Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Drainage Reports - 12/06/1996
1 mopttTr ®F in A orb epor� IrSEP 0M fF=T C®LUNS [Iws/ 6 15c h2 3 i��j 1 t 1 1 1 FINAL DRAINAGE PLAN FOR REDWOOD STREET REPLAT NO. 1 EVERGREEN PARK LOCATED IN THE GREENBRIAWEVERGREEN BASIN PREPARED FOR BAYBERRY L.L.C. SEPTEMBER 119 1996 STEWART & ASSOCIATES, INC. 103 SOUTH MELDRUM STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 970/482-9331 TABLE OF CONTENTS A Vicinity Map 1-3 Text 4-9 Runoff Calculations 10 Runoff Schematic 11-15 UDINLET 16-31 UDSEWER Model 32 Drainage Easement Dedication APPENDIX Ref Report # 1 Greenbriar Village P.U.D. Third Filing, Detention Pond Calculations - Lidstone & Anderson Ref Report # 2 Greenbriar Village P.U.D. Third Filing, Drainage Report - Stewart & Associates Ref Report # 3 Greenbriar Village P.U.D. Second Filing, Drainage Report - Structured Engineering Pocket Storm Drain Plan & Profile ■ ray ter, MAa mmw„ era r, Z �i AP -.�uuunn i its • %Lnun .im. al I September 11, 1996 ' Mr. Basil Hamdan Stormwater Utility City of Fort Collins ' P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Basil: STEWART9406SOCIATES Consulting Engineers and Surveyors ' The following is the storm drainage report for the conveyance of storm water along Redwood Street to the existing retention pond at the Southeast corner of the intersection of Conifer Street and Redwood Street. The utility plans are being prepared to construct the Redwood Street improvements and the storm drain improvements that carry the discharge from Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Third ' Filing detention pond and the runoff from the proposed Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Fifth Filing, which will be between Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Second Filing and the Nokomis Subdivision. The Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Third Filing utility plans have been approved by the City of Fort ' Collins with the requirement that the stormwater runoff be retained until the outfall is approved. The developers considered using an open swale along the East line of Redwood Street. However, ' the developer of Greenbriar Village, Third Filing and the City of Fort Collins have decided to construct a storm drain to carry the two year runoff from Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Third Filing along the East lime of Redwood Street for 410 feet from the Southwest comer of the Third Filing. ' The storm drain will then cross Redwood Street and then run Southerly along the West side of the Redwood Street to the existing curb inlet at the Northwest comer of Redwood Street and Conifer Street. The runoff will then mu South across Conifer Street in an existing 24 inch diameter storm ' drain and then cross Redwood Street in an existing 30 inch diameter storm drain to the existing retention pond at the Southeast comer of Redwood Street and Conifer Street. The allowable discharge from the Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Third Filing detention pond is 4.0 c.f s. and the two year runoff from the rear yard pan along the South lime of the Third Filing is 1.12 c.£s.. There is a concrete pan that carries runoff from lots on Foxtail Street between Lots ' 11 and 12, Block 4 of Evergreen Park, Second Filing. The two year runoff rate is 0.74 c.£s., and it flows to the East gutter of Redwood Street. ' The proposed Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Fifth Filing will discharge runoff into Redwood Street. The two year runoff developed will be 6.32 c.f.s. at a proposed curb inlet which will be ' approximately 70 feet North of the Northeast comer of Nokomis Subdivision. ' James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. 103 S. Meldrum Street P.O. Box 429 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 970/482-9331 Fax 970/482-9382 (2) ' The runoff from the Nokomis Subdivision will continue to flow in the West gutter of Redwood Street and enter the existing curb inlet at the Northwest comer of Redwood Street and ' Conifer Street. The two year runoff rate from the Nokomis Subdivision is 7.3 c.£s. The Greenbriar Village Second Filing contributes a two year runoff rate of 1.99 c.£s. to ' the West gutter of Redwood Street. The drainage system to be constructed consists of 156 feet of 15" R.C.P., 607 feet of 18" ' R.C.P. and 660 feet of 24" R.C.P.. One headwall, one area inlet, three manholes and a 14 foot long vaned curb inlet will also be constructed. Existing asphalt paving and existing concrete sidewalk will be removed and replaced and joints of the storm drain will be encased at water lime crossings. There are some utility conflicts with the proposed storm drain. However, the proposed route appears to be the best route. The power lime to be built along the proposed ' Greenbriar Fifth Filing is not existing at this time. The crossings of water and sewer are adequate. The sidewalk along the East side of Redwood Street can be built except in front of Lot 6. The driveways for Lots 6 through 12 should not be constructed until the storm drain has been ' completed. The vacated 25 feet of Redwood Street was retained as a drainage and utility easement. ' Hydraulics within the proposed pipe system is influenced by the down stream condition in the regional pond. The high water line (HWL) in a 100-year (major) recurrence event has been modeled, and shows 4959.0. This downstream condition does not influence the 2-year (minor) ' event but may in less frequent storms effect system function. Field data showed that the two existing inlets on the Redwood Street and Conifer intersection will be flooded in the major event. The grate flowlines are below the expected pond HWL. In the minor event no probable HWL has been documented for this regional facility. Assumptions have been made to complete the design activity along Redwood Street. First, the ' minor event will not fill the pond to a depth of over one half of the available 4-foot depth. A "UDSEWER' hydraulic model has been developed to establish system function for both major ' and minor storm events. In the minor event the system model was run with a tail water depth of 2.0 feet. Under these conditions no design concern were identified. ' Second was that in the major event some street flows will be acceptable and that this intersection is acknowledged to have a minor flooding problem When we forced the entire available inlet interception rate into the pipe system, UDSEWER results were not valid, ie., not ' physically possible. The assumption was made that street flow depths would be the criteria for evaluating the new pipe system hydraulics. In the major storm the UDSEWER model was manually iterated to account for hydraulic grade lines roughly 0.5 feet above the ground elevation. ' This was done to account for the expected street flow depths in the major event. A consequence is that the pipe system takes control of flows rates rather than the inlet ' control at the minor storm level. All street flows remain within design standards. Specifically the model showed that the Greenbriar pond did have its outlet structure restricted by this new piped interconnection. Greenbriars outlet structure will only need + 0.41 feet of depth to release the 4.0 ' CFS the design calls for. (3) ' The conclusion drawn from these models is that the minor event has been adequately addressed from a street and pipe flow perspective. Major events will be controlled by the ' downstream HWL that shift the system from inlet control to outlet control condition. All remaining street flows and upstream interconnections will not be adversely affected by the pipe system. The bottom lift of the Redwood Street paving is existing so the only area that may need erosion control is the storm drain trench. The time required to construct the storm drain is less than three weeks barring weather problems. ' There has been a silt fence constructed along the back of the curb along the East line of the proposed Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Fifth Filing. All of the proposed subdivision has been ' disturbed and it is in the process of being seeded and mulched with straw and then crimped. The stormwater runoff calculations for the Fifth Filing, and the design of the storm drain ' and the calculation of the hydraulic grade line using UDSEWER are included as a part of this report. The highwater line of the Redwood/Conifer retention pond is 4959.0 according to the ' City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility. In the 100 year storm, the existing inlets on Conifer Street will back water into the street. The UDSEWER model indicates that the hydraulic grade line at the inlet at the Northwest comer of Redwood Street and Conifer Street is above the inlet in ' the two year storm. The proposed inlet at Greenbriar Village Fifth Filing will also be below the H.G.L.. The existing 24 inch storm drain that crosses Conifer Street would have to be enlarged to alleviate this problem. ' The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility will be responsible for maintenance of all of the storm drain shown in this plan. The design of the storm drainage system and this report are in substantial compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage specifications and criteria. ' If you have any questions regarding this report, please call. Sincerely, Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & L.S. t ' President rrc enclosures 1 5028 STEWART&kSS0C1ATES 103 S. MELDRUM, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors PH. 482-9331 FAX 482-9382 By: C 14P� Date: Oc,-r f % 9s Client: 5A;�i;3r=p-re.\1 Sheet No. 4-- of 1 7 Project: u) tq o r? &z is -r - II=- P L, A 7- /,Zp 1 =y Err - Subject: —,Q R AA GtJ A -r 9,� V AJ 0 19= AF F'01=� eE--c7k-) SpzlAP. 5 7-a. 01 I f I I 1&4 D --7 7 =-T --- r Ff -4— f- L-4-- !—T 41-7 - - ------ ------- I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I STEWART&6SOCIATES 103 PH. S. ME933UM, FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: Date: r7 T� / 9 4S Client: �L�. i=c, r- P ;z Sheet No. f of Project: JP F---n1x)nnn Pr PLATiv0 A'--r'vA7, ZS 1) 10A P- A - Subject: S -r a ,e n, W A -r = v u v o Ar c — 2 n o 0 "._. t ,J Q 9-- / A rr <7 7-A-1 - j3 MIXA A MIAJ. 1 � 1 1 1 ; 1 ! I 1 : _ X_; /1.70_' _X._ G .