting Group Date: January 19, 2016 Project: Harmony Cottages Location: Basin B 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? Choose one — Q YES QQ NO 6. Inlet / Outlet Control A) Inlet Control choose one - Q Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required Q Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided 7. Vegetation Choose One Q Seed (Plan for frequent weed control) Q Plantings 1 Q Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod 8. Irrigation A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Choose One — Q YES Q NO Notes: Rain Garden Basin B.xls, RG 1/19/2016, 6:49 PM Harmony Cottages LID Table 75% On -Site Treatment by LID Requirement New Impervious Area 110,940 sq. ft. Required Minimum Impervious Area to be Treated 83,205 sq. ft. Area Treated by Rain Garden A 35,370 sq. ft._ Area Treated by Rain Garden B 66,650 sq. ft. Total Impervious Area Treated 102,020 sq. ft. Actual % On -Site Treated by LID 92 % ------------- �` ` _ — _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o ExtrTYf[RYaEr II I.I I. � ••''' J �tri :: .f �� r N a I e •. c o -1Ov II I l __—__ 1^ - (��-`J�_.�- •ux OAlmt� `� \4��`- - aa`Qe \ o = =NN o II i I `—__1' 1 I 1 L J •¢ •B s. ` \\ �\ ``�`�� C \'\\�� Of a N Z II I I I LL a °Oa , - i �I jj� �j�jjj�ji'' j�� /i� %/% W50 MOO � ' 'I � 1 % •� ,.////// ram„ � er 6 / i' r j � �� 1 � . � j �� r�� / �j ✓✓✓j/�/ / � rrn�,lrrrrr % r��ri.*/ vloo 0 oj�o oo or WIN PER, 801, 0f[%i - - ,yy�. NmltfonY metaQes n tst. In Z J °n ¢ ¢ z O G W 1 m n O U LEGEND 75560n•Slle7reatment UDRQ Nmam Nawlr"Nina Ana 130940 sq. tl. ReaaradWramu lmpaMWl AreambQ Tmatid HIM is ft. Arta7rtaCdby Rain G=danA 35.37D sq. ft. Arta7reaefdby Rain GWdtnB 66650 sq. ft. I IlmpGrVl sArea7Matatl 102020 sa IL I%OlSila Treatid UD 92% ® By NAN GARDENATRF?.TED (3 RMNGARDENA 135.310 SF. 92%OF TOTAL IMP. ARFAI IW RWIN IGAIDEFA TREATED BV RAIN GARDEN 166.6505F.6p96OF TOTAL IMP AREAI CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 811 LALL 2-BU504ESS DAYS IN ADVANCE 30 O 15 60 BEFORE YW DIG. GRADE. M EXCAVATE FOR THE MAKING OF UNDERGROUND SCALE: P• = 60' MEMBER Ji UWS, PROJ. NO. f 266O28O0I 1 APPENDIX F EXCERPTS FROM REFERENCE REPORTS MAIL CREEK BASIN MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL APPENDIX PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 PREPARED BY: Sear -Brown 209 South Meldram Fort Collins, CO 80521 April 2.2, 2002 F.. i 6 - Q j IJ if W, i -31 _PK SO U . 4t I ILI Ill, IT, A I it �li n C4• UY l 00fil 1 9U Vol 1i 01 17� if All x ite ItIrl CC) Tly 14 42 L'" Ile' �Tp !Lpi It el, if I ;4 Nil Wtill jl� 1. Jy, rI ILI �iyJ rye ® : J-11.11; N- Al Titot j T., T: 4 At 1-1 1 -1, :)1 - IT 14- IMP 'r rn Wo flit jol civiii, 411i Writ Ir r PQF lit I k it I. 4,C ' J al i��.� w1p)�� - ��\��r�� it .140P A lit, 'l,, 4'- Iu I lip r. Nike r,N) a i3l`fIc I �1 I w1h ig. to ke 49 "rill d w li, c—II .1 I:J III.P, "got. TI; ... ........ C I ,6 Wansem TH awn40 �T Iit 0 16 ER E3P Is \.. '-gyp ... 17 ®' .f " ®B 60 ® �.. �.. ® H; n® 8 66 1 j e 17 Es 13 e� 7 I O®� ® 5 ® p 1. B ®I / —. r—... �^ ..._ .. _... —..._ 6. R ® (g 1 90 saKw ti �p...o 'p , (t pf4� 5 C 0 750 1500 wooCHY OF FORT COLLINS 1225 17TH STREET MAIL. CREED BASIN SCALE IN FEET SUITE .200 SUB -BASIN DIAGRAM DENVER, CO 80202 FIGURE E-2 Tel:303-293-8080, Fax:303-299-8711 , ...„ wrz ssum: v/a/ot " Fpp� 011� f xo�¢uair. n�rt �i 9ar�o. i a i a¢is 3 4 - /vtN� 1�c-+s,,'n WATERSHED Manhattan Pond Final Design (176cfa Tailwater) - MAIL CREEK BASIN, 100-YEAR STORM, DEVELOPED CONDITIONS-2002 REVISED 31, March, 2005 ICON ENGINEERING 1 1000 000 5. 1 1. .1 24 5. 1.0 1.14 1.33 2.23 2.84 5.40 9.95 4.12 2.46 1.46 1 ^7 1,06 1.0 .95 Al .87 .84 ,.81 .78 .15 .71 .69 .67 Prepared for: City of Fort Collins SWM4 developed condition, existing facilities, 100cyr recurrence interval � r -2 016 .250 .1 .3 .51 .5 .0018 1 51 104309. 