Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST - FDP - FDP120021 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORTFinal Drainage Report for The District AT CAMPUS WEST Fort Collins, Colorado December 5, 2012 Prepared for: Ft. Collins Student Housing, LLC 1302 Waugh Drive, PMB 305 Houston, TX 77019 Prepared by: 200 South College Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com Project Number: 670-001 3 This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF. Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety. When a hard copy is absolutely necessary, we recommend double-sided printing. December 5, 2012 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Final Drainage Report for The District at Campus West Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for your review. This report accompanies the 12.05.12 Final Development Plan submittal for the proposed District at Campus West multi-family (student housing) development. Comments from the Preliminary Design Review Letter dated 03.20.12 have been addressed. Written responses thereto can be found in the comprehensive response to comments letter on file with Current Planning. This report has been prepared in accordance to Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed District at Campus West student housing project. We understand that review by the City of Fort Collins is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM. If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Herman H. Feissner, PE Project Engineer Nicholas W. Haws, PE Kevin R. Brazelton, PE Project Manager Project Engineer The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ............................................................. 5 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ......................................................................... 6 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ........................................................................ 11 V. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................. 17 References ............................................................................................................. 18 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A – Hydrologic Computations APPENDIX B – Hydraulic Computations B.1 – Storm Sewers B.2 – Street Flow B.3 – Inlets B.4 – Detention Facilities APPENDIX C – Water Quality Design Computations APPENDIX D – HEC-RAS Input and Output Files D.1 – Hard Copy D.2 – Digital Copy (CD) APPENDIX E – Operations and Maintenance Guidelines for Permeable Pavers LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES: MAP POCKET: Sheets 1-2 – Existing Conditions Drainage Exhibit C600-C601 – Drainage Exhibit The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 1 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location 1. Vicinity Map 2. The District at Campus West project site is located in the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. 3. The project site is located on the north side of West Plum Street, and is bordered by City Park Avenue on the west and Aster Street on the east. Bluebell Street runs continuously north-south through the eastern third of the site, and will remain a through public street. However, two existing dead-end streets (Columbine Street and Daisy Street) will be vacated as part of this development. City Park Avenue, Daisy Street, Columbine Street, Bluebell Street, and Aster Street all have 50’ right-of-ways. The existing Right-of-Way (ROW) along Plum Street varies from 40’ to 66’. The District at Campus West project proposes to dedicate additional right-of-way along West Plum Street to create a consistent north half-ROW width of 31.5’. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 2 4. There are no major drainageways or easements within or adjacent to the site. There is a public storm sewer (15" RCP) in West Plum Street along the eastern third of the site with inlets at Bluebell and Aster Streets. An off-site private storm sewer runs west to east in a drive aisle north of the site (Sunstone Condos), and discharges into the western curb and gutter of Bluebell Street. 5. Sunstone Condos is located north of the project site between City Park Avenue and Bluebell Street, and the Zeta Tau Alpha sorority house is located north of the project site between Bluebell and Aster Streets. The remainder of the property is bound entirely by public streets. For context, the Cambridge House apartments are located on the south side of Plum Street near the eastern third of the project site. B. Description of Property 1. The District at Campus West property is approximately 3.34 net acres. Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph 2. The subject property currently consists of sixteen (16) single-family residential homes, all of which are rental properties primarily leased to students attending nearby Colorado State University. The age and condition of the residences varies; however, none of them are eligible for historic designation, and many of them are in severe disrepair. The ground cover varies from rooftops, concrete, asphalt, lawn and bare dirt. Numerous trees and shrubs are currently present (see Tree Mitigation Plan by Ripley Design for additional information). Being already developed lots, the slopes are rather gentle throughout (i.e., 2±%). The general topography slopes from north to the south towards West Plum Street, which slopes west to east. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 3 According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, the site consists of Nunn clay loam, which falls into Hydrologic Soil Group C. More site-specific exploration found varying materials including sandy lean clay and silty to clayey sand with varying amounts of gravel. See the Geotechnical Engineering Report by Terracon (Terracon Project No. 20115026) for additional information. 3. There are no major drainageways within the vicinity of The District at Campus West project. Figure 2 – Existing Drainage Systems The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 4 4. The proposed District at Campus West redevelopment project will completely raze all of the existing structures currently occupying the property. As previously mentioned, both Daisy and Columbine Streets are proposed to be vacated and redeveloped as part of this project as well. The District at Campus West will contain approximately 192 multi-family dwelling units in three main buildings. Also included will be a parking structure, secured bike storage, maintenance facilities, plazas, a clubhouse and an outdoor pool and courtyard area. 5. There are no irrigation ditches or related facilities in the project’s vicinity. 6. The proposed land use is residential, multi-family dwellings. This is a permitted use in the Community Commercial (C-C) Zone District, subject to a Type 1 administrative review. C. Floodplain 1. The subject property is not located in either a FEMA regulatory or City of Fort Collins designated floodplain. See Section III.E.4, below for a description of the hydraulic modeling conducted for the 100-year water surface elevations along West Plum Street. Figure 3 – Existing Floodplains The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 5 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. Major Basin Description 1. The District at Campus West project is located within the City of Fort Collins Old Town Drainage Basin. 2. The majority of the Old Town Basin, including the portion where the subject property is located, is already developed. There are certain provisions in the Old Town Basin that properties can add up to 5,000 square feet of new impervious area without providing on-site detention. This is because of the assumptions made in the drainage master plan for percent imperviousness. However, this interpretation does not apply to The District at Campus West property since the proposal calls for complete removal of all existing structures and surface features. Additionally, the existing public drainage deficiencies in this area warrant special consideration. Whereas both the existing and proposed land uses themselves are consistent with the major drainage basin’s assumed characteristics, additional site-specific analysis is necessary. 3. As previously mentioned in Section I.B.5, there are no irrigation ditches or related facilities in the immediate project vicinity. The Canal Importation Basin Drainage Master Plan does identify spills from the Larimer Canal No. 2 and New Mercer Ditch near Ram’s Village that flow east down West Plum Street. However, these flows are being addressed by regional City of Fort Collins stormwater improvement projects. B. Sub-Basin Description 1. The subject property historically drains overland towards two inlets located on the north side of West Plum Street; one on the east side of Bluebell Street (shallow sump) and the other on the east side of Aster Street (sump). The majority of the site sheet flows directly into the adjacent curb and gutter of the public City streets. A very small portion of the site immediately adjacent to the northern property line appears to sheet flow into the private storm drain in the parking lot of Sunstone Condos; however, this storm drain discharges back into the public right-of-way (i.e., Bluebell Street), where flows continue south to West Plum Street. The District at Campus West development aims to preserve the existing drainage patterns as much as possible, and will have the same outfall locations. A more detailed description of the project’s drainage patterns follows in Section IV.A.4., below. 2. The project site, in particular, does not receive any notable runoff from off-site properties. With the exception of the small area along the northern property line, the subject property does not drain across any off-site private land either. Sub-basins OS0 and OS1 (Aster Street), OS3 and OS4 (Bluebell Street) delineate the existing public right-of-way for both the existing and proposed conditions and represent the downstream portions of larger basins. For example, sub-basins OS3 and OS4 extend north beyond what is shown, and sub-basins OS8 (existing conditions) and OS5 (proposed conditions) extend further west in West Plum Street, beyond what is shown. This report evaluates the impact of The District at Campus West on the downstream portions of these existing basins. In either the existing or proposed condition, no revisions (modifications or changes) occur to areas of the basins not shown. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 6 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with The District at Campus West project. Explicit approval is requested for underground detention in the parking structure, in accordance with Volume 2, Section 4.16 of the Manual. See Section III.G.1., below, for deviations. B. The overall stormwater management strategy employed with The District at Campus West project utilizes the “Four Step Process” to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters. The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each step. Step 1 – Employ Runoff Reduction Practices. The first consideration taken in trying to reduce the stormwater impacts of this development is the site selection itself. By choosing an already developed site with public storm sewer currently in place, the burden is significantly less than developing a vacant parcel absent of any infrastructure. The second site planning component falling into this category is the preservation of the large green ash tree at the northwest corner of West Plum and Bluebell Streets. Not only does this encourage infiltration and evapotranspiration, but it also adds shade and a great site amenity. Another consideration also comes by way of the site plan layout and an early, integrated and deliberate design goal of the project team. That is, distributed permeable paver sections have been designed to emphasize multiple controls throughout the development as opposed to a centralized treatment facility. These areas have been closely coordinated between the Architect, Owner, Landscape Architect and Civil Engineer. The District at Campus West aims to reduce runoff peaks, volumes and pollutant loads by implementing Low Impact Development (LID) strategies. Wherever possible, runoff will be routed through the aforementioned permeable paver sections. This LID practice reduces the overall amount of impervious area, while Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious areas (MDCIA) at the same time. Most downspouts will be routed through the permeable paver sections, and the top deck of Building 2 will be routed through a sand filter. Since rooftops comprise a majority of the project’s impervious area, this achieves an extremely high degree of MDCIA. The combined LID/MDCIA techniques will be implemented throughout the development, thereby slowing runoff, increasing infiltration, and otherwise helping to mimic the pre-development hydrologic regime. Step 2 – Implement BMPs That Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with Slow Release. The efforts taken in Step 1 will help to minimize runoff; however, urban development of this intensity will still have stormwater runoff leaving the site. However, The District at Campus West project will capture and treat the majority of rooftop runoff before releasing it at a slow rate to downstream facilities. The primary WQCV will occur in the distributed permeable paver sections. The stormwater vault within the parking structure will also be fitted with a Sand Filter (SF). The on-site water quality facilities are further described in greater detail in Section IV.B, below. Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways. As stated in Section I.B.3, above, there are no major drainageways in or near the subject property. While this step may not seem applicable to The District at Campus West development, the proposed project indirectly helps achieve stabilized drainageways nonetheless. Once again, site selection has a positive effect on stream stabilization. By repurposing an already developed, under-utilized site with existing stormwater infrastructure, combined with LID, MDCIA and WQCV strategies, the The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 7 likelihood of bed and bank erosion is greatly reduced. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as well as ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve City wide drainageway stability. Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs. This step typically applies to industrial and commercial developments; however, the District at Campus West project does contain two components warranting site specific consideration for source control. Those two components are the outdoor pool and parking structure. Chemicals for the pool will be stored and handled in a manner so as to minimize the potential for pollutants to enter the stormwater system. See the Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis submitted with this project for additional information on the pool chemicals. The parking structure will be equipped with a Sand Filter (SF) to trap and collect pollutants associated with the vehicles. The lease agreement will explicitly prohibit residents from performing fluid changes or similar vehicle maintenance within the parking garage. Additionally, the overall operations and maintenance procedures to be implemented by The District at Campus West’s professional staff will be done with a conscious awareness of source control BMPs, including: storage, handling and spill containment and control. C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints 1. The subject property is not part of any Overall Development Plan drainage study or similar “development/project” drainage master plan. A Project Development Plan (PDP) known as The Retreat at 1200 Plum was approved for a portion of the property in April 2009. While The District at Campus West PDP is neither subject to, nor can fully rely upon, the drainage report as approved in 2009, there are certain items that are desired to be carried forward. The deficiencies of the public storm sewer system in West Plum Street and the desire to not exacerbate the existing condition – particularly the flooding at Aster Street – remain the same. Handling stormwater detention for the parking garage in a structural vault is another strategy from the approved Retreat at 1200 Plum PDP that will replicated with The District at Campus West development. Figure 4 – Site Plan Approved with The Retreat at 1200 Plum PDP in 2009 The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 8 2. There are no known drainage studies for any adjacent properties that will have an effect on The District at Campus West project. 3. The site plan will be constrained on three sides by public streets and by a private drive on the fourth. As previously mentioned, the drainage outfall for the entire development is the existing 15" RCP storm sewer in West Plum Street. This storm sewer is very shallow (2.5’±) and has extremely limited capacity. This serves as the most significant drainage constraint for the project. D. Hydrological Criteria 1. The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, as depicted in Figure RA-16 of the FCSCM, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations associated with The District at Campus West development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA-7 has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. 2. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing coefficients contained in Tables RO-11 and RO-12 of the FCSCM. 3. The Rational Formula-based Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedure was utilized for quantity detention storage (i.e., permeable paver reservoir section) calculations. 4. Three separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage scenarios. A fourth design storm has also been computed for comparison purposes. The first design storm considered is the 80th percentile rain event, which has been employed to design the project’s water quality features. The second event analyzed is the “Minor,” or “Initial” Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence interval. The third event considered is the “Major Storm,” which has a 100-year recurrence interval. The fourth storm computed, for comparison and Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) purposes only, is the 10-year event. 5. Due to the deficiency of the existing storm sewer system in West Plum Street, a hybrid approach has been utilized to compute the maximum allowable release rate associated with the FAA detention sizing calculations. The 100-year peak runoff rate was calculated for the pre-development impervious areas. This essentially “grandfathers” the existing impervious areas by allowing the respective 100-year peak discharge to be added to the maximum allowable release rate. The release rate for the remaining undeveloped land (pre-development pervious areas) was established by calculating the 2-year peak runoff rate for these areas. The total of these two discharges establishes the overall maximum allowable release rate, 9.59 cfs, from the project site. The allowable release rate, 3.47 cfs, utilized in the FAA procedure detention storage computations (Refer to Appendix A for these calculations) was established by subtracting undetained releases, 6.12 cfs, from the overall maximum allowable release rate. This hybrid approach ensures that all increased impervious areas, not just those greater than 5,000 sq-ft, are over-detained down to the 2-year undeveloped (historic or pre-development) rate for the 100-year developed condition. E. Hydraulic Criteria The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 9 1. The option to reconstruct, and potentially increase the capacity of, the existing public storm sewer in West Plum Street was briefly analyzed. However, due to hydraulic limitations downstream towards Elizabeth Street, there was no noticeable increase in capacity (i.e., higher allowable discharge rate) realized by The District at Campus West site. The only potential benefit would be a lower outfall elevation. However, in order to achieve the deeper gravity invert, the storm sewer would have to be reconstructed all the way across Shields Street to the eastern parkway along the Moby parking lot. The cost-benefit analysis does not justify said reconstruction of the public storm sewer in Plum Street. 2. All drainage facilities proposed with The District at Campus West project are designed in accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District’s (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. 3. As stated in Section I.C.1, above, the subject property is located in neither a FEMA regulatory nor a City of Fort Collins designated floodplain. 4. Even though this portion of West Plum Street is not an officially mapped floodplain, it is identified in certain Fort Collins drainage master plan documents as an area prone to stormwater problems. Therefore, as part of The District at Campus West drainage study, a hydraulic analysis was conducted along Plum Street using HEC-RAS. The purpose of said analysis is twofold. First, it was desired to confirm that the proposed District at Campus West development does not push 100-year stormwater onto properties beyond that which current exists. Second, the proposed finished floor elevations of The District at Campus West buildings are set one foot above the modeled post-development 100-year water surface elevations. While the pre-development versus post-development HEC-RAS analysis shows a slight rise in some areas, it also shows a slight lowering in others. A detailed topographic field survey was conducted along both sides of West Plum Street to ensure that; A) the extents of the 100-year water surfaces do not extend onto properties beyond that which exists in the pre-development condition, and B) the 100-year water surface elevations do not exceed minimum opening elevations for structures located on properties within the study area. Table 1 – Plum Street 100-year WSELs and Proposed FFEs Structure Controlling HEC-RASa Cross-Section No. 100-year Water Surface Elevation (ft) Proposed Finished Floorb Elevation (ft) Building 1 114 5035.80 5036.80 Building 2 108/107 c 5032.34 5033.34 Building 3 105/104 c 5030.34 5031.34 a. See Appendix D for complete HEC-RAS model. c. A linear interpolation was applied to obtain the estimated 100-yr WSEL between these two cross-sections. b. Listed elevations represent the lowest finished floor for each respective structure. Additional information from the Plum Street HEC-RAS hydraulic analysis can be found in Appendix D. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 10 F. Floodplain Regulations Compliance 1. As previously mentioned, this project is not subject to any floodplain regulations. G. Modifications of Criteria 1. A modification to Volume 2, Section 3.1.3 of the FCSCM is hereby requested to allow the full storage capacity of the permeable pavers to be utilized in an inclusive manner (i.e., WQCV is included in rather than added to the 100-year reservoir storage) to satisfy the 100-year quantity detention volume requirements. 2. The modification requested above was already granted with the previously approved Retreat at 1200 Plum PDP, and is critical to the viability of this property to redevelop. While the FCSCM requires the 100-year volume required for quantity detention must be added to the entire Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV), UDFCD criteria provides the ability for the storage volumes to be inclusive of one another. On an already constrained site, the duplicative requirements of Volume 2, Section 3.1.3 would be prohibitive to a project facilitating the enhancement and restoration of this area. There is not expected to be any detriment to public health or safety, nor additional maintenance or cost burdens born by the City, as a result of the requested modification. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 11 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept 1. The main objective of The District at Campus West’s drainage design is to maintain the existing drainage patterns, while not adversely impacting any adjacent properties or exacerbating the existing drainage problems at West Plum and Aster Streets. 2. The only “off-site” runoff consideration is the aforementioned 100-year hydraulic analysis conducted along Plum Street. No other off-site runoff flows directly through the project site. The small landscaped area along the northern property line that historically sheet flowed towards the private inlets and storm sewer in the Sunstone Condos drive aisle no longer does. In its place, sub-basin 3g (Q2=0.03 cfs and Q100=0.15 cfs) sheet flows to the north onto the Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity property. The rate and volume, during both the minor and major storm events, are negligible. 3. A list of tables and figures used within this report can be found in the Table of Contents at the front of the document. The tables and figures are located within the sections to which the content best applies. 4. The project site has been divided into three major sub-basin groups. Each major group was assigned a number (i.e., 1, 2 and 3) and corresponds to one of three proposed buildings. Each of the major groups was further subdivided according to the proposed grading and assigned a letter (i.e., 1a, 2c, or 3e). Overall, the proposed project site was sub-divided into a total of twenty five sub-basins. The off-site basins associated with the proposed right-of -way (i.e., existing ROW + additional ROW) include a total of six sub-basins labeled OS0 through OS5. These basins are mapped out similar to the sub-basins shown on the Existing Conditions Drainage Exhibit (Refer to the Map Pocket). The drainage patterns anticipated within each basin are further described below. Sub-Basin Group 1 Sub-Basin Group 1 consists of the block bound by City Park Avenue on the west, Plum Street on the south, the Private Drive (i.e., entrance to the parking garage) on the east and Sunstone Condos on the north. This basin is compromised of the proposed Building 1. The majority of this basin is rooftop area, and all of which will be routed via roof drains and downspouts into three permeable paver sections located in sub-basins 1h, 1i and 2e | 2f. Each permeable paver section is designed with a subbase (i.e., reservoir area) consisting of ASTM No. 2 open-graded aggregate. The no-infiltration (i.e., 30 mil impermeable liner) sections will drain through underdrain pipes that will be connected into the proposed 15" RCP storm sewer flowing east along the north side of West Plum Street. x 1a and 1b: These sub-basins consist of rooftop area that will drain to the permeable paver sections in sub-basins 1h and 1i, respectively. The rooftop area and associated roof drains will discharge directly into the ASTM No. 2 subbase. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 12 x 1c: This sub-basin consists of rooftop area on the north side of building 1 that will drain to the permeable paver section split between sub-basins 2e and 2f. The rooftop area and associated roof drains will connect directly to an HDPE storm drain rather than discharging directly to the surface. Along the buildings north side, there is a concern that surface drains could freeze during extended cold periods. x 1d, 1e and 1f: These sub-basins consist of landscaped area between the north side of Building 1 and the north property boundary. A swale within each basin will collect the local developed runoff and convey it to an area drain. The area drains will connect to the same system as the roof drains in sub-basin 1c and discharge to the permeable paver sections in sub-basins 2e and 2f. x 1h and 1i: The permeable paver sections that will be used to store developed runoff from adjoining basins will be located within each of these sub-basins. Sub-basin 1h houses the pool/cabana area, non-permeable concrete pavers and landscaping. Except for the pool/cabana, sub-basin 1i is similar in composition. The underdrains in each sub-basin will connect to an inline outlet structure with an orifice plate, which will be used to control the release rate (Qout|1h=0.71 cfs and Qout|1i=0.40 cfs) from the permeable paver reservoir volume. x 1g: This sub-basin is situated in the northwest corner of Building 1 and consists of rooftop area. It will drain to the surface in sub-basin 1k and then into the east flowline of City Park Avenue. x 1j: This sub-basin is situated along the south side of Building 1. It consists of landscape and hardscape area. The excess developed runoff will drain directly to the north flowline of West Plum Street. x 1k: This sub-basin is situated along the west side of Building 1. It consists of landscape and hardscape area. The excess developed runoff will drain directly to the east flowline of City Park Avenue. Sub-Basin Group 2 Basin 2 consists of the block bound by the Private Drive (entrance to the parking garage) on the west, West Plum Street on the south, Bluebell Street on the east and Sunstone Condos on the north. This basin is compromised almost entirely of the proposed parking structure (Building 2). The multi-family residential dwelling units lining the parking structure all have pitched roofs, which do not drain into the parking garage’s stormwater vault. Runoff from these roofs (i.e., sub-basins 2b and 2c) will be routed via gutters and downspouts into West Plum Street and Bluebell Street, respectively. The western-most portion of Basin 2 consists of one-half of the Private Drive. x 2a: The upper parking deck comprises the majority of this sub-basin. This area will be collected in a series of area inlets which will convey the stormwater via internal piping to a stormwater vault located underneath the ramp from the first to second levels of the structure. This vault will discharge (Qout=0.50 cfs) into the storm sewer located in the Private Drive to the west. x 2b and 2c: The parking structure is lined on the south and east sides with "row home"-like apartment units. Theses sub-basins will discharge (undetained) via roof drains to Bluebell and West Plum Streets. The runoff in sub-basin 2b will combine with runoff in off-site basin OS5 and the runoff in sub-basin 2c will combine with the runoff in off-site basin OS4. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 13 x 2d: This sub-basin mostly consists of landscaped area on the north side of building 2. A west-to-east flowing swale will collect the excess runoff and discharge it to the west flowline of Bluebell Street through a 2' wide metal sidewalk culvert. x 2e and 2f: These sub-basins are located in between Buildings 1 and 2 and more or less delineate the parking structure's vehicle entry/exit. The sub- basins consist of a mix of permeable pavers, decorative pavers, concrete and landscaping. The developed runoff from sub-basins 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f and the local runoff (i.e., sub-basins 2e and 2f) will be stored in the reservoir area of the permeable pavers and released to the storm drain in West Plum Street. The release rate (Qout=0.40cfs) will be controlled with an orifice plate. Sub-Basin Group 3 Basin 3 consists of the block bound by Bluebell Street on the west, West Plum Street on the south, Aster Street on the east and the Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity on the north. This basin is compromised almost entirely of proposed Building 3. The vast majority of this basin is rooftop area, most of which will be routed via roof drains and downspouts into the permeable pavers in sub-basin 3d. It should be noted that the storm sewer main in Plum Street is proposed to be reconstructed from Aster Street to Bluebell Street, including the existing inlet at Bluebell. Furthermore, Aster Street itself is proposed to be milled and overlaid to remove the crown and create a west to east sheet flow pattern. This is to help alleviate some of the existing drainage problems this street experiences. x 3a and 3d: These sub-basins are comprised of rooftop area and the interior courtyard, respectively. The developed runoff from sub-basin 3a will drain into the permeable paver section in sub-basin 3d through a system of roof drains which will be connected directly to the ASTM No.2 storage reservoir. x 3b, 3c, 3e, 3f, 3g and 3h: These are peripheral sub-basins mostly comprised of landscaping which will drain to the surrounding public rights- of-way. A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. B. Specific Details 1. The main drainage problem associated with this project site is the existing deficiency of the public storm drainage system, which culminate at the intersection of West Plum and Aster Streets. The drainage strategies employed with The District at Campus West development aim to match existing drainage patterns and peak flow rates so as not to have an adverse impact at this location. The predevelopment 100-year peak flows at West Plum and Aster Streets are approximately 16.75 cfs (surface and sub-surface), and the proposed 100-year peak flows are approximately 16.66 cfs (surface and subsurface). This will be achieved by providing on-site detention and water quality in distributed permeable paver sections and a stormwater vault within the parking structure. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 14 Figure 5 – Flooding at 728 Aster Street 2. An FAA method computation has been performed for the permeable paver sections to determine the quantity detention storage volume required for each (Refer to Appendix B.4). The total allowable release rate for The District at Campus West was determined by subtracting undetained releases from perimeter areas such as sub-basins 2b and 2c (i.e., sloped roof areas on the south and east sides of Building 2) from the total allowable site release rate that was determined using the procedure described in Section III.D.5. The total allowable site release is 9.59 cfs. Undetained releases total approximately 6.12 cfs. The remainder, approximately 3.47 cfs, was distributed among the permeable pavers sections. The release rate for each permeable paver section was set according specific constraints associated with each area such as the permeable paver area and the available ASTM No. 2 reservoir depth. Water quality computations have also been performed for each of the three major drainage basins utilizing the UDFCD’s UD-BMP Version 3.02 “Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS)” Design Procedure Form. The stormwater vault located within the parking structure will have a more conventional outlet control utilizing an orifice to restrict peak discharge to 0.50 cfs. The parking garage will have specific components to treat sand and oil from vehicles contained therein. A sand filter (SF) will likely be integrated into the main stormwater storage vault. Since this facility is located within the parking garage, the final design details and construction documentation will be by others (architect, structural engineer, plumbing engineer, etc.) as part of the building permit plans for the parking structure. Preliminarily, Northern Engineering computes a required storage volume of approximately 6815 cu. ft. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 15 Although the final design details, construction documentation and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual may be supplied by others after FDP approval, said information shall be provided to the City of Fort Collins for review prior to Final Development Plan approval. A final copy of the approved SOP manual shall be provided to City and must be maintained on-site by the entity responsible for the facility maintenance. Annual reports must also be prepared and submitted to the City discussing the results of the maintenance program (i.e. inspection dates, inspection frequency, volume loss due to sedimentation, corrective actions taken, etc.). The present assumption is that the stormwater vault located under the first floor ramp of the parking garage falls into the “underground detention” category. Therefore, this report shall also serve as official written request for said facility, pursuant to Volume 2, Section 4.16 of the FCSCM. A surface- based quantity detention system would be infeasible in this instance. Stormwater storage tanks are not uncommon in urban parking structures. This concept was previously approved with The Retreat at 1200 Plum after all other options had been thoroughly explored with City Staff. 3. Table 2, below, summarizes the detention storage and water quality information for each main drainage facility. Table 2 – Detention Storage and Water Quality Summary Tributary Area(s) Pond Location 100-year Storage Volume Water Quality Capture Volume Volume Required (ac-ft) Volume Provided (ac-ft) Release Rate (cfs) Volume Required (cu. ft.) Volume Provided (cu. ft.) 1a & 1h 1h 0.082 0.082 0.71 588 588 1b & 1i 1i 0.062 0.062 0.40 385 385 2a 2a 0.130 0.130 0.50 1952 1952 1c thru 1g, 2e & 2f 2e & 2f 0.061 0.610 0.40 322 322 3a & 3d 3d 0.033 0.033 1.33 461 461 4. Proper maintenance of the drainage facilities designed with The District at Campus West is a critical component of their ongoing performance and effectiveness. Operations and maintenance of the permeable pavers shall follow the recommendations for permeable pavement systems, as outlined in the UDFCD manual. Appendix E contains applicable excerpts to serve as guidance for the professional maintenance and subcontractors responsible for maintenance of these facilities at The District at Campus West. The drainage design for this development provides for the evacuation of storm drainage runoff in a reasonable amount of time out of the permeable pavers and into the drainage outfall system. Under the intended operation of these drainage facilities, there should not be standing water for more than 48 hours after the end of a rainfall event. If standing water conditions persist in these facilities; and if such conditions are beyond what can be expected in accordance with the approved stormwater design, the Owner shall promptly remedy the situation. The proposed corrective measures shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 16 Maintenance of the stormwater vault (and any associated facilities) within the parking structure is equally important. Access shall be provided by at least one man-door into the stormwater collection area underneath the first floor ramp. The ability for specialized service vehicles (vacuum-trucks, etc.), as well as their respective hoses and appurtenances, needs to be ensured so that the stormwater vault can be properly cleaned and maintained. As previously mentioned, the final design details will be documented with the Architect’s building permit plans for the parking garage. The stormwater component of the garage will be explicitly addressed in the project’s Operations and Maintenance Manual provided to the Owner by the Architect. 5. The drainage features associated with The District at Campus West project are all private facilities, located on private property. The permeable pavers and stormwater vault only serve the respective buildings to which they are attached or located within. Therefore, no drainage easements or separate tracts will be dedicated for these facilities. However, the new storm sewer flowing west to east on the north side of West Plum Street does serve multiple buildings. Even though these buildings will be located on the same lot, a private drainage easement will still be dedicated to ensure that the stormwater conveyance outfall line is protected. 6. As previously mentioned, the outfall for The District at Campus West is the public storm sewer in West Plum Street. This storm sewer flows east across Shields Street before heading south towards Elizabeth Street. Stormwater conveyed by this City drainage system ultimately reaches Spring Creek. There are no additional facilities or upgrades needed off-site in order to accommodate the developed runoff from The District at Campus West. The hydraulic grade line calculations included herein (Refer to Appendix B.1) are intended to demonstrate capacity in the proposed storm drain system, during the 10- year storm event, for developed runoff from the proposed development (i.e., controlled releases from each of the proposed permeable paver reservoir volumes and undetained releases to the public right-of-way). The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 17 V. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards 1. The modification request detailed in Section III.G provides the necessary information for compliance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. All other design elements comply without variation. 2. The drainage design proposed with The District at Campus West project complies with the City of Fort Collins’ Master Drainage Plan for the Old Town Basin. 3. There are no regulatory floodplains associated with The District at Campus West development. 4. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with The District at Campus West apartment community are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. B. Drainage Concept 1. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit any potential damage associated with its stormwater runoff. Rather than utilizing the 5,000 sq-ft allowance of increased impervious area allowed in the Old Town Basin, The District at Campus West will over-detain all increased impervious areas to release at the 2-year historic rate during the 100-year storm. Additionally, a HEC-RAS analysis has been performed along West Plum Street to ensure that all new structures are elevated above expected 100-year water surface elevations, and that all existing structures adjacent to the study area remain dry in the major storm event. The proposed on-site stormwater facilities will offer water quality treatment, in addition to peak rate attenuation. The permeable paver sections will serve multiple purposes, contributing to the urban design elements, allowing pedestrian walkways, and otherwise enhancing the overall function and aesthetic of this first-class redevelopment project. The District at Campus West will be a LEED certified project. While an initial evaluation has not yet been performed, it is anticipated that the permeable paver sections will contribute towards the project’s LEED credits. 2. The proposed District at Campus West development will not have impact on the Master Drainage Plan recommendations for the Old Town Basin. The District at Campus West Final Drainage Report 18 References 1. City of Fort Collins Landscape Design Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities, November 5, 2009, BHA Design, Inc. with City of Fort Collins Utility Services. 2. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for The Retreat at 1200 Plum, April 22, 2009, Northern Engineering (Project No. 410-002). 3. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 4. Geotechnical Engineering Report, The District at CSU, East of West Plum Street and City Park Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, November 2, 2011, Terracon Consultants, Inc.(Terracon Project No. 20115026). 5. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007 6. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 7. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS The District at Campus West CHARACTER OF SURFACE1: Runoff Coefficient Percentage Impervious Project: The District at Campus West Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Calculations By: H. Feissner Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….………………………………………………………….. 0.95 100% Date: December 5, 2012 Concrete …….......……………….….……….………………..….…………………………………………………….. 0.95 90% Gravel (packed) ……….…………………….….…………………………..………………………………………….. 0.50 40% Roofs …….…….………………..……………….……………………………………………………………………… 0.95 90% Pavers…………………………...………………..……………………………………………………………………… 0.40 22% Lawns and Landscaping Sandy Soil Flat <2% ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.10 0% Average 2% to 7% ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 0.15 0% Steep >7% …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.20 0% Clayey Soil Flat <2% ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.20 0% Average 2% to 7% ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 0.25 0% Steep >7% …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.35 0% 2-year Cf = 1.00 10-year Cf = 1.00 100-year Cf = 1.25 Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Table RO-11 Basin ID Basin Area (s.f.) Basin Area (ac) Area of Asphalt (sq ft) Area of Asphalt (ac) Area of Concrete (sq ft) Area of Concrete (ac) Area of Gravel (sq ft) Area of Gravel (ac) Area of Roofs (sq ft) Area of Roofs (ac) Soil Type and Average Slope Area of Lawns and Landscaping (sq ft) Area of Lawns and Landscaping The District at Campus West Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Project: West Range Calculations By: Date: Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration: Tt = L / 60V Tc = Ti + Tt (Equation RO-2) Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S½ Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S½ NOTE: C-value for overland flows over grassy surfaces; C = 0.25 Is Length >500' ? C*Cf (2-yr Cf=1.00) C*Cf (10-yr Cf=1.00) C*Cf (100-yr Cf=1.25) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Ti 2-yr (min) Ti 10-yr (min) Ti 100-yr (min) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min) 2-yr The District at Campus West Rational Method Equation: Project: West Range Calculations By: Date: Rainfall Intensity: EX0 EX0 - Impervious Area 0.22 17.1 17.1 15.9 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.75 2.99 6.41 0.4 0.6 1.4 EX0 EX0 - Pervious Area 0.56 17.1 17.1 15.9 0.25 0.25 0.31 1.75 2.99 6.41 0.2 0.4 1.1 EX0 EX0 0.78 17.1 17.1 15.9 0.44 0.44 0.53 1.75 2.99 6.41 0.6 1.0 2.6 EX1a EX1a - Impervious Area 0.14 14.7 14.7 13.7 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.90 3.24 6.82 0.3 0.4 1.0 EX1a EX1a - Pervious Area 0.44 14.7 14.7 13.7 0.25 0.25 0.31 1.90 3.24 6.82 0.2 0.4 0.9 EX1a EX1a 0.58 14.7 14.7 13.7 0.42 0.42 0.63 1.90 3.24 6.82 0.5 0.8 2.5 EX1b EX1b - Impervious Area 0.05 10 10 9 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.26 3.86 8.03 0.1 0.2 0.4 EX1b EX1b - Pervious Area 0.09 10 10 9 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.26 3.86 8.03 0.1 0.1 0.2 EX1b EX1b 0.15 10 10 9 0.50 0.50 0.54 2.26 3.86 8.03 0.2 0.3 0.6 EX2 EX2 - Impervious Area 0.19 20 20 19 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.63 2.78 5.84 0.3 0.5 1.1 EX2 EX2 - Pervious Area 0.54 20 20 19 0.25 0.25 0.31 1.63 2.78 5.84 0.2 0.4 1.0 EX2 EX2 0.73 20 20 19 0.43 0.43 0.60 1.63 2.78 5.84 0.5 0.9 2.5 EX3 EX3 - Impervious Area 0.25 8 8 7 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.46 4.21 8.80 0.6 1.0 2.16 EX3 EX3 - Pervious Area 0.51 8 8 7 0.25 0.25 1.00 2.46 4.21 8.80 0.31 0.5 4.5 EX3 EX3 0.75 8 8 7 0.48 0.48 0.60 2.46 4.21 8.80 0.9 1.5 4.0 OS0 OS0 0.08 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.2 0.4 0.79 Aster Street (public right-of-way) OS1 OS1 0.10 5 5 5 0.91 0.91 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.3 0.4 1.00 Aster Street (public right-of-way) OS2 OS2 0.21 5 5 5 0.85 0.85 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.5 0.9 2.06 West Plum Street (public right-of-way) OS3 OS3 0.10 5 5 5 0.91 0.91 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.3 0.4 0.98 Bluebell Street (public right-of-way) OS4 OS4 0.09 5 5 5 0.90 0.90 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.2 0.4 0.94 Bluebell Street (public right-of-way) OS5 OS5 0.23 5 5 5 0.84 0.84 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.6 1.0 2.32 West Plum Street (public right-of-way) OS6 OS6 0.09 5 5 5 0.91 0.91 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.2 0.4 0.86 0.86 Columbia Street (to be removed ) OS7 OS7 0.10 5 5 5 0.89 0.89 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.2 0.4 0.95 0.95 Columbia Street (to be removed ) OS8 OS8 0.38 5 5 5 0.81 0.81 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.9 1.5 3.82 West Plum Street (public right-of-way) OS9 OS9 0.18 14 14 13 0.45 0.45 0.56 1.95 3.34 6.92 0.2 0.3 0.70 0.70 To be removed OS2 EX0 thru EX3 & OS1 thru OS9 4.54 25 25 24 0.57 0.57 0.72 1.45 2.47 5.15 3.8 6.4 16.75 9.59 Rainfall Intensity taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), Tables RA-7 and RA-8 C2 C 10 C100 Intensity, i2 (in/hr) Design Point Basin(s) Area, A (acres) 2-yr Tc (min) 10-yr Tc (min) 100-yr Tc (min) Flow, Q2 (cfs) 1.34 2.48 Total Allowable Release Rate: Notes HISTORIC RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS The District at Campus West CHARACTER OF SURFACE1: Runoff Coefficient Percentage Impervious Project: The District at Campus West Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Calculations By: H. Feissner Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….