- Z_ ._� __._-Co.._3, _Z_ C....Fl_._. 1 .x - 7-j- 7— -- - --_ : _--- �- - ----- - — - - _ . Tc- 1 1 , , 1 , 1 1 STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 PH- S. M 3DRUM,FAX FORT gOLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: A ,2, Date: Q- -r 17 9S Client: SAX B Ee r-v Sheet No. G of Project: 12 Four nr) r�, STA. F-�t7 E Re- 4T hJo, 1 r vrr e.r'O'c E Ar '-Jn Subject: 1-rpP-m A-rr=-R- Ru./nFc lC'spwLioh sT2.F_<_T fr.Rei_�Esr,a, Iw_: I • ^______,! � SMP_ElzY�oVt� .!✓t�� D Zi�At 0%� 1-!__-�- ' � _�_ ; _ �P�R��01.r A_�.�,� , -�i o' o r< a � ; -- _,Zo o _� _ : -� ---- • (_o,zo_x o• 6 _ ,o_ e_ �- - -. - ; _ --- - i 8_7_�L,tI__._OH`l,v - I i I t R l_:. - -- - — %i_�! G:+- - X 77, 70. X cF Ts —;A e-I G. I ; �Or4GT-! i� o� I — -- i - C�J0_T-1 53.1.� (C6_20�._i�-9--f 1_ �L ; —z, " c, �r ,+7 STEWARTMSSOCIATES Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 103 S. MELDRUM, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 PH. 482-9331 FAX 482-9382 By: 2 A 12 Date: Oc-T 71 Client: Sheet No. Z of_ Project: 2 %�:P- bty oo--3 S-ro-. E-1-= r o I, A -r a, y g a r, A� Pit Subject: C--re) P-M (,Q A -r,--- P— e I I UQ J= A- - /? fr- E> (A.)Q') t> f TA C i5- 7 .Go n+ 1- S ' '--- 4 I po If C, Z--0�;�e/31 ------ ---- -7 C 0 oic- X (04 J ---- ----- 4-Ll STEWART&ASSOCIATES 10 4S82 9 3DRFM, FOR�T COLLINS, CO 80521 PH.Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: Date: qClient: _may B 6 PPS Sheet No. S of Project: 2F= t�l t ) o n fl S-re,�-r Subject: AJnv-rH _-ton n, ('o,v,g7Fp- TO Wrs-r LniL-eT A7: Lap ! i2E F�.I '._OAF_1/�Ek/�$_E.�i;U..t%,.v6s.'_=; /,.._¢Sv..•4c,.: __ . D. 6S_' .i A I D_F_J._N_'LZ_Go.N FE8• ! _' _! __;__: .Q.. A- -7 A' 10 -7'i4,7M;,A7 • , ! i _ I 1 1 t- — i—~ a i...�iy��.__"._._.t ?Q'9=8�X' _SS" '•X _ Z. Z3:—=. /�_ l�_G__ G • F.S • --- i I T(_ -Z.M-PE.i2V-10-✓�!_/4P.E.R- Z45o,x..3�- - �,•L9 .4L• ----! �— --- S. Ac o. s-- j 011 1-4 • r- Q--_ _- - I • I I I I I I I 11 I I I STEWART&JkSSOCIATES 103 PH. S. ME9331 LDRUM, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 482-FAX 482-9382 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: Itl1 Date: 4-1ce Client: S"LTEUe' Sheet No. of_ Project:. Subject: 2--IFA(L YOWIZ Sr1.¢•2_% 'r-f-avo S L"4-cl • • T' IA T L E� W00b ? C FS t5r! - --------- G -7 1co-%z -0-�c. D-U.e— V-\.P"c I R'p- It-)LJLT STEWART&kSSOCIATES 103 S. MEL933DRUM, FORT482-9382 COLLINS, CO 80521 PH. 482-1 FAX Consulting Engineers and Surveyors B,: Date: Client: Sheet No. 10 of_ Project: Subject: IT T vu- 4 -L- -J T- IC Ile. L ty- T M F to s-, C/ r 11 1) T 35, Zn 0 0 i lg;�Ketw - Wr 1—T— F IF 1 lot) vv)-�4 0, 1pip' 151) --CQ --------------------------------- UDINLET: STREET CAPACITY ANALYSIS 'DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG, U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD POOL FUND STUDY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ER=:Alex Stewart... DATE 04-26-1996 AT......................................................... 12:27:16 ••...........-•.••••.•.•.••.•.••.••.•••••... fZmWaaD 5T. �w 14-19 * PROJECT TITLE: Redwood Improvements ObWN 2-)-Z 4 1pL�-YF. * * STREET CROSS SECTIONAL IDEAL CAPACITY: 1:�2-ntE UDlLEWe22" 24N 'fHE NNy,. Tm--rrt IN 6I114iZ 61PE ' THE GIVEN STREET X-SECTIONAL GOEMETRIES: WR5 N56umzi) -'D 8F LONGITUDINAL STREET SLOPE ($)= 0.31'' ' MANNING N = 0.016 CURB HEIGHT (in)= 6.00 MAXIMUM FLOW DEPTH (in)= 12.00 ' STREET ON LEFTSIDE OF CROWN: ' LEFTSIDE STREET WIDTH (ft)= 27.00 CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 DEPRESSION AT GUTTER (in)= 1.40 GUTTER WIDTH (ft)= 1.17 ' SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPE (1V:ZH) Z = 50.00 ' STREET ON RIGHTSIDE OF CROWN RIGHTSIDE STREET WIDTH (ft)= 27.00 CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 ' DEPRESSION AT GUTTER (in)= 1.40 GUTTER WIDTH (ft)= 1.17 SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPE (1V:ZH) Z = 50.00 * * RATING CURVE FOR STREET IDEAL CAPACITY-FLOWRATE VS DEPTH: ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FLOW DEPTH LEFTSIDE RIGHTSIDE TOTAL AT GUTTER RATE VLCITY SPREAD RATE VLCITY SPREAD FLOW ' INCHES CFS FPS FT CFS FPS FT CFS ---- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 0.02 0.74 0.70 0.02 0.74 0.70 0.04 ' 2.00 0.14 1.08 2.50 0.14 1.08 2.50 0.28 3.00 0.63 1.22 6.67 0.63 1.22 6.67 1.25 4.00 1.87 1.51 10.83 1.87 1.51 10.83 3.75 ' 5.00 4.20 1.81 15.00 4.20 1.81 15.00 8.39 6.00 7.86 2.10 19.17 7.86 2.10 19.17 15� .72 7.00 13.21 2.32 27.50 13.21 2.32 27.50 26.43 ' 8.00 20.84 2.50 35.33 20.84 2.50 35.33 41.69 9.00 31.08 2.67 39.50 31.08 2.67 39.50 62.16 10.00 43.93 2.80 43.67 43.93 2.80 43.67 87.86 11.00 59.46 2.91 47.83 59.46 2.91 47.83 118.92 12.00 77.77 3.01 52.00 77.77 3.01 52.00 155.54 ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- THE CURB HEIGHT IS 6 INCHES. 02) .. . Yz ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 IER:Alex Stewart .................. ..... ......... ....... ....:... ON DATE 04-30-1996 AT TIME 09:45:24 New l Nt2Ji 1 P r� * PROJECT TITLE: Redwood St. Improv. U eSi }" �'F Zetiweoa ST ' *** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: ' INLET ID NUMBER: 10 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: ' INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.67 INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 2.33 INLET GRATE TYPE =Curved Vane Grate ' NUMBER OF GRATES = 6.00 �— VNNED 4tZAr5 IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.31 ' STREET CROSS SLOPE ($) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 ' GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.14 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.40 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 15.63 ' GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 0.41 1.86 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.52 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (-%)= 20.00 ' CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: FOR 6 GRATE INLETS: Qi- DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= 4.72 -4r` ' IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 4.56 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.45 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: ' FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.64 • ' *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: vz INLET ID NUMBER: 10 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. ' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: ' GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 14.00 16.49 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.97 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.87 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 0.26 ' BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 0.27 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 0.23 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.03 ' BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 1.08 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 0.21 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.87 *** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)= 4.72 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= 4.45 FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)= 0.23 ' TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.69 CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.03 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: ' FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= 3.64 FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)= 0.21 ' TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= (cfs)= 3.85 0.87 I 1 (I4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 tER:Alex Stewart ............. ...... ......... ........---. .. ..........--.- ON DATE 04-29-1996 AT TIME 12:16:38 CXisTiN(o jINL_� ��'�cT �* PROJECT TITLE: 100 yr Scenerio ' *** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND -SIZING: - INLET ID NUMBER: 10 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: ' INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.87 INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 1.85 INLET GRATE TYPE =Type 16 Grate Inlet NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00 SUMP DEPTH ON GRATE (ft)= 0.00 GRATE OPENING AREA RATIO ($) = 0.60 IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES ' Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. ' STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.31 STREET CROSS SLOPE M 2.00 ' STREET MANNING N 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.14 ' GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.40 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: ' WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 20.88 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.51 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.23 ' FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 4.45 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 20.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 ' INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: ' FOR 1 GRATE INLETS: DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= 10.00 IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 6.15 ' BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.92 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.92 05 ) `h *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: ' INLET ID NUMBER: 10 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A Ste_ ' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 1.85 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 ' SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: ' IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 4.60 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 5.08 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.29 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.79 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 5.08 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.68 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 1.40 *** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: ' THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)= 10.00 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= 4.92 ' FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)= 4.29 µ NY, TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 9.21-`�- CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.79 ' BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= 4.92 ' FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)= TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.68 8.60 CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 1.40 I� 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN 1 USING UDSEWER-MODEL 10-19-1992 DEVELOPED 1 BY DAMES C.Y..GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER 1 IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO �* EXECUTED BY STEWART AND ASSOCIATES (FT COLLINS-COLORADO).................... ON DATA 09-16-1996 AT TIME 13:59:36 I* PROJECT TITLE : Redwood Street Improvements 1 *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 2 YEARS RAINFALL INTENSITY FORMULA IS GIVEN 1 I* SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS ----------------------------------------------------- ITIME OF CONCENTRATION MANHOLE BASIN OVERLAND GUTTER BASIN D NUMBER AREA * C To (MIN) Tf (MIN) Tc (MIN) 1.00 2.50 2.00 1.00 1 21.