87.1 30.7 .O 1 151 1506675.58.23 30.0 .023 1 52 113717. 38.4 17.0 .064 1 53 2113630. 35.0 24.5 .032 1 153 1526377.46.85 35.0 .014 1 54 142895. 18.6 95.0 .040 1 55 2612150., 12.6 95.0 .016 1 56 567665. 93.3 95.0 .016 1 57 571908. 12.7 95.0.0088 1 120 1204538. 37.5 95.0.0688 1 121 1216757.. 60.5 95.0.0088 1 122 1222659. 17.7 95.0.0088 1 58 1112242. 29.3 28.9 .032 1 59 161214. 9.2 30.0.0134 1 159 331725. 6.3 83.3 .01 1 60 357608. 57.6 35.0 .016 1 61 422308. 19.6 30.0 .016 1 62 386572. 47.4 37.6 .016 1 162 3622465. 27.2 42.0 .015 1 163 3791498. 4.29 80.0 .010 1 401 3671863. 0:63100.0 .015 1 63 9002763. 18.2 95.6 .010 1 165 3654581. 29.4 37.0 .016 1 166 3664325. 27.6 47.8 .01 1 167 3673647. 17.6 37.0 .01 1 168 3681188. 6.0 95.0 .61 1 169 3681836. 1.3100.0 .02 1 170 3703640. 33.4 36.5 .01 1 171 3712315. 23.4 47.8 .01 1 172 3722304. 4.2 72.4 .01 1 173 3734663. 36.4 32.0 .01 1 164 3642093. 23.565.3 .01 ' 402 4122594.. 9.43 80.0 .01 403 4321241. 6.76100.0 .015 65 2103960. 20.0 37.6 .064 1 67 367462. 39.4 36.0.6088 ' 1 68 326758. 54.3 32.0 .016 1 69 3182756. 8.9 49.8 .611 1 70 2543289. 15.1 53.9 .016 1 71 181536. 5.3 36.7.0143 1 72 6015055. 44.1 60.0 .020 1 801 139 997. 8.7 5.0 .020 1 73 -29290E-. 20.0 35.0 .035 1 74 27 543. A-0 35.0.0164 1 75 255341. 51.5 45.3.0134 1 175 243143. 10.2 50.0 .015 1 76 2214804. 3.8.6 38.0 .016 1 176 374011. 13.853.5 .019 1 77 4�41780. 16.3 35.0 .012 1 177 462643. 16.4 38.0 .02 1 78 4910616 65.8 25.0 .016 WESTFIELD PARK 1 178 481276. 15.5 25.0 .035 1 79 395615. 36.1 35.0 .019 1 179 2803390_ 23.4 50.6 .020 1 80 314208. 19.3 35.0 .032 1 186 263004. 13.8 35.0 .032 1 81 2042482. 24.5 30.0 .016 1 181 2033570. 16.4 '36.0 .016 1 182 2063144. 15.9 35.0 .M 1 82 2013022..33.3 59.9.0091 DIVIDE BASIN 83 TO REFLECT FLOW TO POND 631 1 83 3477115. 29.4 35.0 .02 1 631 8311711. 5.5 35.0 .62 1 84 843065. 24.6 38.0.0072 1. 85 1852138. 17.2 38.0 .016 1 86 345330. 30.6 40.0 .032 1 87 2871938. 34.5��23.0�0 .02 89 40154 11283. 5.9 219S.U1.032 A 1 100 514243. 26.3 38.0 .012 -�--- """"�TTT'""""'---"�---� 90 288 788. 7.8 23.0 .020 189 3873647.. 25.1 35.0 .013 0 1 1 62 10 1 0 1 10.0 3400. .011 4.0 4.0 .044 12.0 150 10 0 1 48.0 1850. .015 50.0- 50.0 .020 5.0 11 10 0 1 10.0 1900. .013 2.5 2.5 .060 16.6 12 210 0 1 10.0 1000. .011 2.0 2.0 .060 12.0 FINAL DRAINAGE AND . EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE FOURTH FILING PHASE ONE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO June 14, 1995 Prepared for: Woodcraft Homes 3665 JFK Parkway Building 1, Suite 300 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-3153 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-5922 RBD Job No. 43"11 C7._U FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE FOURTH FILING PHASE ONE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO I, GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The Overlook at Woodridge Fourth Filing P.U.D..is bounded by Taft Hill Road (County Road 19) on the west, Imperial Estates on the north, future Harmony Road and The Gates Fourth Filing to the east, and by the Overlook Third Filing on the south. 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 I in the Appendix. . B. Description of Property The Fourth Filing of the Overlook at Woodridge contains approximately 32.8 acres, more or less. Presently, the property is undeveloped. The property is r being .proposed for planned unit development within the City of Fort Collins Zoning District and will be developed consistent with the Overlook Fist through Third Filings at Woodridge. Native grasses presently cover the property. The Y' topography of the site generally slopes from west to east at approximately 1.5 percent. II. DRAINAGE BASINS A. Major Basin Description The majority of the proposed development lies within Basin 80 (see SWMM portion of Appendix) of the McClellands and Mail Creek Major Drainageway Plan prepared