………………………………………………………….. 0.95 100% Date: December 4, 2012 Concrete …….......……………….….……….………………..….…………………………………………………….. 0.95 90% Gravel (packed) ……….…………………….….…………………………..………………………………………….. 0.50 40% Roofs …….…….………………..……………….……………………………………………………………………… 0.95 90% Pavers…………………………...………………..……………………………………………………………………… 0.40 22% Lawns and Landscaping Sandy Soil Flat <2% ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.10 0% Average 2% to 7% ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 0.15 0% Steep >7% …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.20 0% Clayey Soil Flat <2% ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.20 0% Average 2% to 7% ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 0.25 0% Steep >7% …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.35 0% 2-year Cf = 1.00 10-year Cf = 1.00 100-year C f = 1.25 Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, Table RO-11 Sub-Basin ID Sub-Basin Area (s.f.) Sub- BasinBasin Area (ac) Area of Asphalt (sq ft) Area of Asphalt (ac) Area of Concrete (sq ft) Area of Concrete (ac) Area of Pavers (sq ft) Area of Pavers (ac) Area of Roofs (sq ft) Area of Roofs (ac) Soil Type and Average Slope Area of Lawns and The District at Campus West Overland Flow, Time of Concentration: Project: The District at Campus West Calculations By: Date: Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration: Tt = L / 60V Tc = Ti + Tt (Equation RO-2) Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S½ Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S½ NOTE: C-value for overland flows over grassy surfaces; C = 0.25 Is Length >500' ? C*Cf (2-yr Cf=1.00) C*Cf (10-yr Cf=1.00) C*Cf (100-yr Cf=1.25) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Ti 2-yr (min) Ti 10-yr (min) Ti 100-yr (min) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Velocity, V (ft/s) Tt (min) 2-yr The District at Campus West Rational Method Equation: Project: The District at Campus West Calculations By: Date: Rainfall Intensity: 1a 1a 0.38 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.04 1.78 3.83 Detained On-Site Runoff to MBPs in 1h 1b 1b 0.31 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.84 1.44 3.10 Detained On-Site Runoff to MBPs in 1i 1c 1c 0.23 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.64 1.09 2.34 Detained On-Site Runoff drains to MBPs in 2e and/or 2f 1d 1d 0.04 5 5 5 0.28 0.28 0.35 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.03 0.05 0.14 Detained On-Site Runoff drains to MBPs in 2e and/or 2f 1e 1e 0.04 5 5 5 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.03 0.05 0.13 Detained On-Site Runoff drains to MBPs in 2e and/or 2f 1f 1f 0.02 5 5 5 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.01 0.02 0.06 Detained On-Site Runoff drains to MBPs in 2e and/or 2f 1g 1g 0.01 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.03 0.05 0.12 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to MBPs in 2e and/or 2f 1h 1h 0.21 5 5 5 0.74 0.74 0.92 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.44 0.75 1.91 Detained On-Site Runoff drains to MBPs 1i 1i 0.09 5 5 5 0.53 0.53 0.67 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.14 0.24 0.61 Detained On-Site Runoff drains to MBPs 1j 1j 0.07 5 5 5 0.77 0.77 0.96 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.15 0.26 0.67 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to Plum Street 1k 1k 0.03 5 5 5 0.48 0.48 0.59 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.04 0.06 0.16 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to City Park Avenue 0.83 0.83 0.91 2a 2a 0.70 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.90 3.24 6.98 Detained On-Site Runoff from top level drains to detention vault 2b 2b 0.16 5 5 5 0.88 0.88 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.41 0.70 1.63 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to Plum Street 2c 2c 0.09 5 5 5 0.91 0.91 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.23 0.39 0.88 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to Aster Street 2d 2d 0.06 5 5 5 0.31 0.31 0.39 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.06 0.10 0.25 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to Aster Street 2e 2e 0.05 5 5 5 0.44 0.44 0.55 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.06 0.11 0.27 Detained On-Site Runoff drains to lowpoint and MBPs (part of section in 2f) 2f 2f 0.08 5 5 5 0.59 0.59 0.73 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.13 0.23 0.58 Detained On-Site Runoff drains to MBPs 0.85 0.85 0.93 3a 3a 0.39 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.04 1.78 3.84 Detained On-Site Roof runoff drains to MBPs in 3d PROPOSED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS C100 Notes Design Point Flow, Q100 (cfs) Flow, Q2 (cfs) 10-yr Tc (min) 2-yr Tc (min) C2 Flow, Q10 (cfs) Intensity, i100 (in/hr) Sub-Basin(s) H. Feissner Rainfall Intensity taken from the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), Tables RA-7 and RA-8 December 4, 2012 Intensity, i10 (in/hr) C10 Area, A (acres) Intensity, i2 APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.1 – Storm Sewers B.2 – Street Flow B.3 – Inlets B.4 – Detention Facilities APPENDIX B.1 STORM SEWERS Hydraflow Express - Pipe Capacity | 12inch HDPE, Slope: 0.50% - 12/4/12 1 Depth Q Area Veloc Wp Yc TopWidth Energy (ft) (cfs) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.05 0.014 0.015 0.90 0.45 0.05 0.44 0.06 0.10 0.057 0.041 1.40 0.64 0.10 0.60 0.13 0.15 0.136 0.075 1.81 0.80 0.15 0.72 0.20 0.20 0.241 0.113 2.14 0.93 0.21 0.80 0.27 0.25 0.377 0.155 2.44 1.05 0.26 0.87 0.34 0.30 0.535 0.198 2.70 1.16 0.31 0.92 0.41 0.35 0.724 0.247 2.94 1.27 0.36 0.96 0.48 0.40 0.920 0.294 3.13 1.37 0.41 0.98 0.55 0.45 1.146 0.345 3.32 1.47 0.45 1.00 0.62 0.50 1.374 0.395 3.48 1.57 0.50 1.00 0.69 0.55 1.607 0.445 3.62 1.67 0.54 0.99 0.75 0.60 1.839 0.493 3.73 1.77 0.58 0.98 0.82 0.65 2.073 0.542 3.82 1.88 0.62 0.95 0.88 0.70 2.289 0.588 3.89 1.98 0.65 0.92 0.94 0.75 2.489 0.632 3.94 2.10 0.68 0.87 0.99 0.80 2.668 0.674 3.96 2.22 0.70 0.80 1.04 0.85 2.815 0.712 3.95 2.35 0.72 0.71 1.09 0.90 2.908 0.745 3.90 2.50 0.74 0.60 1.14 0.95 2.931 0.771 3.80 2.70 0.74 0.43 1.17 1.00 2.728 0.785 3.47 3.14 0.71 0.00 1.19 Hydraflow Express - Pipe Capacity | 15inch RCP, Slope: 0.25% - 12/4/12 1 Depth Q Area Veloc Wp Yc TopWidth Energy (ft) (cfs) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.06 0.017 0.024 0.74 0.57 0.05 0.55 0.07 0.13 0.074 0.064 1.15 0.81 0.11 0.75 0.15 0.19 0.174 0.117 1.48 1.00 0.16 0.90 0.22 0.25 0.310 0.176 1.76 1.16 0.22 1.00 0.30 0.31 0.484 0.242 2.00 1.31 0.27 1.08 0.37 0.38 0.686 0.310 2.21 1.45 0.33 1.15 0.45 0.44 0.929 0.386 2.41 1.59 0.38 1.19 0.53 0.50 1.180 0.459 2.57 1.71 0.43 1.22 0.60 0.56 1.469 0.539 2.73 1.84 0.48 1.24 0.68 0.63 1.761 0.617 2.86 1.97 0.53 1.25 0.75 0.69 2.061 0.695 2.97 2.09 0.58 1.24 0.82 0.75 2.358 0.771 3.06 2.22 0.62 1.22 0.90 0.81 2.658 0.848 3.14 2.35 0.66 1.19 0.97 0.88 2.935 0.919 3.19 2.48 0.69 1.14 1.03 0.94 3.191 0.988 3.23 2.62 0.72 1.08 1.10 1.00 3.420 1.053 3.25 2.77 0.75 1.00 1.16 1.06 3.609 1.113 3.24 2.94 0.77 0.89 1.23 1.13 3.729 1.164 3.20 3.13 0.78 0.75 1.28 1.19 3.758 1.205 3.12 3.37 0.79 0.54 1.34 1.25 3.498 1.227 2.85 3.93 0.76 0.00 1.38 Hydraflow Express - Pipe Capacity | 15inch RCP, Slope: 0.50% - 12/4/12 1 Depth Q Area Veloc Wp Yc TopWidth Energy (ft) (cfs) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.06 0.025 0.024 1.05 0.57 0.06 0.55 0.08 0.13 0.104 0.064 1.62 0.81 0.13 0.75 0.17 0.19 0.246 0.117 2.10 1.00 0.19 0.90 0.26 0.25 0.438 0.176 2.49 1.16 0.26 1.00 0.35 0.31 0.684 0.242 2.83 1.31 0.33 1.08 0.44 0.38 0.971 0.310 3.13 1.45 0.39 1.15 0.53 0.44 1.314 0.386 3.41 1.59 0.46 1.19 0.62 0.50 1.669 0.459 3.64 1.71 0.52 1.22 0.71 0.56 2.078 0.539 3.86 1.84 0.58 1.24 0.79 0.63 2.491 0.617 4.04 1.97 0.64 1.25 0.88 0.69 2.914 0.695 4.20 2.09 0.69 1.24 0.96 0.75 3.335 0.771 4.33 2.22 0.74 1.22 1.04 0.81 3.759 0.848 4.44 2.35 0.79 1.19 1.12 0.88 4.151 0.919 4.52 2.48 0.83 1.14 1.19 0.94 4.513 0.988 4.57 2.62 0.86 1.08 1.26 1.00 4.837 1.053 4.59 2.77 0.90 1.00 1.33 1.06 5.103 1.113 4.58 2.94 0.92 0.89 1.39 1.13 5.274 1.164 4.53 3.13 0.93 0.75 1.44 1.19 5.314 1.205 4.41 3.37 0.94 0.54 1.49 1.25 4.946 1.227 4.03 3.93 0.91 0.00 1.50 APPENDIX B.2 STREET FLOW APPENDIX B.3 INLETS The District at Campus West Area Inlet Capacity Calculations - Design Point 1d Grate: Nyloplast 12in Standard Grate Assembly Weir Perimeter, L = 31.14 in 2.60 ft Open Area, A = 60.62 in 2 0.42 ft 2 **Open area for single inlet grate: 60.62 in 2 Clogging Factor, c = 50% Stage Interval, Dh = 0.10 ft Weir Calculation: Orifice Calculation: Qw = CLH 1.5 Qo = CA(2gH) 0.5 C = 3.00 C = 0.61 cL = 1.30 ft Ac = 0.21 ft 2 Water Depth Elevation Qw-INLET Q o-INLET Rules ft ft cfs cfs cfs 0.00 5000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 5000.10 0.12 0.33 0.12 0.20 5000.20 0.35 0.46 0.35 բ Water will pond to ±5000.11 0.30 5000.30 0.64 0.56 0.56 0.40 5000.40 0.98 0.65 0.65 0.50 5000.50 1.38 0.73 0.73 0.60 5000.60 1.81 0.80 0.80 0.70 5000.70 2.28 0.86 0.86 0.80 5000.80 2.79 0.92 0.92 0.90 5000.90 3.32 0.98 0.98 1.00 5001.00 3.89 1.03 1.03 1.10 5001.10 4.49 1.08 1.08 1.20 5001.20 5.12 1.13 1.13 1.30 5001.30 5.77 1.17 1.17 1.40 5001.40 6.45 1.22 1.22 1.50 5001.50 7.15 1.26 1.26 1.60 5001.60 7.88 1.30 1.30 1.70 5001.70 8.63 1.34 1.34 ĺQ100=0.14 cfs 12/4/201210:12 AM The District at Campus West Area Inlet Capacity Calculations - Design Point 1e Grate: Nyloplast 12in Standard Grate Assembly Weir Perimeter, L = 31.14 in 2.60 ft Open Area, A = 60.62 in 2 0.42 ft 2 **Open area for single inlet grate: 60.62 in 2 Clogging Factor, c = 50% Stage Interval, Dh = 0.10 ft Weir Calculation: Orifice Calculation: Qw = CLH 1.5 Qo = CA(2gH) 0.5 C = 3.00 C = 0.61 cL = 1.30 ft Ac = 0.21 ft 2 Water Depth Elevation Qw-INLET Q o-INLET Rules ft ft cfs cfs cfs 0.00 5000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 5000.10 0.12 0.33 0.12 0.20 5000.20 0.35 0.46 0.35 բ Water will pond to ±5000.10 0.30 5000.30 0.64 0.56 0.56 0.40 5000.40 0.98 0.65 0.65 0.50 5000.50 1.38 0.73 0.73 0.60 5000.60 1.81 0.80 0.80 0.70 5000.70 2.28 0.86 0.86 0.80 5000.80 2.79 0.92 0.92 0.90 5000.90 3.32 0.98 0.98 1.00 5001.00 3.89 1.03 1.03 1.10 5001.10 4.49 1.08 1.08 1.20 5001.20 5.12 1.13 1.13 1.30 5001.30 5.77 1.17 1.17 1.40 5001.40 6.45 1.22 1.22 1.50 5001.50 7.15 1.26 1.26 1.60 5001.60 7.88 1.30 1.30 1.70 5001.70 8.63 1.34 1.34 ĺQ100=0.13 cfs 12/4/201210:12 AM The District at Campus West Area Inlet Capacity Calculations - Design Point 1f Grate: Nyloplast 12in Standard Grate Assembly Weir Perimeter, L = 31.14 in 2.60 ft Open Area, A = 60.62 in 2 0.42 ft 2 **Open area for single inlet grate: 60.62 in 2 Clogging Factor, c = 50% Stage Interval, Dh = 0.10 ft Weir Calculation: Orifice Calculation: Qw = CLH 1.5 Qo = CA(2gH) 0.5 C = 3.00 C = 0.61 cL = 1.30 ft Ac = 0.21 ft 2 Water Depth Elevation Qw-INLET Q o-INLET Rules