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 31.00 1.00 1 4.00 1.00 41.00 1.00 42.00 1.00 1 5.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.66 RAIN I PEAK FLOW INCH/HR CFS 4.75 11.87 4.75 4.75 2.98 2.98 4.75 4.75 13.40 13.40 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 9.07 9.07 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.00 4.00 1 VSHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES JRURAL AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION =>10 MINUTES FOR URBAN AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION =>5 MINUTES SAT THE 1ST DESIGN POINT, TC <=(10+TOTAL LENGTH/180) IN MINUTES NWHEN WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFF=> .2 , THE BASIN.IS CONSIDERED TO BE URBANIZED WHEN TO+TF<>TC, IT INDICATES THE ABOVE DESIGN CRITERIA SUPERCEDES COMPUTATIONS I* SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES - ------ --- tDHOLE ------------ CNTRBTING ---- --- --- RAINFALL --- --------- RAINFALL ------ DESIGN ---------- GROUND --- --- ------------- WATER COMMENTS NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET i_ 1.00 0.00 _ _____________________________________________________ 0.00 0.00 29.50 60.00 59.00 OK 2.00 0.00 17.14 0.00 29.50 59.20 59.02 OK ' 21.00 1.00 17.14 2.98 2.98 59.20 60.18 NO 3.00 0.00 15.21 0.00 26.50 59.18 61.96 NO 31.00 1.00 5.00 13.40 13.40 59.18 64.03 NO 0.00 13.01 0.00 13.10 62.60 66.20 NO '4.00 41.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 9.07 62.30 66.66 NO 42.00 1.00 5.00 9.07 9.07 62.30 67.53 NO 5.00 0.00 11.98 0.00 4.00 63.30 66.74 NO ' 6.00 0.00 11.54 0.00 4.00 64.20 67.32 NO 7.00 1.00 8.66 4.00 4.00 65.75 69.92 NO MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION �* SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 '---------------------------------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED 'D NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) ID NO ID NO (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) ------------------------------------------------------------ ' 10.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 31.05 33.00 12.00 21.00 2.00 ROUND 17.77 18.00 20.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 29.82 33.00 '13.00 31.00 3.00 ROUND 31.23 33.00 30.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 23.88 27.00 40.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 15.30 18.00 6.00 5.00 ROUND 15.30 18.00 '50.00 60.00 7.00 6.00 ROUND 15.30 18.00 31.00 41.00 4.00 ROUND 19.95 21.00 ' 32.00 42.00 41.00 ROUND 17.52 18.00 ------------------ EXISTING DIA(HIGH) WIDTH (IN) -(FT) ------------------ (FT) 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 18.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 21.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 IMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES la DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. :GESTED A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT 'SEWER ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS -------- FEET -------- FPS FPS -------- --------------- ---- ---- -------- -------- 10.0 29.5 27.0 -------- 2.50 6.01 1.85 7.56 6.01 0.00 V-OK 12.0 3.0 12.1 0.85 2.04 0.62 31.20 0.61 0.46 V-LOW 26.5 14.9 2.00 8.44 1.77 1.01 8.44 0.00 V-OK '20.0 13.0 13.4 6.7 2.00 4.27 1.31 12.10 4.27 0.00 V-OK 30.0 13.1 13.3 1.61 4.83 1.30 6.20 4.17 0.65 V-OK 4.0 6.2 0.88 3.72 0.78 14.16 2.26 0.77 V-OK '40.0 50.0 4.0 3.8 1.25 3.26 0.81 10.82 3.26 0.00 V-OK 60.0 4.0 3.8 1.25 3.26 0.81 10.82 3.26 0.00 V-OK 9.1 10.4 1.26 4.89 1.12 2.47 3.77 0.79 V-OK '31.0 32.0 9.1 6.0 1.25 7.39 1.14 3.41 7.39 0.00 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=0 INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ----------------------------I------------------------------------------ SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ISEWER D NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM $ (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) 1 --10.00------0.50-----55.53-----55.13------1.17------2. 10.00 0.50 55.53 55.13 1.17 -----NO-- 2.37 NO 12.00 0.10 55.54 55.54 1.16 1.16 NO 20.00 0.50 56.58 56.03 0.60 1.17 NO ' 13.00 0.10 56.59 56.59 0.59 0.59 NO 30.00 0.40 59.06 56.51 1.54 .0.67 NO 40.00 0.40 59.96 59.04 1.84 2.06 NO ' 50.00 0.40 60.29 59.95 2.66 2.10 OK 60.00 0.40 62.50 60.24 2.00 2.71 OK 31.00 0.50 58.99 58.85 1.56 2.00 NO ' 32.00 1.00 59.50 59.49 1.55 1.56 NO MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET J* SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION �D FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 10.00 80.00 80.00 58.03 57.63 59.02 59.00 PRSS'ED 12.00 20.00 ' 13.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 31.00 1.00 110.00 1.00 637.00 230.00 86.00 564.00 28.00 ' 32.00 1.00 PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; �) ri) 0.00 58.04 58.04 60.18 59.02 SUBCR 110.00 58.58 58.03 61.96 59.02 PRSS'ED 0.00 58.59 58.59 64.03 61.96 PRSS'ED 637.00 61.06 58.51 66.20 61.96 PRSS'ED 230.00 61.46 60.54 66.74 66.20 PRSS'ED 86.00 61.54 61.20 67.32 66.74 PRSS'ED 564.00 63.75 61.49 69.92 67.32 PRSS'ED 28.00 60.74 60.60 66.66 66.20 PRSS'ED 0.00 60.75 60.74 67.53 66.66 PRSS'ED JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW 1* SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS --------- ----------- UPST-MANHOLE- ------------------- SEWER -------------- JUNCTURE- LOSSES ------ ------ DOWNST- ------- MANHOLE- SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF ---- ----- LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ----------- ----- ------------------- ID FT -------- - 10.0 - --- ----- --------------- 2.00 59.58 0.48 0.19 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.00 59.00 t12.0 21.00 60.25 0.10 0.40 0.00 0.25 0.56 2.00 59.58 20.0 3.00 63.07 1.74 1.32 1.46 0.25 0.28 2.00 59.58 13.0 31.00 64.31 0.10 0.40 0.11 0.25 1.03 3.00 63.07 30.0 4.00 66.57 2.46 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.04 3.00 63.07 40.0 5.00 66.96 0.38 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 4.00 66.57 50.0 6.00 67.48 0.38 0.64 0.11 0.25 0.04 5.00 66.96 60.0 7.00 70.08 2.49 0.64 0.11 0.00 0.00 6.00 67.48 31.0 41.00 67.03 0.11 0.64 0.14 0.25 0.21 4.00 66.57 32.0 42.00 68.38 1.00 0.40 0.34 0.25 0.01 41.00 67.03 'BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD . FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. 'FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K ' FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. *** SUMMARY OF EARTH EXCAVATION VOLUME FOR COST ESTIMATE. ' THE TRENCH SIDE SLOPE = 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOLE GROUND INVERT MANHOLE NUMBER ELEVATION ELEVATION HEIGHT FT FT FT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 60.00 55.13 4.87 2.00 59.20 55.53 3.67 21.00 59.20 55.54 3.66 ' 3.00 59.18 56.51 2.67 31.00 59.18 56.59 2.59 62.60 58.85 3.75 '4.00 41.00 62.30 58.99 3.31 42.00 62.30 59.50 2.80 5.00 63.30 59.95 3.35 ' 6.00 64.20 60.24 3.96 7.00 65.75 62.50 3.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,D SEWER NUMBER UPST TRENCH WIDTH ON GROUND AT INVERT DNST TRENCH ON GROUND AT WIDTH INVERT TRENCH LENGTH WALL THICKNESS EARTH VOLUME FT FT FT FT FT INCHES CUBIC YD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 10.00. 6.26 5.08 8.66 5.08 80.00 3.50 84.6 12.00 6.24 5.08 6.24 5.08 1.00 3.50 0.9 20.00 4.70 4.50 5.84 4.50 110.00 3.00 72.2 '13.00 4.68 4.50 4.68 4.50 1.00 3.00 0.6 30.00 6.58 4.50 4.84 4.50 637.00 3.00 448.8 40.00 6.76 3.92 7.20 3.92 230.00 2.50 168.6 '50.00 8.19 3.63 7.08 3.63 86.00 2.25 66.6 60.00 6.88 3.63 8.29 3.63 564.00 2.25 432.9 31.00 6.41 4.21 7.29 4.21 28.00 2.75 21.6 ' 32.00 5.97 3.63 5.99 3.63 1.00 2.25 0.6 ISTAL EARTH VOLUME FOR SEWER TRENCHES = 1297.296 CUBIC YARDS SEWER FLOW LINE IS DETERMINED BY THE USER EARTH VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED TO HAVE OTTOM WIDTH=DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF SEWER + 2 * B B=ONE FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH <=48 INCHES B=TWO FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH >48 INCHES 'IF BOTTOM WIDTH <MINIMUM WIDTH, 2 FT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WAS USED. BACKFILL DEPTH UNDER SEWER WAS ASSUMED TO BE ONE FOOT. 'SEWER WALL THICKNESS=EQIVLNT DIAMATER IN INCH/12 +1 IN INCHES I �zI) STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study ER:Stewart and Associates -Ft Collins Colorado .............................. ON DATA 04-29-1996 AT TIME 10:55:11 VERSION=01-30-1995 * PROJECT TITLE :Redwood Street Improvements * RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 2 YEARS ' RAINFALL INTENSITY TABLE IS GIVEN *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ---------------------------------------------------------------- Z, __., �O Ucct ------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS D NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ---------------------------- 1.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- --------- 0.00 ---------- 23.65 -------------------- 60.00 57.50'"';" OK ' 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.653.2Z 59.20 57.66 OK 21.