by Cornell Consulting Company. A natural drainageway runs front west to east along the southern edge of the project boundary within Basin 80.. Runoff from Basin 80 is routed by open channels and culverts along the northern boundary of the Gates First, Second and Third Filings, along the north side of Seneca Street past Webber Junior High School, and then along the east side of r r- Regency Drive to the existing Regional Detention Pond. This development will. also include improvements to a portion of the existing Taft Hill Road, .although. these off -site improvements are not seeking Phase One approval. B. Sub -basin Description The Overlook Fourth Filing has been divided into 15 sub -basins. Fourteen (14) of these basins will drain to Basin 80 of the McClellands and Mail Creek Master Plan, while the .remaining Basin 0-2 drains into the historic Basin 77 of the McClellands and Mail Creek_ Master Plan. Except for the off-street portions of Basins 1 and 2A, all 15 basins will be developed consisting of proposed } residential housing and street improvements, including improvements to Taft Hill Road and to Harmony Road. Basins 1 and 2A will be developed as.neighborhood # commercial sites at a.later time. These sub -basins are shown on the Drainage an Erosion Control Plan in the back pocket of this report. . C: SWMM Revisions The portion of the City of Fort Collins' SWMM model for a 100-year storm event within the Mail Creek Basin —tributary to Seneca Street (conveyance element 24)--was updated to reflect field conditions, phasing, and proposed storm drainage - system modifications. r, Basins 75, 77 through 80, :86, 115, 176, 179, and 186 were added or updated to account for the presently developed Woodridge subdivisions (Overlook and Gates First through Third Filings) and the proposed Overlook Fourth Filing Phase One subdivision. Conveyance elements 23, 26, 31, 34, 37, 44, 47, 49, and 230 were also added or updated to be consistent with present and proposed conditions. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the subject site. B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The 1990 Preliminary Drainage Report for Webber Junior High School states that the channel and culvert system along the north side of Seneca Street and the east side of Regency Drive was sized for undetained off -site 100 year developed runoff from Basins 79, 80, and 85. Recent SWMM analysis for Basins 79 and $0, 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 The proposed drainage, erosion control, and grading plans are included in the back pocket of this report. B. Specific Details The Overlook at Woodridge has been broken down into 15 sub -basins. The sub - basin designations correspond to the basin designations of the Preliminary/Master Drainage Study for the Woodridge development. Specific details of off -site basins will be addressed again in the final report for the entire Overlook Fourth Filing development. Runoff from sub -basins 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 12, and 13 will be conveyed '. easterly towards Harmony Road by a combination of butter flows and a storm Inlets at the low point of Harmony Road (D.P. 1.20 and D.P. 130) intercept the remaining street flow from the above basins, as well as remaining street flow from the Overlook and Gates Third Filings. The storm drains will daylight in the regional channel downstream of -the Harmony Roa , crossing. To complete the storm drain design from the Overlook Third Filing Final. Drainage and Erosion Control Study, a curb inlet will be constructed within the Third Filing ar the northwest corner of the Harmony Road and Silvergate Road intersection. A curb inlet will be required..at this point (D.P. 11) as curb and gutter flows exceed City criteria. Third Filing storm drain flows will be piped from this inlet across Harmony