ft ft cfs cfs cfs 0.00 5000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 5000.10 0.12 0.33 0.12 բ Water will pond to ±5000.05 0.20 5000.20 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.30 5000.30 0.64 0.56 0.56 0.40 5000.40 0.98 0.65 0.65 0.50 5000.50 1.38 0.73 0.73 0.60 5000.60 1.81 0.80 0.80 0.70 5000.70 2.28 0.86 0.86 0.80 5000.80 2.79 0.92 0.92 0.90 5000.90 3.32 0.98 0.98 1.00 5001.00 3.89 1.03 1.03 1.10 5001.10 4.49 1.08 1.08 1.20 5001.20 5.12 1.13 1.13 1.30 5001.30 5.77 1.17 1.17 1.40 5001.40 6.45 1.22 1.22 1.50 5001.50 7.15 1.26 1.26 1.60 5001.60 7.88 1.30 1.30 1.70 5001.70 8.63 1.34 1.34 ĺQ100=0.06 cfs 12/4/201210:12 AM APPENDIX B.4 DETENTION FACILITIES The District at Campus West H. Feissner Pond No : MBPs - Basin 1h 1h 100-yr 1.00 Area (A)= 0.59 acres 3588 ft3 Max Release Rate = 0.71 cfs 0.082 ac-ft Time Time Ft.Collins 100-yr Intensity Q100 Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (mins) (secs) (in/hr) (cfs) (ft 3 ) (ft 3 ) (ft 3 ) 5 300 9.95 5.87 1761 214 1547 10 600 7.72 4.55 2733 428 2305 15 900 6.52 3.85 3462 641 2821 20 1200 5.60 3.30 3965 855 3110 25 1500 4.98 2.94 4407 1069 3339 30 1800 4.52 2.67 4800 1283 3518 35 2100 4.08 2.41 5055 1496 3559 40 2400 3.74 2.21 5296 1710 3586 45 2700 3.46 2.04 5512 1924 3588 50 3000 3.23 1.91 5717 2138 3580 55 3300 3.03 1.79 5899 2351 3548 60 3600 2.86 1.69 6075 2565 3510 65 3900 2.72 1.60 6259 2779 3480 70 4200 2.59 1.53 6418 2993 3426 75 4500 2.48 1.46 6584 3206 3378 80 4800 2.38 1.40 6740 3420 3320 85 5100 2.29 1.35 6891 3634 3257 90 5400 2.21 1.30 7041 3848 3194 95 5700 2.13 1.26 7163 4061 3102 100 6000 2.06 1.22 7292 4275 3017 105 6300 2.00 1.18 7434 4489 2945 110 6600 1.94 1.14 7554 4703 2852 115 6900 1.89 1.12 7694 4916 2778 120 7200 1.84 1.09 7816 5130 2686 Input Variables Results Calculations By: Design Point Design Storm Required Detention Volume Developed "C" = DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD w/ Ft.Collins IDF Project Number : 670-001 The District at Campus West Project Title Date: Project Number Calcs By: Client Pond Designation Q = 0.71 cfs C = 0.607 Q = Release Rate (cfs) Eh = 4.55 ft C = Discharge Coefficients (unitless) Ei = 0.00 ft Aa = Area Allowed of Opening (ft2) g = Gravity (32.2 ft/s2) 0.068332 ft2 Eh = High Water Surface Elevation (ft) 9.839738 in2 Ei = Elevation of Outlet Invert (ft) H. Feissner December 4, 2012 Aa = N/A 670-001 The District at Campus West Basin 1h > 2 @ R Sin S R R S  Q CA 2 g E h  E i S R T Cos R Cos R ' o ' 2 2 1 T T Ac S R 2  K H = Height of Opening (in.) R = Inner Radius of Outfall Pipe (in.) ȴ = Top of Plate to Center of Pipe (in.) S = Arc Length of Open Area (in.) Ac = Area of Opening (in2) ɽ = Angle of Plate on Pipe to Center Pipe (radians) Calculated Area of Opening (Ac) Design Hieght of Opening (H) Proposed Pipe Diameter 9.17 sq. in. 1-5/8 in 12 in > @ 2 2 R Sin S R R S K  Q CA 2 g E h  E i S R T Cos R Cos R ' o ' 2 2 1 The District at Campus West H. Feissner Pond No : MBPs - Basin 1i 1i 100-yr 1.00 Area (A)= 0.40 acres 2683 ft3 Max Release Rate = 0.40 cfs 0.062 ac-ft Time Time Ft.Collins 100-yr Intensity Q100 Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (mins) (secs) (in/hr) (cfs) (ft 3 ) (ft 3 ) (ft 3 ) 5 300 9.95 3.98 1194 120 1074 10 600 7.72 3.09 1853 240 1613 15 900 6.52 2.61 2347 360 1987 20 1200 5.60 2.24 2688 480 2208 25 1500 4.98 1.99 2988 600 2388 30 1800 4.52 1.81 3254 720 2534 35 2100 4.08 1.63 3427 840 2587 40 2400 3.74 1.50 3590 960 2630 45 2700 3.46 1.38 3737 1080 2657 50 3000 3.23 1.29 3876 1200 2676 55 3300 3.03 1.21 4000 1320 2680 60 3600 2.86 1.14 4118 1440 2678 65 3900 2.72 1.09 4243 1560 2683 70 4200 2.59 1.04 4351 1680 2671 75 4500 2.48 0.99 4464 1800 2664 80 4800 2.38 0.95 4570 1920 2650 85 5100 2.29 0.92 4672 2040 2632 90 5400 2.21 0.88 4774 2160 2614 95 5700 2.13 0.85 4856 2280 2576 100 6000 2.06 0.82 4944 2400 2544 105 6300 2.00 0.80 5040 2520 2520 110 6600 1.94 0.78 5122 2640 2482 115 6900 1.89 0.76 5216 2760 2456 120 7200 1.84 0.74 5299 2880 2419 Input Variables Results Design Point Design Storm Required Detention Volume Developed "C" = DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD w/ Ft.Collins IDF Project Number : 670-001 Project Location : Fort Collins, Colorado The District at Campus West Project Title Date: Project Number Calcs By: Client Pond Designation Q = 0.40 cfs C = 0.607 Q = Release Rate (cfs) Eh = 4.17 ft C = Discharge Coefficients (unitless) Ei = 0.00 ft Aa = Area Allowed of Opening (ft2) g = Gravity (32.2 ft/s2) 0.040212 ft2 Eh = High Water Surface Elevation (ft) 5.79059 in2 Ei = Elevation of Outlet Invert (ft) H. Feissner December 4, 2012 Aa = N/A 670-001 The District at Campus West Basin 1i > 2 @ R Sin S R R S  Q CA 2 g E h  E i S R T Cos R Cos R ' o ' 2 2 1 T T Ac S R 2  K H = Height of Opening (in.) R = Inner Radius of Outfall Pipe (in.) ȴ = Top of Plate to Center of Pipe (in.) S = Arc Length of Open Area (in.) Ac = Area of Opening (in2) ɽ = Angle of Plate on Pipe to Center Pipe (radians) Calculated Area of Opening (Ac) Design Hieght of Opening (H) Proposed Pipe Diameter 5.76 sq. in. 1-3/8 in 8 in > @ 2 2 R Sin S R R S K  Q CA 2 g E h  E i S R T Cos R Cos R ' o ' 2 2 1 The District at Campus West H. Feissner Pond No : Underground Storage - Basin 2a 2a 100-yr 1.00 Area (A)= 0.70 acres 5679 ft3 Max Release Rate = 0.50 cfs 0.130 ac-ft Time Time Ft.Collins 100-yr Intensity Q100 Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (mins) (secs) (in/hr) (cfs) (ft 3 ) (ft 3 ) (ft 3 ) 5 300 9.95 6.97 2090 150 1940 10 600 7.72 5.40 3242 300 2942 15 900 6.52 4.56 4108 450 3658 20 1200 5.60 3.92 4704 600 4104 25 1500 4.98 3.49 5229 750 4479 30 1800 4.52 3.16 5695 900 4795 35 2100 4.08 2.86 5998 1050 4948 40 2400 3.74 2.62 6283 1200 5083 45 2700 3.46 2.42 6539 1350 5189 50 3000 3.23 2.26 6783 1500 5283 55 3300 3.03 2.12 6999 1650 5349 60 3600 2.86 2.00 7207 1800 5407 65 3900 2.72 1.90 7426 1950 5476 70 4200 2.59 1.81 7615 2100 5515 75 4500 2.48 1.74 7812 2250 5562 80 4800 2.38 1.67 7997 2400 5597 85 5100 2.29 1.60 8175 2550 5625 90 5400 2.21 1.55 8354 2700 5654 95 5700 2.13 1.49 8499 2850 5649 100 6000 2.06 1.44 8652 3000 5652 105 6300 2.00 1.40 8820 3150 5670 110 6600 1.94 1.36 8963 3300 5663 115 6900 1.89 1.32 9129 3450 5679 120 7200 1.84 1.29 9274 3600 5674 Input Variables Results Design Point Design Storm Required Detention Volume Developed "C" = DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD w/ Ft.Collins IDF Project Number : 670-001 Project Location : Fort Collins, Colorado The District at Campus West Project Title Date: Project Number Calcs By: Client Pond Designation Q = 0.50 cfs C = 0.606 Q = Release Rate (cfs) Eh = 1.00 ft C = Discharge Coefficients (unitless) Ei = 0.00 ft Aa = Area Allowed of Opening (ft2) g = Gravity (32.2 ft/s2) 0.102815 ft2 Eh = High Water Surface Elevation (ft) 14.80529 in2 Ei = Elevation of Outlet Invert (ft) N/A 670-001 The District at Campus West Basin 2a H. Feissner December 4, 2012 Aa = > 2 @ R Sin S R R S  Q CA 2 g E h  E i S R T Cos R Cos R ' o ' 2 2 1 T T Ac S R 2  K H = Height of Opening (in.) R = Inner Radius of Outfall Pipe (in.) ȴ = Top of Plate to Center of Pipe (in.) S = Arc Length of Open Area (in.) Ac = Area of Opening (in2) ɽ = Angle of Plate on Pipe to Center Pipe (radians) 2-1/4 in 12 in Calculated Area of Opening (Ac) Design Hieght of Opening (H) Proposed Pipe Diameter 14.68 sq. in. > @ 2 2 R Sin S R R S K  Q CA 2 g E h  E i S R T Cos R Cos R ' o ' 2 2 1 The District at Campus West H. Feissner Pond No : MBPs - Basins 2e & 2f 2e & 2f 100-yr 0.85 Area (A)= 0.47 acres 2678 ft3 Max Release Rate = 0.40 cfs 0.061 ac-ft Time Time Ft.Collins 100-yr Intensity Q100 Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (mins) (secs) (in/hr) (cfs) (ft 3 ) (ft 3 ) (ft 3 ) 5 300 9.95 3.98 1193 120 1073 10 600 7.72 3.08 1850 240 1610 15 900 6.52 2.60 2344 360 1984 20 1200 5.60 2.24 2685 480 2205 25 1500 4.98 1.99 2984 600 2384 30 1800 4.52 1.81 3250 720 2530 35 2100 4.08 1.63 3423 840 2583 40 2400 3.74 1.49 3586 960 2626 45 2700 3.46 1.38 3732 1080 2652 50 3000 3.23 1.29 3871 1200 2671 55 3300 3.03 1.21 3995 1320 2675 60 3600 2.86 1.14 4113 1440 2673 65 3900 2.72 1.09 4238 1560 2678 70 4200 2.59 1.03 4346 1680 2666 75 4500 2.48 0.99 4458 1800 2658 80 4800 2.38 0.95 4564 1920 2644 85 5100 2.29 0.91 4666 2040 2626 90 5400 2.21 0.88 4768 2160 2608 95 5700 2.13 0.85 4850 2280 2570 100 6000 2.06 0.82 4938 2400 2538 105 6300 2.00 0.80 5034 2520 2514 110 6600 1.94 0.78 5115 2640 2475 115 6900 1.89 0.76 5210 2760 2450 120 7200 1.84 0.74 5293 2880 2413 Input Variables Results Design Point Design Storm Required Detention Volume Developed "C" = DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD w/ Ft.Collins IDF Project Number : 670-001 Project Location : Fort Collins, Colorado The District at Campus West Project Title Date: Project Number Calcs By: Client Pond Designation Q = 0.90 cfs C = 0.605 Q = Release Rate (cfs) Eh = 3.05 ft C = Discharge Coefficients (unitless) Ei = 0.00 ft Aa = Area Allowed of Opening (ft2) g = Gravity (32.2 ft/s2) 0.106144 ft2 Eh = High Water Surface Elevation (ft) 15.28469 in2 Ei = Elevation of Outlet Invert (ft) N/A 670-001 The District at Campus West Basins 2e & 2f H. Feissner December 4, 2012 Aa = > 2 @ R Sin S R R S  Q CA 2 g E h  E i S R T Cos R Cos R ' o ' 2 2 1 T T Ac S R 2  K H = Height of Opening (in.) R = Inner Radius of Outfall Pipe (in.) ȴ = Top of Plate to Center of Pipe (in.) S = Arc Length of Open Area (in.) Ac = Area of Opening (in2) ɽ = Angle of Plate on Pipe to Center Pipe (radians) 2 in 15 in Calculated Area of Opening (Ac) Design Hieght of Opening (H) Proposed Pipe Diameter 14.01 sq. in. > @ 2 2 R Sin S R R S K  Q CA 2 g E h  E i S R T Cos R Cos R ' o ' 2 2 1 The District at Campus West H. Feissner Pond No : MBPs - Basin 3d 3d 100-yr 1.00 Area (A)= 0.45 acres 1441 ft3 Max Release Rate = 1.33 cfs 0.033 ac-ft Time Time Ft.Collins 100-yr Intensity Q100 Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (mins) (secs) (in/hr) (cfs) (ft 3 ) (ft 3 ) (ft 3 ) 5 300 9.95 4.48 1343 400 944 10 600 7.72 3.47 2084 800 1285 15 900 6.52 2.93 2641 1199 1441 20 1200 5.60 2.52 3024 1599 1425 25 1500 4.98 2.24 3362 1999 1363 30 1800 4.52 2.03 3661 2399 1263 35 2100 4.08 1.84 3856 2798 1057 40 2400 3.74 1.68 4039 3198 841 45 2700 3.46 1.56 4204 3598 606 50 3000 3.23 1.45 4361 3998 363 55 3300 3.03 1.36 4500 4397 102 60 3600 2.86 1.29 4633 4797 -164 65 3900 2.72 1.22 4774 5197 -423 70 4200 2.59 1.17 4895 5597 -701 75 4500 2.48 1.12 5022 5996 -974 80 4800 2.38 1.07 5141 6396 -1255 85 5100 2.29 1.03 5256 6796 -1540 90 5400 2.21 0.99 5370 7196 -1825 95 5700 2.13 0.96 5463 7595 -2132 100 6000 2.06 0.93 5562 7995 -2433 105 6300 2.00 0.90 5670 8395 -2725 110 6600 1.94 0.87 5762 8795 -3033 115 6900 1.89 0.85 5868 9194 -3326 120 7200 1.84 0.83 5962 9594 -3632 Input Variables Results Design Point Design Storm Required Detention Volume Developed "C" = DETENTION POND CALCULATION; FAA METHOD w/ Ft.Collins IDF Project Number : 670-001 Project Location : Fort Collins, Colorado The District at Campus West Project Title Date: Project Number Calcs By: Client Pond Designation Q = 1.33 cfs C = 0.605 Q = Release Rate (cfs) Eh = 2.60 ft C = Discharge Coefficients (unitless) Ei = 0.00 ft Aa = Area Allowed of Opening (ft2) g = Gravity (32.2 ft/s2) 0.16989 ft2 Eh = High Water Surface Elevation (ft) 24.46409 in2 Ei = Elevation of Outlet Invert (ft) H. Feissner December 4, 2012 Aa = N/A 670-001 The District at Campus West Basin 3d > 2 @ R Sin S R R S  Q CA 2 g E h  E i S R T Cos R Cos R ' o ' 2 2 1 T T Ac S R 2  K H = Height of Opening (in.) R = Inner Radius of Outfall Pipe (in.) ȴ = Top of Plate to Center of Pipe (in.) S = Arc Length of Open Area (in.) Ac = Area of Opening (in2) ɽ = Angle of Plate on Pipe to Center Pipe (radians) Calculated Area of Opening (Ac) Design Hieght of Opening (H) Proposed Pipe Diameter 24.13 sq. in. 3-7/8 in 8 in > @ 2 2 R Sin S R R S K  Q CA 2 g E h  E i S R T Cos R Cos R ' o ' 2 2 1 APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY DESIGN COMPUTATIONS