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.22 59.20 58.46 OK 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.43 59.18 59.40 NO 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.71 59.18 60:53 NO ' 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.72 62.60 61.51 OK 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 63.30 61.89 OK 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 64.20 62.27 OK ' 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 65.75 64.53 OK 41.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72� 62.30 61.75 OK 42.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72- 62.30 62..02 OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' NOTE: SEWER 'D NUMBER 10.00 12.00 20.00 13.00 ' 30.00 40.00 50.00 ' 60.00 31.00 32.00 THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .9 MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) WIDTH ID NO. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 2.00 1.00 ROUND 27.79 30.00 30.00 0.00 21.00 2.00 ROUND 17.79 18.00 30.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 26.31 27.00 24.00 0.00 31.00 3.00 ROUND 28.88 30.00 24.00 0.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 19.94 21.00 24.00 0.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 14.88 18.00 18.00 0.00 6.00 5.00 ROUND 14.88 18.00 15.00 0.00 7.00 6.00 ROUND 14.88 18.00 15.00 0.00 41.00 4.00 ROUND 15.19 18.00 15.00 0.00 42.00 41.00 ROUND 13.34 18.00 15.00 0.00 (22) MENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES MENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET QUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. GGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. R A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE �MMENT ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS -------------------------------- '10.0 23.6 29.1 1.71 12.0 3.2 13.0 0.85 20.0 20.4 16.0 2.00 13.0 11.7 7.2 2.00 30.0 8.7 14.3 1.13 40.0 4.0 6.7 0.84 '50.0 60.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 1.00 1.00 31.0 4.7 4.6 1.25 32.0 4.7 6.5 0.79 ------------------------------------------- 6.60 1.65 6.87 4.82 0.94 V-OK 2.20 0.63 3.30 0.66 0.49 V-LOW 6.50 1.62 7.50 6.50 0.00 V-OK 3.73 1.22 5.81 3.73 0.00 V-OK 4.79 1.06 5.14 2.78 0.88 V-OK 3.94 0.78 4.32 2.26 0.84 V-OK 3.80 0.81 4.77 3.26 0.65 V-OK 3.80 0.81 4.77 3.26 0.65 V-OK 3.85 0.89 5.08 3.85 0.00 V-OK 5.76 0.89 5.08 3.85 1.23 V-OK LUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS t SEWER ID NUMBER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) (FT) ----------------------- 10.00 0.50 12.00 0.10 ' 20.00 0.50 13.00 0.10 30.00 0.40 40.00 0.40 ' 50.00 0.40 60.00 0.40 31.00 32.00 0.50 1.00 MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS 1 BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) (FT) ----------------------------- 55.53 55.13 1.17 2.37 OK 55.54 55.54 1.16 1.16 OK 56.58 56.03 0.60 1.17 NO 56.59 56.59 0.59 0.59 NO 59.06 56.51 1.54 0.67 NO 59.96 59.04 1.84 2.06 OK 60.29 59.95 2.66 2.10 OK 62.50 60.24 2.00 2.71 OK 59.49 59.35 1.56 2.00 OK 59.50 59.49 1.55 1.56 OK GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET 1 (z3) fSUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tSEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION I FLOW NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET --------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET 10.00 80.00 0.00 58.03 57.63 57.66 57.50 SUBCR 12.00 1.00 1.00 58.04 58.04 58.46 57.66 PRSS'ED '20.00 110.00 13.00 1.00 110.00 1.00 58.58 58.59 58.03 58.59 59.40 60.53 57.66 59.40 PRSS'ED PRSS'ED 30.00 637.00 637.00 61.06 58.51 61.51 59.40 PRSS'ED 40.00 230.00 230.00 61.46 60.54 61.89 61.51 PRSS'ED '50.00 86.00 86.00 61.54 61.20 62.27 61.89 PRSS'ED 60.00 564.00 564.00 63.75 61.49 64.53 62.27 PRSS'ED 31.00 28.00 28.00 60.74 60.60 61.75 61.51 PRSS'ED ' 32.00 1.00 1.00 60.75 60.74 62.02 61.75 PRSS'ED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *� SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE EWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT 410.0 10.0 2.00 58.10 0.60 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 57.50 12.0 21.00 58.46 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.25 0.36 2.00 58.10 20.0 3.00 60.06 ' 13.0 31.00 60.75 0.89 0.00 1.32 0.40 0.87 0.09 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.60 2.00 3.00 58.10 60.06 30.0 4.00 61.63 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.63 3.00 60.06 40.0 5.00 61.96 0.33 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 4.00 61.63 50.0 6.00 62.44 0.33 0.64 0.11 0.25 0.04 5.00 61.96 60.0 7.00 64.69 2.15 0.64 0.11 0.00 0.00 6.00 62.44 31.0 41.00 61.98 0.15 0.64 0.15 0.25 0.06 4.00 61.63 32.0 42.00 62.25 0.01 0.40 0.09 0.25 0.17 41.00 61.98 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. TERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD RICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. RICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. RICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 1 1 r ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER MODEL ' Developed by Dr. James Guo, Civil Eng. Dept, U. of Colorado at Denver Metro Denver Cities/Counties & UDFCD Pool Fund Study --------------------------- �ER:Stewart and Associates -Ft Collins Colorado .............................. ON DATA 04-29-1996 AT TIME 13:02:08 VERSION=01-30-1995 * PROJECT TITLE :100 yr Redwood Street Improv. * RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS ' RAINFALL INTENSITY TABLE IS GIVEN *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES -------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION �D MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ----- ----------------- 1.00 0.00 ------------------------------------------- 0.00 0.00 24.00 60.00 59.00 ' 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 59.20 58.90 21.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 59.20 59.58 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 59.18 60.02 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 59.18 60.53 ' 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 62.60 61.40 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 63.30 61.79 ' 6.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 64.20 65.75 62.17 64.43 41.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 62.30 61.66 42.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 62.30 61.96 MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .9 COMMENTS OK OK NO NO NO OK OK OK OK OK OK SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING �D NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) DIA(RISE) WIDTH ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) ' 10.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 27.95 30.00 30.00 0.00 12.00 21.00 2.00 ROUND 28.21 30.00 30.00 0.00 20.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 22.21 24.00 24.00 0.00 13.00 31.00 3.00 ROUND 19.30 21.00 24.00 0.00 30.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 20.17 21.00 24.00 0.00 40.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 14.88 18.00 18.00 0.00 50.00 6.00 5.00 ROUND 14.88 18.00 15.00 0.00 ' 60.00 7.00 6.00 ROUND 14.88 18.00 15.00 0.00 31.00 41.00 4.00 ROUND 15.52 18.00 15.00 0.00 32.00 42.00 41.00 ROUND 13.63 18.00 15.00 0.00 1 I �Zs ) r ENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES ENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET UIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. GESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. i�Q A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED I----------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. 'UMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS -------- FEET -------- FPS ------------------------ FPS --------------- 10.0 -------- 24.0 -------- 29.1 -------- 1.73 6.62 1.67 6.91 4.89 0.93 V-OK '12.0 11.0 13.0 1.76 2.97 1.12 5.17 2.24 0.41 V-LOW 20.0 13.0 16.0 1.37 5.69 1.29 6.05 4.14 0.90 V-OK 13.0 4.0 7.2 1.07 2.35 0.72 3.94 1.27 0.45 V-LOW 9.0 14.3 1.15 4.83 1.08 5.21 2.86 0.88 V-OK '30.0 40.0 4.0' 6.7 0.84 3.94 0.78 4.32 2.26 0.84 V-OK 50.0 4.0 4.1 1.00 3.80 0.81 4.77 3.26 0.65 V-OK 4.0 4.1 1.00 3.80 0.81 4.77 3.26 0.65 V-OK '60.0 31.0 5.0 4.6 1.25 4.07 0.89 5.38 4.07 0.00 V-OK 32.0 5.0 6.5 0.82 5.83 0.89 5.38 4.07 1.21 V-OK F�UDE NUMBER=0 INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS DSEWER NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) --------------------- 10.00 0.50 12.00 0.10 20.00 0.50 '13.00 0.10 30.00 0.40 40.00 0.40 0.40 '50.00 60.00 0.40 31.00 0.50 _ 32.00 1.00 MEANS BURIED DEPTH 1 IS 55.53 55.13 1.17 2.37 OK 55.54 55.54 1.16 1.16 OK 56.58 56.03 0.60 1.17 NO 56.59 56.59 0.59 0.59 NO 59.06 56.51 1.54 0.67 NO 59.96 59.04 1.84 2.06 OK 60.29 59.95 2.66 2.10 OK 62.50 60.24 2.00 2.71 OK 59.49 59.35 1.56 2.00 OK 59.50 59.49 1.55 1.56 OK GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET F* SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW D NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10-.00 80.00 80.00 58.03 57.63 58.90 59.00 PRSS'ED 12.00 1.00 1.00 58.04 58.04 59.58 58.90 PRSS'ED 20.00 110.00 110.00 58.58 58.03 60.02 58.90 PRSS'ED ' 13.00 1.00 1.00 58.59 58.59 60.53 60.02 PRSS'ED 30.00 637.00 637.00 61.06 58.51 61.40 60.02 PRSS'ED 40.00 230.00 230.00 61.46 60.54 61.79 61.40 PRSS'ED ' 50.00 86.00 86.00 61.54 61.20 6 7 A' 61.79 PRSS'ED 60.00 564.00 564.00 63.75 61.49 64.43 62.17 PRSS'ED 31.00 28.00 28.00 60.74 60.60 61.40 PRSS'ED ' 32.00 1.00 1.00 60.75 60.74 61.96 61.66 PRSS'ED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW F* SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT r---------------------------------------------------------- 10.0 2.00 59.27 0.27 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 --------------- 1.00 59.00 12.0 21.00 59.66 0.00 0.40 0.03 0.25 0.35 2.00 59.27 3.00 60.29 0.36 1.32 0.35 0.25 0.30 2.00 59.27 '20.0 13.0 31.00 60.56 0.00 0.40 0.01 0.25 0.26 3.00 60.29 30.0 4.00 61.53 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.23 3.00 60.29 40.0 5.00 61.86 0.33 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 .4.00 61.53 '50.0 6.00 62.34 0.33 0.64 0.11 0.25 0.04 5.00 61.86 60.0 7.00 64.59 2.15 0.64 0.11 0.00 0.00 6.00 62.34 31.0 41.00 61.92 0.17 0.64 0.16 0.25 0.06 4.00 61.53 ' 32.0 42.00 62.22 0.01 0.40 0.10 0.25 0.19 41.00 61.92 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD ' FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE:. VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. 