Road to the regional channel. Runoff from sub -basins 4A, 4B, and 4C will be Conveyed to the regional channel by a combination of gutter flows and a short storm drain system (using 21- and 30-inch pipe). This storm drain will daylight in the regional. channel immediately upstream of the Harmony Road crossing (D.P, 55): Runoff from sub -basins 5A, 5B, and 5C is primarily generated within the most upstream portion of the regional channel itself and flows eastward along the channel alignment. Runoff is combined with flows from sub -basins 4A, 4B, and 4C at D.P. 55. Storm water runoff collected in the regional channel will be directed easterly to the two existing 42-inch culverts immediately north of Seneca Street. From that point, flows travel via open channels and additional 42-inch culverts to the Regional Detention Pond at Wake Robin Lane and Regency Drive. Two swales along the south edge of the Overlook Fourth Filing site allow sidewalk access to the pedestrian walkway system within the regional drainage 4 r-_r7 No Text S V' -6Y2 &&at YY qY YI P Nub YN bb,b L,i�o L. 6i. 7iE { E '�'•3+ ��+ bb Ic (. � b 6i V L' a Si�S S:i. b +tibia cc&go Ica fb, f E b.'-+. M cii lm B G s:' 5 fz% -----------------------------------------=-- UDINLET:"INLET HYDARULICS AND, SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF POL0RADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD `------------------ 'OSER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO ----------- ON DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 12:18:27 *** PROJECT TITLE: Overlook 14 2-year *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: (ram N'rick 0A INLET ID NUMBER: 10 l I �1�00�Y' r d INLET HYDRAULICS*. ON A GRADE. rL GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15..00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 16.78 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.98 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.95 STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.66 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)-- 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS. - WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 13.56 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.44 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.53 FLOW CROSS SECTION.AREA (sq ft)= 2.01 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR I(%)=. 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR($)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 5.01 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD': DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 5.10 -4-ciLz, FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.83 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.27 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=. 5.10 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.51 CARRY-OVER FLOW (Cfs) 0.59 ------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD 7SER061KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC.FT. COLLINS COLORADO ............................ .. )N DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 12:18:59 *** PROJECT TITLE: Overlook #4 100-year 13/ **# CURB OPENING -INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZINGt' INLET ID NUMBER: 10 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 36.06 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY m 0.62 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.57 STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.60 STREET CROSS SLOPE M 2.00 STREET MANNING N 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.0.0 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.06' STREET FLAW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET '(ft) = 23.50 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.64 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.4.0 FLAW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq,ft)= 5.69 GRATE CLOGGING 'FACTOR ($)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY .(cfS)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN.FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLAW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLAW 12.09 (cfs)= (cfs)= (cfs),= (cfs) _ (cfs) (cis)= 19.50 11.12 8.38 19.50 10.88 8.62 n l y/ ------------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDRAULICS AND'SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND,UD&FCD -------------------------------- isER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO ............................. IN DATE 05.-26-1994 AT TIME 13:18:44 :** PROJECT TITLE: Overlook 14.2-year *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS.AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 21 INLET HYDRAULICS ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M STREET CROSS SLOPE M STREET MANNING N a' GUTTER 'DEPRESSION (inch)= GUTTER WIDTH ls,. 00 25.52 0.80 0.74 0.60 2.00 0..016 2.00 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 18.44 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) - 0.54 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2..96 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 3.57 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR ($)= 50.'00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (CfS)= 8.37 (cfs)= 10.50 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED (CfS)= 7.79 CARRY-OVER FLOW (CfS)¢ 2.71 c... BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 10.50 FLOW INTERCEPTED (CfS)= 7.53 CARRY-OVER FLAW (CfS)= 2.97 ------------------------------=------------- ----------------------------=------ �. UDINLET: INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL EKG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER I,,. SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD---------------- -- 'TSER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO ................................ I)K DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 13:19:09 �.fa PROJECT TITLE:. Overlook #4 loo=year *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING" - INLET ID NUMBER: 21 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= -59.26 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.41 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.37 STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.60. STREET CROSS SLOPE ($) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)'= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) 33.63 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft).= 0.84 FLOW VELOCITY ON STI(EET (fps).= 4.24 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 11.47 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR ($)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR($)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 19.98 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLAW (cfs)=. FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (Cfs)= FLAW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 48.90 18.20. 30.70, 48.90 17.99 30.91 r• )2 Road V� - ...--------- UDINLET: STREET FLOW ANALYSIS DEVELOPED BY DR JANES GUO, CIVIL EKG DEPT, U.OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES A31D UDSFCD ..... SER:KEVIN GINGERY -ROB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................. N DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 13:37.39 / Pew *► STREET GUTTER HYDRAULICS iiry GIVEN GUTTER GEOMETRIES: LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) 0.60 CROSS SLOPE (%) _ 2.00 DEPRESSION AT GUTTER (inch) = 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (feet)= 2.00 STREET HANNING ROUGHNESS N ` 0.016 STREET UNDER THE GIVEN FLOW: PEAK RUNOFF FLOW RATE (cfs)= 0.60 FLOW CARRIED BY GUTTER (cfs)= 0.58 FLOW CARRIED BY STREET (cfs)= 0.02 WATER SPREAD ON'STREET (ft) - 3.71 GLITTER FLOW DEPTH (in) = 2.89 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY (fps)= 1.97 UDINLET: STREET FLOW ANALYSIS DEVELOPED BY DR JAMES GUO, CIVIL ERG DEPT, U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES.ANO UDSFCD .