Eco-Venetian Stone™ Complete installation & specification details are available by contacting your Pavestone Sales Representative. • Atlanta, GA: (770) 306-9691 • Austin/San Antonio, TX: (512) 558-7283 • Cartersville, GA (770( 607-3345 • Charlotte, NC: (704) 588-4747 • Colorado Springs, CO: (719) 322-0101 • Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX: (817) 481-5802 • Denver, CO: (303) 287-3700 • Houston, TX: (281) 391-7283 • Kansas City, MO: (816) 524-9900 • Las Vegas, NV: (702) 221-2700 • New Orleans, LA: (985) 882-9111 • Phoenix, AZ: (602) 257-4588 • St. Louis/ Cape Girardeau, MO: (573) 332-8312 • Sacramento/ Winters, CA: (530) 795-4400 www.pavestone.com Eco-Venetian Stone™ Combo Nominal Dimensions Giant: 9 3/16" W x 9 3/16" L 240mm x 240mm Large Rectangle: 4 7/16" W x 9 3/16" L 120mm x 240m Square: 4 7/16" W x 4 7/16" L 120mm x 120mm Med. Rec.: 4 7/16" W x 6 13/16" L 120mm x 180mm Height/Thickness: 80mm = 3 1/8" H Stones/Pallet: 240 (48 Sq., 96 Med., 80 Lg. Rec., 32 Giant) Approx. Wt./Pallet : 2,750 lbs. Sq. ft./Pallet: 75 Product Number: 689 *Fractional dimensions are nominal. ICPI Charter Member UNI-GROUP U.S.A. Manufacturers of UNI Paving Stones SKU# CDC 271v7 12/11 Giant Large Rectangle Square Med. Rec. Note: Permeable pavements require both civil and hydraulic engineering. All final pavements design shall be approved by a licensed engineer familiar with local site conditions, building codes and storm water management plans. APPLICATIONS Light Duty Parking Lots • Driveways • Patios • Entrance Areas • Sidewalks • Terraces Garden Pathways • Pool Decks • Pedestrian Malls • Roof Gardens PRODUCT INFORMATION Eco-Venetian Stone™ is available in a thickness of 3 1/8" H = 80mm Pavestone Eco-Venetian Stone™ is the sustainable solution for modular multiple shape permeable pavements. Its modular square and rectangular shapes with a cleft surface set it apart from other permeable pavement treatments. This texture resembles stone facing and invokes a more natural convention. The Eco-Venetian Stone™ larger scales lends itself to stately residential settings and more expansive commercial applications. Its modular pattern equalizes the scale of any project and is fitting to most any architectural elements. The product is 80mm in thickness with a patented 1/4 inch interlocking joint. This ingenuity is singular to the Pavestone Eco-Venetian Stone™ product and insures optimum pavement Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Type of Permeable Pavement Section A) What type of section of permeable pavement is used? (Based on the land use and activities, proximity to adjacent structures and soil characteristics.) B) What type of wearing course? 2. Required Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Area Tributary to Permeable Pavement, Ia I a = 82.0 % B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (I = Ia / 100) i = 0.820 C) Tributary Watershed Area ATotal = 25,861 sq ft (including area of permeable pavement system) D) Area of Permeable Pavement System APPS = 1,913 sq ft (Minimum recommended permeable pavement area = 7520 sq ft) E) Impervious Tributary Ratio RT = 10.3 IMPERVIOUS TRIBUTARY RATIO EXCEEDS 2.0 (Contributing Imperviuos Area / Permeable Pavement Ratio) F) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Based on 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 588 cu ft (WQCV = (0.8 * (0.91 * i 3 - 1.19 * i 2 + 0.78 * i) / 12) * Area) G) Is flood control volume being added? The District at Campus West Basin 1h Design Procedure Form: Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) H. Feissner Northern Engineering December 4, 2012 Choose One No Infiltration Partial Infiltration Section Full Infiltration Section Choose One YES Choose One PICP Concrete Grid Pavement Pervious Concrete Porous Gravel H) Total Volume Needed VTotal = cu ft 3. Depth of Reservoir A) Minimum Depth of Reservoir Dmin = 54.6 inches (Minimum recommended depth is 6 inches) B) Is the slope of the reservoir/subgrade interface equal to 0%? C) Porosity (Porous Gravel Pavement < 0.3, Others < 0.40) P = 0.40 D) Slope of the Base Course/Subgrade Interface S = 0.005 ft / ft E) Length Between Lateral Flow Barriers (max = 307.49 ft.) L = 1.0 ft F) Volume Provided Based on Depth of Base Course V = 3,416 cu ft Flat or Stepped: V = P * ((Dmin-1)/12) * Area Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 6. Filter Material and Underdrain System A) Is the underdrain placed below a 6-inch thick layer of CDOT Class C filter material? B) Diameter of Slotted Pipe (slot dimensions per Table PPs-2) C) Distance from the Lowest Elevation of the Storage Volume y = ft (i.e. the bottom of the base course to the center of the orifice) 7. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is there a minimum 30 mil thick impermeable PVC geomembrane liner on the bottom and sides of the basin, extending up to the top of the base course? B) CDOT Class B Separator Fabric 8. Outlet (Assumes each cell has similar area, subgrade slope, and length between lateral barriers (unless subgrade is flat). Calculate cells individually where this varies.) Basin 1h The District at Campus West Design Procedure Form: Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) H. Feissner Northern Engineering December 4, 2012 Choose One YES NO Choose One 4-inch 6-inch Choose One Choose One YES NO Placed above the liner Placed above and below the liner N/A A) Depth of WQCV in the Reservoir DWQCV = 9.25 inches (Elevation of the Flood Control Outlet) B) Diameter of Orifice for 12-hour Drain Time DOrifice = inches (Use a minimum orifice diameter of 3/8-inches) Notes: UD-BMP_v3.02_MBP-Basin 1h, PPS 12/4/2012, 11:11 AM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Type of Permeable Pavement Section A) What type of section of permeable pavement is used? (Based on the land use and activities, proximity to adjacent structures and soil characteristics.) B) What type of wearing course? 2. Required Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Area Tributary to Permeable Pavement, Ia I a = 80.0 % B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (I = Ia / 100) i = 0.800 C) Tributary Watershed Area ATotal = 17,583 sq ft (including area of permeable pavement system) D) Area of Permeable Pavement System APPS = 1,645 sq ft (Minimum recommended permeable pavement area = 5024 sq ft) E) Impervious Tributary Ratio RT = 7.8 IMPERVIOUS TRIBUTARY RATIO EXCEEDS 2.0 (Contributing Imperviuos Area / Permeable Pavement Ratio) F) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Based on 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 385 cu ft (WQCV = (0.8 * (0.91 * i 3 - 1.19 * i 2 + 0.78 * i) / 12) * Area) G) Is flood control volume being added? The District at Campus West Basin 1i Design Procedure Form: Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) H. Feissner Northern Engineering December 4, 2012 Choose One No Infiltration Partial Infiltration Section Full Infiltration Section Choose One YES Choose One PICP Concrete Grid Pavement Pervious Concrete Porous Gravel H) Total Volume Needed VTotal = cu ft 3. Depth of Reservoir A) Minimum Depth of Reservoir Dmin = 50.0 inches (Minimum recommended depth is 6 inches) B) Is the slope of the reservoir/subgrade interface equal to 0%? C) Porosity (Porous Gravel Pavement < 0.3, Others < 0.40) P = 0.40 D) Slope of the Base Course/Subgrade Interface S = 0.005 ft / ft E) Length Between Lateral Flow Barriers (max = 233.96 ft.) L = 80.0 ft F) Volume Provided Based on Depth of Base Course V = 2,557 cu ft Flat or Stepped: V = P * ((Dmin-1)/12) * Area Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 6. Filter Material and Underdrain System A) Is the underdrain placed below a 6-inch thick layer of CDOT Class C filter material? B) Diameter of Slotted Pipe (slot dimensions per Table PPs-2) C) Distance from the Lowest Elevation of the Storage Volume y = ft (i.e. the bottom of the base course to the center of the orifice) 7. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is there a minimum 30 mil thick impermeable PVC geomembrane liner on the bottom and sides of the basin, extending up to the top of the base course? B) CDOT Class B Separator Fabric 8. Outlet (Assumes each cell has similar area, subgrade slope, and length between lateral barriers (unless subgrade is flat). Calculate cells individually where this varies.) Basin 1i The District at Campus West Design Procedure Form: Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) H. Feissner Northern Engineering December 4, 2012 Choose One YES NO Choose One 4-inch 6-inch Choose One Choose One YES NO Placed above the liner Placed above and below the liner N/A A) Depth of WQCV in the Reservoir DWQCV = 9.42 inches (Elevation of the Flood Control Outlet) B) Diameter of Orifice for 12-hour Drain Time DOrifice = inches (Use a minimum orifice diameter of 3/8-inches) Notes: UD-BMP_v3.02_MBP-Basin 1i, PPS 12/4/2012, 11:12 AM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, Ia Ia = 100.0 % (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of sand filter) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = Ia/100) i = 1.000 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Based on 24-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.45 watershed inches WQCV= 0.9 * (0.91* i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78 * i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including sand filter area) Area = 37,306 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV = 1,399 cu ft VWQCV = WQCV / 12 * Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of d6 = 0.60 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER = 1,952 cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VWQCV USER = cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth DWQCV = 1.0 ft The District at Campus West Basin 2a Design Procedure Form: Sand Filter (SF) H. Feissner Northern Engineering December 4, 2012 A) WQCV Depth DWQCV = 1.0 ft B) Sand Filter Side Slopes (Horizontal distance per unit vertical, Z = 0.00 ft / ft 4:1 or flatter preferred). Use "0" if sand filter has vertical walls. C) Mimimum Filter Area (Flat Surface Area) AMin = 434 sq ft D) Actual Filter Area AActual = sq ft E) Volume Provided VT = cu ft 3. Filter Material 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 = N/A ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12 = N/A cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum DO = N/A in Choose One Choose One 18" CDOT Class C Filter Material Other (Explain): YES NO UD-BMP_v3.02_SF-Basin 2a, SF 12/4/2012, 11:14 AM Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity of structures or groundwater contamination? 6-7. Inlet / Outlet Works A) Describe the type of energy dissipation at inlet points and means of conveying flows in excess of the WQCV through the outlet Notes: Design Procedure Form: Sand Filter (SF) H. Feissner Northern Engineering December 4, 2012 The District at Campus West Basin 2a Choose One YES NO UD-BMP_v3.02_SF-Basin 2a, SF 12/4/2012, 11:14 AM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Type of Permeable Pavement Section A) What type of section of permeable pavement is used? (Based on the land use and activities, proximity to adjacent structures and soil characteristics.) B) What type of wearing course? 