'A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. ' Wi l�T��l)1 Gd�Ot Cl(�6-''or in�l rtsluca► -b 44.1 g k (4,01�,� __====�A�/�S�c.•1 S�Se.;,c!- 57�,� s1,F� inp,�G,v.{Ci ' REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN ' USING UDSEWER-MODEL 10-19-1992 DEVELOPED ' BY DAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER ' IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO �* EXECUTED BY STEWART AND ASSOCIATES (FT COLLINS-COLORADO).................... ON DATA 09-16-1996 AT TIME 14:19:33 �* PROJECT TITLE : Redwood Street Improvements *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 2 YEARS RAINFALL INTENSITY FORMULA IS GIVEN I* SUMMARY OF SUBBASIN RUNOFF PREDICTIONS -------------------------------------------------- UOLE TIME OF CONCENTRATION BASIN OVERLAND GUTTER BASIN D NUMBER AREA * C To (MIN) ---------- Tf (MIN) ---------- Ta (MIN) -------- 1.00 ---------- 2.50 ---------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 21.00 1.00 0.00 0.06 17.14 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 '4.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 8.08 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 6.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 8.66 RAIN I PEAK FLOW INCH/HR CFS ------ 4.75 11.87 4.75 4.75 2.98 2.98 4.75 4.75 13.40 13.40 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.10 4.10 4.75 •4.75 4.75 4.75 4.00 4.00 T SHORTEST DESIGN RAINFALL DURATION IS FIVE MINUTES Ft RURAL AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION =>10 MINUTES FOR URBAN AREA, BASIN TIME OF CONCENTRATION =>5 MINUTES T THE 1ST DESIGN POINT, TC <=(10+TOTAL LENGTH/180) IN MINUTES EN WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFF=> .2 , THE BASIN IS CONSIDERED TO BE URBANIZED WHEN TO+TF<>TC, IT INDICATES THE ABOVE DESIGN CRITERIA SUPERCEDES COMPUTATIONS *1 SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ---------- tA:�OLE, -------------------------------------- CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL ------ DESIGN ------------- GROUND ------ WATER ------ COMMENTS MBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ------------------ -- ------------ ---------- ---------- -----=------------- 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.50 60.00 59.00 OK 2.00 0.00 17.14 0.00 24.50 59.20 58.80 OK ' 21.00 1.00 17.14 2.98 2.98 59.20 59.83 NO 3.00 0.00 15.40 0.00 21.50 59.18 60.99 NO 31.00 1.00 5.00 13.40 13.40 59.18 62.30 NO 4.00 0.00 13.01 0.00 8.13 62.60 63.06 NO 41.00 0.00 8.08 0.00 4.10 62.30 63.42 NO 42.00 1.00 8.08 4.10 4.10 62.30 64.43 NO " 5.00 0.00 11.98 0.00 4.00 63.30 63.54 NO 6.00 0.00 11.54 0.00 4.00 64.20 64.11 OK 7.00 1.00 8.66 4.00 4.00 65.75 66.71 NO 01 MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *I SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 --------------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE ID NO. ID NO. -------------- ' 10.00 12.00 20.00 13.00 30.00 40.00 ' 50.00 60.00 31.00 ' 32.00 ------------------------ 2.00 1.00 ROUND 21.00 2.00 ROUND 3.00 2.00 ROUND 31.00 3.00 ROUND 4.00 3.00 ROUND 5.00 4.00 ROUND 6.00 5.00 ROUND 7.00 6.00 ROUND 41.00 4.00 ROUND 42.00 41.00 ROUND ------------------- REQUIRED SUGGESTED DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) (IN) (FT) ------------------- (IN) (FT) 28.96 30.00 17.77 18.00 27.57 30.00 31.23 33.60 19.97 21.00 15.30 18.00 15.30 18.00 15.30 18.00 14.81 18.00 13.01 18.00 ------------------ EXISTING DIA(HIGH) WIDTH (IN) (FT) ------------------ (FT) 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 18.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 DINSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES Cz� 1 D ENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. GESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. Fv A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED --------- ------------- DESIGN --------------- FLOW NORMAL --------- NORAML ---- CRITIC ---- ----- CRITIC ------- ----- -------- FULL FROUDE COMMENT rEWER ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS T10.0 24.5 27.0 1.87 6.23 1.68 6.97 4.99 0.82 V-OK I 3.0 21.5 13 .°4 8.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 ' 32.0 4.1 FROUDE NUMBER=O 12.0 20.0 13.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 31.0 -------------- L SEWER NUMBER 10.00 12.00 20.00 13.00 30.00 ' 40.00 50.00 60.00 ' 31.00 32.00 12.1 14.9 6.7 13.3 6.2 3.8 3.8 4.3 6.0 0.85 2.00 2.00 1.13 0.88 1.25 1.25 0.99 0.76 INDICATES THAT A 2.04 0.62 25.91 0.61 0.46 V-LOW 6.84 1.65 1.07 6.84 0.00 V-OK 4.27 1.31 9.82 4.27 0.00 V-OK 4.45 1.03 8.19 2.59 0.82 V-OK 3.72 0.78 8.79 2.26 0.77 V-OK 3.26 0.81 4.89 3.26 0.00 V-OK 3.26 0.81 4.89 3.26 0.00 V-OK 3.95 0.82 4.70 3.34 0.69 V-OK 5.27 0.82 4.70 3.34 1.17 V-OK FLOW OCCURS ------------------------------------------------------- SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM $ ------------------------------------------------------- (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) 0.50 55.53 55.13 1.17 2.37 NO' 0.10 55.54 55.54 1.16 1.16 NO 0.50 56.58 56.03 0.60 1.17 NO 0.10 56.59 56.59 0.59 0.59 NO 0.40 59.06 56.51 1.54 .0.67 NO 0.40 59.96 59.04 1.84 2.06 NO 0.40 60.29 59.95 2.66 2.10 OK 0.40 62.50 60.24 2.00 2.71 OK 0.50 59.49 59.35 1.56 2.00 NO 1.00 59.50 59.49 1.55 1.56 NO IMEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET ISUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------ SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM FEET FEET FEET FEET -------------------------------------------------- ' 10.00 80.00 80.00 58.03 57.63 WATER ELEVATION FLOW UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET ---------------------------- 58.80 59.00 PRSS'ED ' 12.00 1.00 0.00 58.04 58.04 59.83 58.80 SUBCR 20.00 110.00 110.00 58.58 58.03 60.99 58.80 PRSS'ED 13.00 1.00 0.00 58.59 58.59 62.30 60.99 PRSS'ED 30.00 637.00 637.00 61.06 58.51 63.06 60.99 PRSS'ED 40.00 230.00 230.00 61.46 60.54 63.54 63.06 PRSS'ED 50.00 86.00 86.00 61.54 61.20 64.11 63.54 PRSS'ED 60.00 564.00 564.00 63.75 61.49 66.71 64.11 PRSS'ED _ 31.00 28.00 28.00 60.74 60.60 63.42 63.06 PRSS'ED 32.00 1.00 0.00 60.75 60.74 64.43 63.42 JUMP PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW i* SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. --- ELEV FT ----- --------------- FT K COEF ---- ----- LOSS FT K COEF ----------- ----- LOSS FT ------------------- ID FT ---------- 10.0 2.00 59.40 0.33 0.19 0.07 0.00 0.00 1.00 59.00 '12.0 21.00 59.89 0.10 0.40 0.00 0.25 0.39 2.00 59.40 20.0 3.00 61.71 1.15 1.32 0.96 0.25 0.21 2.00 59.40 13.0 31.00 62.58 0.10 0.40 0.11 0.25 0.66 3.00 61.71 '30-0 4.00 63.36 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.70 3.00 61.71 40.0 5.00 63.76 0.38 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 4.00 63.36 50.0 6.00 64.28 0.38 0.64 0.11 0.25 0.04 5.00 63.76 7.00 66.88 2.49 0.64 0.11 0.00 0.00 6.00 64.28 '60.0 31.0 41.00 63.66 0.13 0.64 0.11 0.25 0.06 4.00 63.36 32.0 42.00 64.86 1.00 0.40 0.07 0.25 0.13 41.00 63.66 'BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD . FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. 'FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD .OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. ' A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED 0.05 BY FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. SUMMARY OF EARTH EXCAVATION VOLUME FOR COST ESTIMATE. THE TRENCH SIDE SLOPE _ ------------------------------------------ OLE GROUND INVERT MANHOLE ED NUMBER ELEVATION ELEVATION HEIGHT FT FT FT ------------------------------------- 1.00 60.00 55.13 4.87 2.00 59.20 55.53 3.67 ' 21.00 59.20 55.54 3.66 1 ------------------------ ------------------------ �3 I ' 3.00 59.18 56.51 2.67 31.00 59.18 56.59 2.59 4.00 62.60 59.04 3.56 ' 41.00 62.30 59.49 2.81 42.00 62.30 59.50 2.80 5.00 63.30 59.95 3.35 ' 6.00 64.20 60.24 3.96 7.00 65.75 62.50 3.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ID SEWER NUMBER UPST TRENCH ON GROUND AT WIDTH INVERT DNST TRENCH ON GROUND AT WIDTH INVERT TRENCH LENGTH WALL THICKNESS EARTH VOLUME FT FT FT FT FT INCHES CUBIC YD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 10.00 6.26 5.08 8.66 5.08 80.00 3.50 84.6 12.00 6.24 5.08 6.24 5.08 1.00 3.50 0.9 20.00 4.70 4.50 5.84 4.50 110.00 3.00 72.2 13.00 4.68 4.50 4.68 4.50 1.00 3.00 0.6 30.00 6.58 4.50 4.84 4.50 637.00 3.00 448.8 40.00 6.76 3.92 7.20 3.92 230.00 2.50 168.6 ' 50.00 8.19 3.63 7.08 3.63 86.00 2.25 66.6 60.00 6.88 3.63 8.29 3.63 564.00 2.25 432.9 31.00 5.99 3.63 6.87 3.63 28.00 2.25 17.2 ' 32.00 5.97 3.63 5.99 3.63 1.00 2.25 0.6 �AL EARTH VOLUME FOR SEWER TRENCHES = 1292.912 CUBIC YARDS ER FLOW LINE IS DETERMINED BY THE USER r TH VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED TO HAVE BOTTOM WIDTH=DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF SEWER + 2 * B B=ONE FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH <=48 INCHES B=TWO FEET WHEN DIAMETER OR WIDTH >48 INCHES 'IF BOTTOM WIDTH <MINIMUM WIDTH, 2 FT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH WAS USED. BACKFILL DEPTH UNDER SEWER WAS ASSUMED TO BE ONE FOOT. 'SEWER WALL THICKNESS=EQIVLNT DIAMATER IN INCH/12 +1 IN INCHES 1 1 3L))) I . EASEMENT DEDICATION �. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the undersigned being the owners aid proprietors of the following described land to -wit; A tract of land situate in the Northwest V. of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, Coun %4ty of Larimer, State of Colorado which considering the East line of the said Northwest as bearing N 00° 00' 23" W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto which begins at a point on the Westerly line of Redwood Street which bears S 00° 00' 23" E 1641.68 feet and agaip S 890 5913711 W 40.00 feet and again along the arc of a 312.82 foot curve to the right a distance of 84.99 feet, the long chord of which bears S 07" 46' 37" W 84.73 feet from the North ''/4 Comer of said Section 1 and run thence along the Westerly line of Redwood Street along the arc of a 312:82 foot radius curve to the right a distance of 75.43 feet the long chord of which bears S 220 281.06" W 75.25 feet and again S 290 22' 35" W 94.22 feet and again along the arc ofa 392.82 foot radius curve to the left a distance of 113.43 feet, the long chord of which bears S 21° 06' 15" W 113.04 feet to the Northeast comer of Nokomis Subdivision; thence N 900 00' 00" W 15.37 feet; thence along the arc of a 407.82 foot radius curve to the right a distance of 121/17 feet the long chord of which bears N 20° 5 F 52" E 120.73 feet; thence N 29° 22' 35" E . 