__...-- )SER:R'EY1N GINGERY-00 INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO.........;..................... DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 13:37:52 STREET GUTTER HYDRAULICS GIVEN GUTTER GEOMETRIES: LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (X) _ 0.60 ' CROSS SLOPE (X) _ 2.00 .DEPRESSION AT GLITTER (inch)- 2.00 GLITTER WIDTH (feet). 2.00 STREET !LAMMING ROUGHNESS N = 0.016 ID � A-+ I f'16-E- --14Zr STREET UNDER THE GIVEN FLOW: ' PEAK RUNOFF FLOW RATE (cfs)= 10.50 .' FLOW CARRIED BY GUTTER (cfs)= 3.59 FLOW CARRIED BY STREET (cfs)= 6.92 WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 1&0 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (in) = (fps)= 6.42 2.96 k AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY �w d�o(_ �` r u! :EOric Engineering Consultants A CUEM JOeHO. y3 -0 �l FAOJECT QSX="'I +++D��5� ,,L,�I� � 1 CAUDRATMSFOR , MADE 9Y �DAT� ED9Y DATE SNEETLL-:�-OF APPENDIX G SOIL REPORT AND ' FEMA INFORMATION G 3 J f^ J) � z_ ),»sa ( \ \ \\ k / ƒa § �] !m ) J ) m ) § � 2 ! 7 �) $ § �t ; 7 \ � � ■k ) �i (C / k/ ; zQ £G a ( § m O O O O- C c d y O O a0 N C N N A 0 >O �Op U N ou A m m IA Q O m N m O C a) c 0 0 0 n 0 0 Z l0 y 0 aOi cmit0'�y E ins d'vAE !� cmi c�i —csE n O'° N= c° �5A� a) V r 0 0 0 �i —°d O Z E y C U nm m �O 0 N m `: N L £ H � m o� m E N a 0 d yyY nM c Q O a) A E m en d of m N ° H� L d U N O U E A Q 3 y p C E 0 N E n m C 3 a y N - C Z ' A A 0 V L Q N O Q m m .a mn�m E U N w N 7 Q 0ntd rn d N Q0. N a g � � E m �i AO , n° .0 d o (D � �y 0 m o� Q O 0 0 O m m O c oLo mN 7 m 0 m r c m i j N O m d d LL T N > .0 A L c O 03d m mdc°m 'O o° m ; E o O, U n 0 a L ETmd .0 E d m ° m m n� en 0 m- tv d n E O c C C m° o m L N m (n a) m _ Z o n o° E E 'gym v 0) y m 0 )m/1 m a m E Q O ° T �tvd n m� od °m dQo a;y m �� m o 3 0 yn£A LyCN Ln E ow m. 4) m°m> m m ZEE yo °M c `m rn °w°m m E EL £ T2 3: waa) rnd men 0 ° orndc cF- � o m m Q� E 0 o Z o c aci TE m �co 2! � 3 m y C � T d C C L C y L H Of E L� c m m N d U 7 O O c E c m'vo O O a) Q) ' c v' o m Z Q n a) m o L O m C E m m C E r y N V V) =0 y U C l0 O O. N m 0 �m v r ._ n EEmE d L m m0$n C m@ .O mm a) d 0�0 O m 0 CL (D0i m O m A> .0 N _Z O O O `o m� m p L O ,�- I- w E O.m a E to�U Mm o.'vQ O t-Z (nV) V) oN H u E o N m mm m rytC O V C mq m L � @ � O m E m o o (r a 0 0 m m A m 0 z° U) A `o � w a - `p R m U C .� a" � m w 'n d m n m a am m m < @ r m< a 2 c Z 0< m Lo Z � a m a m to U 0 c a m 0 0 0 Q m mI�r N° N N CAm a m Z Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Harmony Cottages Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Larimer County Area, Colorado (CO644) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating ' Acres in AOI_ Percent of AOI 3 Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes B 4.1 86.3% 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes C 0.6 13.7% Totals for Area of Interest 4.7 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method. Dominant Condition USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/2/2015 +� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Harmony Cottages Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/2/2015 �� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (Official) Data from Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) where available digitally. Try http://bit.ly/lbPpUjq (Unofficial) if this map is down scott.mcafee@fema.dhs.gov I National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA); Delta State University; Esri