12 L feet; thence along the arc of a 297.82 foot radius curve to the left a distance of 71.82 feet, the long chord of which bears N 220 28' 06" E 71.64 feet; thence S 74° 26' 23" E 15.00 feet to the point of beginning, do hereby dedicate and convey to and for public use forever hereafter arutility and drainage easement as described above provided however that acceptance by the City of Fort Collins of this dedication of easement does not impose upon the city a duty to maintain the easement so dedicated. Witness our hands an seal this //h rj 1 day da y o off rrL 1_ ` M. Edward G. STATE OF COLORADO) COUNTY OF LAR vIER) )ss a Limited Liability By: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this iG � day of q D 1996, by Edward G. Zdenek and Edward W. Lawler. r ' Witnessed my hand and official seal �� rp.l, <;J_71� Notary�Pub c My commission expires:1.2-/ G. • S6 ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that on the day of 1i �� , A.D. 1996, I examined the title to the property hereon described and establi ed that the owners and proprietors of record of said property as constructed in C.RS..li>, 31-23-111, are as shown hereon as of said date. S� Address: 1 �•� Registration No. I 1 n 1 REFERENCED REPORT #1 FOR ' Redwood Street Improvements I I I I I I I u Ps�lahP�L r��NG'E or- N1EA7)WALL �5rKQC PNM Na-wl OF bpslyr�5?-F-Y cl iz - -�— PROPOSED STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION PLAN FOR THE GREENBRIAR VILLAGE P.U.D., TIIIRD FILING Water Resources and Environmental Consultants ' I. DMRODUCTION ' 1.1 Badiground ' The Greenbriar Village P.U.D. is a residential tract at various levels of development located new the intersection of Willox Lane and Redwood Street in the City of Fort Collins. The development is located in the Greenbriar-Evergreen Drainage Basin and is therefore subject ' to the condtions specified in the Master Drainage Plan for that basin [on -going study by LA]. A location map for Greenbriar Village is provided in Figure 1.1. ' Grmnbriar Village spans three existing condition subbasins within the Master Plan basin; these are &bbasins 1D, 2 and 3B. As indicated in the Master Plan, stormwater runoff from Subbasin ID is to be directed to the Greenbriar Wetland Pond, flows from Subbasin 2 are tributary tathe Redwood Pond (formerly Pond 2), and runoff from Subbasin 3B is to be detained in the Evegreen West Pond (formerly Pond 3). The Greenbriar Village development seeks several mofifications to the Master Plan drainage condition. These modifications are being driven primarily by topography and aesthetics. Concerning the former matter, the existing local ' topography is relatively flat making it difficult to route runoff in the manner specified by the Master Plate. As for the latter issue, Greenbriar Village is located adjacent to several Master Plan facilifcs which the development would like to aesthetically enhance. Thedevelopment seeks to modify the Greenbriar Wetland Pond and the outfall facility ' to the Redwwd Pond. The Master Plan requirements which govern and determine the feasibility of these prq)osed modifications are the maximum water surface elevation and release rate from the Greeniaiar Wetland Pond and the Redwood Pond. In all cases, no adverse impacts (as compared it Master Plan conditions) may be caused by the drainage alterations. 1.2 Pre&us Studies and Current Drainage Conditions Nuncrous drainage studies have been conducted in the Greenbriar-Evergreen Drainage ' Basin whidaare pertinent to the current study. These are: 1. The original master drainage plan entitled, "Drainage Study of the Greenbriar ' Outfall Drainage Basin" [EPI, 1980]; 2. The original master drainage plan entitled, "Evergreen Park Basin Major Storm Drainage Study" [EPI, 1981]; 3. The modified master drainage plan for the combined Greenbriar-Evergreen Basin [on -going study by LA]; 1 rem) test Coma J -.t WILLOX� J.:.�. uj 1 \ em Q ui J \ Y� Lu BM1fr.Ke1M d \ M. 1 y O ItC J p.r Cf 1 \ °o ' \ MIeW A v Z m ®, � \ CONIFER ST. Lv a \ °iow St STUDY _�" $' AREA '�. Lamed E. V no Drive Ceeh L to SI � egeei� sl � I t sr r' e1 p M M I • �\ ~` w • n •' la •erd Age: • s 0 �. \\` G. ':. � \ iM1Te • Ge Yr j L. MOewte.w Age. V Mwwl .w Age I 4 Liwwe.• tJeleelebr Geee■ 7 d "' M saw Cristo St , ea.ng�e it , �__._ , Figure 1.1. Location Map for the Greenbriar Village Study Area. 2 ' 4. A report entitled "Evaluation of the Impact of the Proposed Evergreen Park P.U.D., Second Filing Drainage Conditions on Master Plan Detention Facilities" [LA, 1993]; ' 5. The letter report entitled "Evaluation of Diverting a Portion of the Runoff from Greenbriar Village, Second Filing to the Greenbriar Wetland" [LA, 1993]; 6. A preliminary investigation of master plan modifications entitled "Proposed Storm Detention Plan for the Greenbriar Village P.U.D." [LA, 1993]; and 7. A report entitled "Evaluation of the Impact of the Proposed Greenbriar Village ' P.U.D., Second Filing Drainage Pattern on the Redwood Stormwater Detention Pond" [LA, 1994]. ' The report referred to in Item 4, investigated the effects of transferring a net area of 1.69 acres from Basin OA to Basin 2. The results of the study indicated that the maximum ponding elevation in the Redwood Pond would be raised 0.1 feet above the Master Plan condition to an elevation of 4958.9 feet. In addition, the peak discharge rate would increase from 16.8 to 17.1 cfs compared to the original Master Plan. It was determined that this modest increase would ' not have an adverse impact on downstream facilities. The results of the study were approved by the Stormwater Utility and, consequently, represent the baseline condition for the Redwood ' Pond. It is noted that the condition defined by the Evergreen Park Report is referred to as the modified Master Plan condition in the current report. ' The letter report, referred to in Item 5, summarized the results of an analysis which investigated the feasibility of diverting a portion of the runoff from the Greenbriar Village I Second Filing (west of Redwood Street, currently in Master Plan Subbasin 3B), to the Greenbriar Wetland Pond (which is located in Master Plan Subbasin 1B). That analysis included alterations to the wetland to enlarge the area of open water and to increase the storage volume. ' The release rate from the pond would be 4.5 cfs which represents an increase of 0.5 cfs compared to the modified Master Plan condition. ' The report referred to in Item 6 evaluated the feasibility of not detaining a 1.2 acre portion of Subbasin 1D in the modified Greenbriar Wetland Pond. In addition, the proposed ' pond outfO facility was altered to include an open channel along the eastern frontage of Redwood Street between the proposed Bayberry Circle and the REA Substation located at the intersection of Conifer and Redwood Streets. ' The final report, Item 7, investigated the effects of transferring a net area of 0.6 acres from Subbasin 3B to Subbasin 2. 1 ' 3 I ' Each of these studies in Items 5, 6 and 7 found that the cumulative effect of the proposed Master Plan subbasin and detention modifications would not cause adverse downstream impacts; ' that is, proposed release rates and maximum ponding elevations set in the Master Plan would not be exceeded. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Study The purpose of the current study was to evaluate specific drainage concerns prompted ' by the Greenbriar Village Third Filing development. The investigation was conducted in the context of the Master Plan in order to ensure that no adverse impacts would result from the ' proposed modifications. The drainage issues which were addressed by this study are: (a) modifications to the ' boundaries between Subbasins 1B, 1D and 1F to reflect a new site and grading plan; (b) modification of the previously proposed configuration for the Greenbriar Wetland Pond [IA, 1993]; and (c) re-evaluation of the open channel outfall from the Greenbriar Wetland Pond along Redwood Street. Detailed descriptions of these analyses are provided in the following section. The scope of this study was limited to the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of these elements without considering water rights and permitting requirements; these issues are being addressed separately by others. All hydrologic analyses conducted for this study were performed using the EPA Storm Water Management Model [SWMM]. In addition, all elevations cited in this report are based on the City of Fort Collins black bolt datum. In the Greenbriar-Evergreen area, this datum has been found to correspond favorably with the City's 1/4-section topographic ' mapping. I I �I I II. PROPOSED DETENTION PLAN ' 2.1 Hydrologic Model The proposed condition hydrologic analysis was performed within the context of the Master Plan SWMM model. The base model included all subbasin and detention pond ' modifications detailed in the report entitled "Evaluation of the Impact of the Proposed Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Second Filing Drainage Pattern on the Redwood Stormwater Detention Pond" [LA, 1994]. As previously noted, the modifications to the Master Plan SWMM subbasin and ' detention pond characteristics did not result in an adverse impact on the Redwood Pond. For the current study, the boundaries for Subbasins 1B, 1D and 1F were modified based ' on changes to the site and grading plans within the Second, Third and Fourth filings of Greenbriar Village. The subbasin boundary changes would result in an increased area for ' Subbasins 1B and 1D, with a corresponding decrease in area for Subbasin 1F. The proposed condition subbasin boundaries are shown on Sheet 1. Figure 2.1. provides a schematic of the SWMM model used to hydrologically describe the proposed runoff configuration. ' 2.2 Proposed Pond and Outfall System ' The Master Plan indicates that a 15-inch outfall pipe would be constructed along Redwood Street, providing an outlet for the Greenbriar Wetland Pond and connecting to the Redwood Pond. Under the modified Master Plan configuration, during the 100-year event the peak discharge from the Greenbriar Wetland Pond would be 4.0 cfs; the maximum water surface elevation in the pond would be 4964.0 feet. s• The proposed configuration of the Greenbriar Wetland Pond was modified to conform to changes in the site plan. Compared to the previously proposed pond configuration [LA, ' 1993], the surface area and the active storage volume would decrease slightly. However, as discussed in Section 2.3, this condition would not result in an adverse impact as compared to 1 the modified Master Plan. In addition, the outfall system from the Greenbriar Wetland Pond to the Redwood Pond would have the following configuration: (a) a 15-inch RCP would be ' provided_ as an outlet which would pass under proposed Bayberry Circle (the previous outlet configuration had the pipe daylighting approximately 130 feet south of Bayberry Circle); (b) a conveyance channel would be constructed along the east side of Redwood Street from the outlet ' pipe terminus to a point immediately north of the Poudre Valley REA Substation; and (c) an 18- inch RCP would connect the southern end of the channel to the Redwood Pond. The channel was designed assuming normal flow conditions, while considering backwater caused by the YSM 1C BASIN IC CSUNPSYR P.iR POND D�yp / MLIi ID &am 11 120121 ml ID ORUNSDPR KMND POND SAfw III/ 21 (POND + - OTM "M OOTfYl CHANXI L) YSDI 2 SEDw00D POND pD}UT CIYNNCL SIDOOOD POND (POND i) POND a SA" as DWN CA LEGEND O BASIN 7 CHANNEL/PIPE O NODE aDETENTION POND/ ON -SITE DETENTION BASIN Nw 10 (MPm"mMN CAST POND 1 15 \ I I31 1 POND NAV WUNSSUR I O DS OUTAR TO OOII. RK NVLL: 1LC+ CIIy1N(L 1 Figure 2.1. Schematic Diagram for the Hydrologic Model for Proposed Revisions to Master Plan Conditions (Southeast Area). 0 downstream 18-inch pipe and the Redwood Pond. Design calculations, including the HY-8 output for both the upstream (15-inch) and downstream (18-inch) pipes and the revised storage - discharge curve for the Greenbriar Wetland Pond, are provided in Appendix A. The proposed condition detention pond and outfall configuration are shown on Sheet 1. 2.3 Analysis and Design Results ' The results of the current analysis indicate that during the 100-year event, the peak discharge from the Greenbriar Wetland Pond would be 4.6 cfs with an associated ponding elevation of 4964.0 feet. This would constitute an increase in discharge of 0.1 cfs compared to the previously proposed pond configuration and 0.6 cfs compared to the modified Master Plan condition. However, the ponding elevation would represent a no -change condition compared to either the previous configuration or the Master Plan condition. ' The current analysis also shows that the 100-year peak flow at the downstream end of the proposed conveyance channel would be 6 cfs. This peak value is largely attributable to the ' undetained runoff from Subbasin 1G which contributes only a minor portion of the total runoff volume to the Redwood Pond. In addition, the peak runoff from Subbasin 1G occurs considerably earlier than the peak release from either the Redwood or Greenbriar Wetland Ponds. Although the discharge of 6 cfs is larger than the modified Master Plan discharge of 4.0 cfs, it occurs 65 and 90 minutes prior to the peak release from the Redwood and Greenbriar Wetland Ponds, respectively. Consequently, this larger flow does not necessarily indicate an adverse impact to the Redwood Pond or other downstream drainage facilities. In order to assess the impact to the downstream facilities, namely the Redwood Pond and its oufall system, the 'results of the SWMM simulation were compared to the modified Master Plan condition. This comparison indicated that for the 100-year event the proposed drainage alterations would not increase the maximum water surface elevation of the Redwood Pond; for both conditions the maximum ponding elevation would be 4958.9 feet. The 100-year peak outflow from the Redwood Pond would increase incrementally from 17.1 to 17.4 cfs. It is noted that the total discharge from the southeast portion of the Master Plan basin would be 45 cfs for the proposed condition; this is identical to the total modified Master Plan discharge for the southeast area. IThe SWMM computer output for this analysis is included in Appendix B. 1 7 I REFERENCED REPORT #2 FOR Redwood Street Improvements 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 C1) Final, .r Hey© Date! 4( FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR GREENBRIAR VILLAGE P.U.D. THIRD FILING NOVEMBER 2. 1994 STEWART & ASSOCIATES. INC. 103 SOUTH MELDRUM STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 303/482-9331 C� ' TEWART SOCIATE S &�s S ' Consulting Engineers and Surveyors ' November 2, 1994 r Mr, Glen Schlueter Storm Water Utility ' City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Glen: Attached is the Final Storm Drainage Report for the Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Third Filing, which is a 26—lot single—family development. ' All design and calculations included within this report meet the requirements of the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Requirements. ' If you have any questions or need further information regarding this report, please let me know. ' Sincerely, Franklin D. Blake, P.E. & L.S. Secretary/Treasurer ' jrr ' enclosures James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. 103 S. Meldrum Street P.O. Box 429 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 303/482-9331 Fax 303/482-9382 y 7839 COS 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 a r.r.r 1 NJIFe', Elk _� ��V�Ay� �i� •ter .�,1. k.n.wrr ........r ....� Lit • `• it �aay.�.l �'7 yam. "v. •� •�ffn �E�.,(y a,0�•a •a }� J Q , I JOW SCAT E r a Jp(M•` � � � • Yrassrl� VICINITY MAP SCALE 1" = 3000' GREENBRIAR VILLAGE P.U.D. THIRD.FILING FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION .CONTROL REPORT ' GREENBRIAR VILLAGE P.U.D. THIRD FILING ' INTRODUCTION The proposed Greenbriar Village P.U.D. Third Filing is a 26-lot single- family development lying south of the City of Fort Collins Regional detention Pond. The site is situate in Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. ' This site is in the City's "Greenbriar-Evergreen Drainage Basin." There have been numerous drainage studies conducted in this basin. The last study was completed by Lidstone and Anderson, Inc. titled "Proposed Storm Drainage Detention Plan for the Greenbriar Village P.U.D., Third Filing" dated June 8, 1994. A copy of that report is included. Th'e site is bounded on the north by the City's Regional Detention Pond, 1 on the east by Willox Lane and Greenbriar P.U.D. First Filing, on the south by Evergreen Park Second Filing, and on the west by Redwood Street. 1 The site is relatively flat. The north half of the site is sheet flow to the City's regional pond (existing wetlands). The south half is sheet flow south. This runoff ends up in potholes wherever. The site is covered with ' prairie grass and several trees. The soil types are sandy silts and sandy sands. ' The surrounding sites are undeveloped except on the east side. Willox Lane is constructed. There is an existing outfall pipe from Greenbriar Park on the east side of Willox Lane that enters this site at the northeast corner. 1 The outfall will be by a drainage swale from the pipe northerly to the City's regional pond. The swale will be in the existing Willox Lane right-of-way. There are also existing 4-foot curb inlets at this point to handle the runoff ' from Willox Lane. DESIGN CRITERIA ' The Rational Method has been utilized to determine peak runoff rates. Design factors used are in accordance with the recommendations of the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria and Construction Standards Manual. ' PROPOSED DESIGN ' The site is proposed for twenty-six single-family residences. All runoff from the north three -fourths of the site will be into Greenbriar Detention Pond. At present, this pond has no outlet. The proposed pond outlet will 1 be on.the North side of Bayberry Circle. The outlet will be to a 15 inch pipe that flows south across Bayberry Circle. The invert of the pipe on the North side of Bayberry Circle is set at 62.5 feet and therefore will act as.a release from the Greenbriar pond when the pond water elevation exceeds elevation 62.5. 1 Runoff from the pipe will be carried to the Redwood pond in a channel as shown on the Lidstone and Anderson, Inc. Report included herein. The 100-year outlet rate is 4 c.f.s. as determined by Lidstone and Anderson, Inc. The outlet pipe 1 across Baystone Circle and the drainage Swale to the south boundary line of this project are to be completed with this project. The balance of the outlet from this project to the Redwood Pond will be designed and constructed with (s) ' Greenbriar Village P.U.D. Third Filing Page 2 the development of the existing lots along Redwood Street. This developer ' is the owner of these lots, and construction on the swale to the Redwood Pond is scheduled for 1995. Because this pond is now functioning as a retention pond, twice the volume of the required detention will need to be constructed for detention. The Greenbriar Detention Pond has no designed spillway. The proposed pond will have a constant water elevation of 62.5 feet. The 100-year high water line is 64.0 feet. Water will be contained in the pond until ' elevation 65.00 feet. At that elevation water will overflow into Willox Lane. The existing walk and curb will act as the emergency spillway. At elevation 66.0 feet water will flow into.Redwood Street and south to the Redwood Pond. If the pond overflows before the downstream structures are completed, runoff will flow along the east side of Redwood Street to Conifer Drive, then into the existing storm drain piping system. This site is divided into five sub -basins and four offsite sub -basins. Sub -basin "A" is the south basin. Flow is east to west in a two -foot concrete pan. Future flow from this basin will be to the Redwood pond. Because the ' outlet is not constructed, Lots 1 and 2 will be used as a temporary retention pond. The temporary pond is sized for twice the required detention volume of this basin. Sub -basin "B" runoff is north to Bayberry Circle then west in street flow to a 12.00 foot cross pan in Bayberry Circle, then north to the detention pond. Sub -basin "C" flow is to Bayberry Circle then west to the cross pan and north ' to the detention pond. The runoff from Sub -basin "D" is Bayberry Circle east to Willox Lane, then north to the existing 4-foot curb inlet. Sub -basin "E" runoff flows overland directly to the detention pond. ' Offsite "A" is the runoff that flows south from the east side of Redwood Drive. These flows have been added to the site at concentration point "H". ' Offsite "B" is the runoff from the east 1 of Redwood Street south of Bayberry Circle. This flow is undetained on site. Offsite "C" is the runoff from the east side of Willox Lane to the existing curb inlet. The runoff calculated ' at the inlet also includes the 100-year flow from Greenbriar Park. The balance of the offsite runoff from the west side of Willox Lane to the existing inlet next to Lot 14, along with flows from sub -basin D, are accounted for at concentration point "G", the inlet to the Greenbriar detention pond. ' EROSION CONTROL ' The SDDC outlines the causes and results of soil erosion due to wind and rain. The SDDC shall be considered in its entirety for guidelines to aid in preventing soil erosion. The SDDC will govern requirements and specifications ' for earth moving at the construction site. One primary element in the proposed erosion control plan consists of mulching the site in accordance with the requirements of the SDDC. During ' construction operations, the disturbed areas will be ridged by equipment and temporary wind barriers will be constructed. Both the furrows and the wind barriers will run perpendicular to the prevailing northwesterly winds. Greenbriar Village P.U.D. Third Filing Page 3 Additionally, catch basins in public streets bordering the site shall . be protected with gravel filters in accordance with the SDDC. The temporary retention pond will be required to be seeded after its construction. ' The following is a summary of the erosion control measures that will become part of the Greenbriar Village Third Filing construction: ' 1. Disturbed areas will be kept a minimum at any one time. Z. Disturbed areas wil be stabilized and protected as soon as possible. 3. Runoff velocities will be kept low. ' 4. Sediment will be retained by filtering runoff or detaining sediment — laden runoff for a period of time. 5. Diversion channels will be provided to direct runoff around and away from disturbed areas. 6. Cut and fill slopes will be gentle or else will be stabilized with terracing or by scarifying. ' 7. Drain inlets will be protected by sediment filters. 8. Stockpiled materials will be protected from wind erosion. 9. Ground cover will be established on all disturbed areas. Mulching ' should be used after seeding to prevent surface compaction or crusting and aid in establishing the plant cover. Construction details shall be taken from the SDDC, and sizes and locations ' of site improvements will be shown on final,* ' Franklin D. Blake, P.E & L.S. 0&�00 Secretary/Treasurer ;* ;� 733 9 h OF COL�.•�. ��+yus:n+►M°a 1 F L C� UM, FORT STEWART&ASSOCIATES 103 S. MELDPH. 482- 33 RFAX 482-9380LLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors By: Date: Client: Sheet No. 2 of Project: r-T�IfO Ti,PY%�i•��- Subject: Ire i S 1 S��L� ✓c� rL �J r .sue 1 ■ STEWART&&SSOCIATES 103 S. MELDRUM, FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 Consulting Engineers and Surveyors PH. 482-933 1 1 FAX 482-9382 Date: Client: Sheet No. 8 of Yroject:—Z� ,/ ;Subject: — I �' /� /4.� ' 4 /.ate i�S aw F ------- ----- - _ter 'Z 7A- X2 Xdo"7� 74P 7y ' REFERENCED REPORT #3 FOR I I I 1 I 1 I I I Redwood Street Improvements r W:A 'Met PORM o .�ne.: �A(303 . lFogv W._O", Rm i U . -' zlA am �!,�l Ar th z,,, Ta ZEo l--,�oov 5me-.-r .5o,,,tt,- of Z LA ke }-S v j t- _rz - �- O� f-b* C,toue Cowar 6A-Je sC-C . G= . so 4�s L- 3Go' 5mec-* Z ti(_ �C - �•427 �l_! -. S> 3Lo�z" tT = Z'30 L� z (1.4)Z-8Cis = QZ \ vz Ito y� t� _ 87 LI•l - 1.2S (.� )I -jam - Z Z.. `i .s TT = 3.1 C P-�Woo� a(�Wb G�ctoo• ZL.o N�iK� rru-Its ido �•S Qix�ft: C ;A vQ I 1 REFERENCED REPORT #4 FOR ' Redwood Street Improvements I I 1 1 I I I I I FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR NOKOMIS SUBDIVISION NOVEMBER 29, 1994 STEWART & ASSOCIATES. INC. 103 SOUTH MELDRUM STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 303/482-9331 r. (z) STEWART&ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers and Surveyors November 29, 1994 Mr. Basil Hamdan Storm Water Utility City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Dear Basil: Colorado 80522 The following is the final storm drainage report for Nokomis Subdivision, Fort Collins, Colorado. The site contains 5.20 net acres and 5.48 gross acres, including the west half of Redwood Street. It is located on the west side of Redwood Street approximately 300 feet north of Conifer Street in the Northwest oof Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M. ' The site is in the Evergreen Park Drainage Basin. It is bounded on the east by Redwood Street, on the.south by the New Beginnings facility that has been recently closed, on the west by existing industrial uses in Evergreen ' Park and on the north by the proposed Rreenbriar Village. The site slopes from west to east at approximately 0.4% grade. ' It is proposed to subdivide the site into 21 single-family detached residential lots. The site will be divided into four developed sub -basins. The existing Evergreen Park Detention Pond 130, as shown on the Evergreen Park Basin Major Storm Drainage Study proposed by Engineering Professionals, Inc. ' and dated February 1981, is adjacent to this site at the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision. Also, the outfall channel from Pond 130 is along the west boundary of the subdivision. It is proposed to carry the runoff, ' undetained, from Sub -Basins "A", "B" and "C" in the curb and gutter of Nokomis Court and in concrete pans along the north and south boundary lines to Redwood Street. The runoff would then flow southerly in the west gutter of Redwood ' Street to an existing 5-foot curb inlet and existing area inlet at the northwestcorner of Redwood Street and Conifer Street. Existing storm drains then would carry the runoff to existing Detention Pond 120. ' Sub -Basin "D" is the rear yards of Lots 10 through 13 which drain west to the existing Outfall Channel No. 223. Channel No. 223 flows south across Conifer Street to existing Detention Pond No. 150. James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. 103 S. Meldrum Street P.O. Box 429 ' Ft. Collins, CO 80522 303/482-9331 Fax 303/482-9382 c.3 ) 1 Nokomis Subdivision Page 2 ' ' The site has good ground cover on most of the site. There is some existing landscaping on the site, which will be retained as much as possible. Nokomis Court will be rough cut and the utilities constructed thereafter. The area from the front of the proposed houses to the rear concrete pan will not be disturbed until the house is constructed. Straw bale barriers and rock filters will be placed at discharge points. ' The storm water runoff calculations and the final grading and drainage plan are enclosed as a part of this report. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call. To the best of my knowledge, this report and the design of this drainage system are in compliance with the current City of Fort Collins criteria. ' Sincerely, �sas"un.n ' H . 1- , Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & L.S. I f a` ";os President 3 A 502 3 1 err o '.A • 4 rr F, �' 0 &L•.`j)� - enclosures +0**" 0•F . 0 •:�;.��.�� ',r''rrrnut�pJ� (4) Q z �o �U) C/)� UD rn OU) 02 J oe 0 z 2 O N U Q W Cs) U 2 0 F- U) 0 0 T 0. T N z O O w co J m Z pa$ O � aj Q Q C d U ; D QN to m 0 YOo UQ U. Z U. 0 z D 0 w C" Pf 0 = J W ¢> WW ap 0 CD CD a N O I m w -cr - Co CDS2mr- a LLam CL N ; -o m0 cv N fp t c m Uo.T m v c c�I cr x mU > m m r y � " m w II o_ 8A owl ZU Q xv CDw-U = z o w U rn 6 m a `o LL Cs) Cl) Tv. j IS r.uG SA✓IMXYSGM• 9 SD pn.wne Sroeu Da.G,N INe Wx-ce e...•e q ' 1 N 4 ` /o f z s , � tl� N f l,` ` s !w_aVLnT + Q S huuG .\ p I/J OGCEENPAR. ,Ke Z ad Ewefit K qw ' O IS IF It I I / ` ,\ L 3 t — x W + - C44 _ _� FXIIr]2'L L ' l E 8Y eh Rr. • L \ / 2 j W 'I 1 e 6 _. _� _ ___ __ _ 6 Y •�` t 0 � at, x�N a". 4 uS' �{ MOTES A.' PG �___ .� v• .I• AOSJtj MARIM A,JD WATaa MAw � \\ _y Y 1 __�_ g,V,+ g p a _E_ ]L_WVf6Z I. WHO ;\ v -1- W } W N VALUt Boxer TD F,r FINsx AsrWA LT EaI "ATYONL. 5 ° J4V Q Q�'. o �.� aLi/f +I^ _---_ef_ �__ � i— _ __^__ __ _ _ __ _ _ 55 L _ I , Z, CNe A, C W GauLfe>a A L J xrt On STeCA OF WA*�RC 'S \ x /J_l" A, WIT lO F6a r OF E NL,j.�B ii•ILsMM./e Y Oe �i (�CJJI+ -• M q+N3 BaAS 4aD 90 T W R H G ;J, -. _ I — 3 T c C F FORT G v✓5 5 eB ealrow!!°Lf Fea S�rP4 �Y I_ �CO [ IL1 f^ L Eu[ .' {(RE B R h �'�' p E .C' 9 G .U4 S W.6 -. R A, B, Er •.y FAAVA&Al N!�.(eI FJEI, I.OR1(, 5• 'ux'✓ /l�'�I 1 .` 5�(yY . li +YE 11 tQ wAr / Ij{ LC .0.14 w ` 4.. - Of L N r iou A EASt FYY>3 ISATMa RESPoN(I BIt/T OF THE LAND Ou,uB a. ALL SrOCM VAA/N JOINrO MUST MAWS A PR6IIYRi SOAL TI O �'Y pSE w0� Q millY I'• 'V Flq Y , - •I.3H y I.j 1 �`1 1 I i1 UYr �; •i Ill ;: _ It UTvD 4 .Cann IILI 1 I 3111 5 D t IX� x y.YS IIr SDI �PI/e 1 E.ucNG Sn 30 L.Ra �L�r" CONT4ACTB iC. -%O V@R./FY g••+• (.OLAr,ON PIR 6TO .Q eYt ? +qs t it L% �r1 V 4 1 pia i sTALT OF GONS>6 eL flBN r/ TAl r d ��rl. 'ryCJYc� c, :'Iv`;;p°✓ — � " nw eslcA•,z+peon Lays. ram. 8 SAA -- D - 3 - l., B EAsi uR, _ In � - I} _ - '. , � /� F IN a "✓I F iw u.e Less +Au b" � I 5 L .FPI m IL M. �- jgt- 1', S -0.3 : L9C F: rB _ - wll^ 414n p CL --c_.P3j. ... _ wnr fz L, f : ' c" C&A Al i I , Is c° urn - 59. A — L I— t a ; - � � : I I ° 'f Co Ex vEJcMI — -. s. •sn _- � Z .,y c✓ Ae ex. ri � t i S r ri"f — , — T I If- a Isago r• Ium Its — ' Ir00 'rJ0 L 5\.M 8\00 1 9r+c- /OMO ILOD Ic+cO laipp IafM IaTW Oro° 4apD f00 LMO 7100