2. Required Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Area Tributary to Permeable Pavement, Ia I a = 59.0 % B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (I = Ia / 100) i = 0.590 C) Tributary Watershed Area ATotal = 20,770 sq ft (including area of permeable pavement system) D) Area of Permeable Pavement System APPS = 2,253 sq ft (Minimum recommended permeable pavement area = 4731 sq ft) E) Impervious Tributary Ratio RT = 4.8 IMPERVIOUS TRIBUTARY RATIO EXCEEDS 2.0 (Contributing Imperviuos Area / Permeable Pavement Ratio) F) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Based on 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 322 cu ft (WQCV = (0.8 * (0.91 * i 3 - 1.19 * i 2 + 0.78 * i) / 12) * Area) G) Is flood control volume being added? The District at Campus West Basins 2e & 2f Design Procedure Form: Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) H. Feissner Northern Engineering December 5, 2012 Choose One No Infiltration Partial Infiltration Section Full Infiltration Section Choose One YES Choose One PICP Concrete Grid Pavement Pervious Concrete Porous Gravel H) Total Volume Needed VTotal = cu ft 3. Depth of Reservoir A) Minimum Depth of Reservoir Dmin = 36.6 inches (Minimum recommended depth is 6 inches) B) Is the slope of the reservoir/subgrade interface equal to 0%? C) Porosity (Porous Gravel Pavement < 0.3, Others < 0.40) P = 0.40 D) Slope of the Base Course/Subgrade Interface S = 0.005 ft / ft E) Length Between Lateral Flow Barriers (max = 143.11 ft.) L = 50.0 ft F) Volume Provided Based on Depth of Base Course V = 2,561 cu ft Flat or Stepped: V = P * ((Dmin-1)/12) * Area Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 6. Filter Material and Underdrain System A) Is the underdrain placed below a 6-inch thick layer of CDOT Class C filter material? B) Diameter of Slotted Pipe (slot dimensions per Table PPs-2) C) Distance from the Lowest Elevation of the Storage Volume y = ft (i.e. the bottom of the base course to the center of the orifice) 7. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is there a minimum 30 mil thick impermeable PVC geomembrane liner on the bottom and sides of the basin, extending up to the top of the base course? B) CDOT Class B Separator Fabric 8. Outlet (Assumes each cell has similar area, subgrade slope, and length between lateral barriers (unless subgrade is flat). Calculate cells individually where this varies.) Basins 2e & 2f The District at Campus West Design Procedure Form: Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) H. Feissner Northern Engineering December 5, 2012 Choose One YES NO Choose One 4-inch 6-inch Choose One Choose One YES NO Placed above the liner Placed above and below the liner N/A A) Depth of WQCV in the Reservoir DWQCV = 5.79 inches (Elevation of the Flood Control Outlet) B) Diameter of Orifice for 12-hour Drain Time DOrifice = inches (Use a minimum orifice diameter of 3/8-inches) Notes: UD-BMP_v3.02_MBP-Basin 2e and 2f, PPS 12/5/2012, 12:00 PM Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 1. Type of Permeable Pavement Section A) What type of section of permeable pavement is used? (Based on the land use and activities, proximity to adjacent structures and soil characteristics.) B) What type of wearing course? 2. Required Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Area Tributary to Permeable Pavement, Ia I a = 84.0 % B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (I = Ia / 100) i = 0.840 C) Tributary Watershed Area ATotal = 19,480 sq ft (including area of permeable pavement system) D) Area of Permeable Pavement System APPS = 1,318 sq ft (Minimum recommended permeable pavement area = 5762 sq ft) E) Impervious Tributary Ratio RT = 11.6 IMPERVIOUS TRIBUTARY RATIO EXCEEDS 2.0 (Contributing Imperviuos Area / Permeable Pavement Ratio) F) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Based on 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 461 cu ft (WQCV = (0.8 * (0.91 * i 3 - 1.19 * i 2 + 0.78 * i) / 12) * Area) G) Is flood control volume being added? The District at Campus West Basin 3d Design Procedure Form: Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) H. Feissner Northern Engineering December 4, 2012 Choose One No Infiltration Partial Infiltration Section Full Infiltration Section Choose One YES Choose One PICP Concrete Grid Pavement Pervious Concrete Porous Gravel H) Total Volume Needed VTotal = cu ft 3. Depth of Reservoir A) Minimum Depth of Reservoir Dmin = 31.2 inches (Minimum recommended depth is 6 inches) B) Is the slope of the reservoir/subgrade interface equal to 0%? C) Porosity (Porous Gravel Pavement < 0.3, Others < 0.40) P = 0.40 D) Slope of the Base Course/Subgrade Interface S = 0.005 ft / ft E) Length Between Lateral Flow Barriers (max = 349.69 ft.) L = 85.5 ft F) Volume Provided Based on Depth of Base Course V = 1,214 cu ft Flat or Stepped: V = P * ((Dmin-1)/12) * Area Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: 6. Filter Material and Underdrain System A) Is the underdrain placed below a 6-inch thick layer of CDOT Class C filter material? B) Diameter of Slotted Pipe (slot dimensions per Table PPs-2) C) Distance from the Lowest Elevation of the Storage Volume y = ft (i.e. the bottom of the base course to the center of the orifice) 7. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric A) Is there a minimum 30 mil thick impermeable PVC geomembrane liner on the bottom and sides of the basin, extending up to the top of the base course? B) CDOT Class B Separator Fabric 8. Outlet (Assumes each cell has similar area, subgrade slope, and length between lateral barriers (unless subgrade is flat). Calculate cells individually where this varies.) Basin 3d The District at Campus West Design Procedure Form: Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) H. Feissner Northern Engineering December 4, 2012 Choose One YES NO Choose One 4-inch 6-inch Choose One Choose One YES NO Placed above the liner Placed above and below the liner N/A A) Depth of WQCV in the Reservoir DWQCV = 13.06 inches (Elevation of the Flood Control Outlet) B) Diameter of Orifice for 12-hour Drain Time DOrifice = inches (Use a minimum orifice diameter of 3/8-inches) Notes: UD-BMP_v3.02_MBP-Basin 2e and 2f, PPS 12/4/2012, 11:13 AM APPENDIX D HEC-RAS INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES D.1 – Hard Copy D.2 – Digital Copy (CD) City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 January 17, 2012 RE: HEC-RAS summary The District Dear Staff, This Memo is to summarize HEC-RAS modeling that we have done for the proposed development referred to as The District, which is located on Plum Street between Shields St. and City Park Ave. We have run existing and proposed conditions models to represent 100-year water surface elevations prior to the project and after completion of the project. The proposed conditions model is based on preliminary grading plans for the project. As shown on the attached Existing Conditions HEC-RAS Exhibit and Proposed Conditions HEC-RAS Exhibit, we have placed cross-sections at key locations along the length of Plum Street. The majority of our modeling is based on one-foot topography generated from field shots. However some augmentation of data has been supplied by City two-foot aerial topography. All topographic information is related to City of Fort Collins Vertical Datum (unadjusted NGVD-29). The following table shows existing and proposed conditions modeling results. Please see the attached HEC-RAS output for support of this data. Existing Cond. Proposed 100-yr Cond. Cond. Difference Section Discharge Min Ch El W.S. Elev W.S. Elev W.S. Elev (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 114 232 34.22 35.73 35.8 0.07 112 232 33.62 35 35.04 0.04 110 232 32.73 33.79 34.03 0.24 108 232 31.24 32.54 32.79 0.25 107 232 30.38 31.87 31.89 0.02 106.5 232 30 31.61 31.48 -0.13 106 232 29.7 31.23 31.16 -0.07 105.5 232 28.85 30.41 30.52 0.11 105 232 28.55 30.48 30.43 -0.05 104 232 28.36 30.14 30.26 0.12 103.5 232 27.7 30.29 30.25 -0.04 103 232 27.45 30.3 30.3 0 102 232 27.7 30.14 30.14 0 100 232 28.49 29.75 29.75 0 ‐ 1 ‐ The attached Finished Floor Elevation Exhibit 1 shows finished floor elevations at locations upstream of cross-section 104. The apartment complex at Section 104 maintains 9-inches of freeboard from the proposed condition water surface elevation. All other residences maintain12-inches or more of freeboard from the proposed conditions 100-year water surface elevations. The attached Finished Floor Elevation Exhibit 2 shows finished floor elevations at locations upstream of cross-section 108. As shown in this exhibit, all residences maintain 12-inches or more of freeboard from the proposed conditions 100-year water surface elevations. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Northern Engineering Services, Inc. Aaron Cvar, PE ‐ 2 ‐ T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV TTT X X X X X X OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE X X X X 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS X ST ST ST ST ST ST X X CTV CTV CTV CTV X X X 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS CTV CTV CTV CTV G G G T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV TTT X X X X X X OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE X X X X 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS X ST ST ST ST ST ST X X CTV CTV CTV CTV X X X 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS 8" SS CTV CTV CTV CTV G G G 107 106.5 106 105.5 105 104 DRAWN BY:ATC SCALE:1"=40' ISSUED:1/16/12 SHEET NO: FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION EXHIBIT 1 1-STORY WOOD 1-STORY WOOD FF=5037.48 FF=5037.35 1-STORY WOOD FF=5037.44 FF=5036.43 2-STORY WOOD 1-STORY WOOD CARPORT FF=5036.36 1-STORY STUCCO w/ BASEMENT FF=5035.82 1-STORY WOOD GARAGE FF=5033.94 "NO PARKING" "NO PARKING" "NO PARKING" "CAMPUS WEST CONDOMINIUMS" BRIDGE 3" ADS ELEV=5034.74 FENCE ON CONCRETE PAD FENCE ON CONCRETE PAD FENCE ON CONCRETE PAD MOE=5033.57 MOE=5033.59 114 112 110 108 DRAWN BY:ATC SCALE:1"=40' ISSUED:1/16/12 SHEET NO: FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION EXHIBIT 2 APPENDIX D.1 HEC-RAS INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES Hard Copy APPENDIX E OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR PERMEABLE PAVERS Chapter 6 BMP Maintenance November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 6-15 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Photograph 6-4. This broom sweeper will only remove debris from the pavement surface. Broom sweepers are not designed to remove solids from the void space of a permeable pavement. Use a vacuum or regenerative air sweeper to help maintain or restore infiltration through the wearing course. 10.3 Aquatic Plant Harvesting Harvesting plants will permanently remove nutrients from the system although removal of vegetation can also resuspend sediment and leave areas susceptible to erosion. For this reason, UDFCD does not recommend harvesting vegetation as routine maintenance. However, aquatic plant harvesting can be performed if desired to maintain volume or eliminate nuisances related to overgrowth of vegetation. When this is the case, perform this activity during the dry season (November to February). This can be performed manually or with specialized machinery. If a reduction in cattails is desired, harvest them annually, especially in areas of new growth. Cut them at the base of the plant just below the waterline, or slowly pull the shoot out from the base. Cattail removal should be done during late summer to deprive the roots of food and reduce their ability to survive winter. 10.4 Sediment Removal If the channel becomes overgrown with plants and sediment, it may need to be graded back to the original design and revegetated. The frequency of this activity is dependent on the site characteristics and should not be more than once every 10 to 20 years. 11.0 Permeable Pavement Systems The key maintenance objective for any permeable pavement system is to know when runoff is no longer rapidly infiltrating into the surface, which is typically due to void spaces becoming clogged and requiring sediment removal. This section identifies key maintenance considerations for various types of permeable pavement BMPs. 11.1 Inspection Inspect pavement condition and observe infiltration at least annually, either during a rain event or with a garden hose to ensure that water infiltrates into the surface. Video, photographs, or notes can be helpful in measuring loss of infiltration over time. Systematic measurement of surface infiltration of pervious concrete, Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers (PICP), concrete grid pavement, and porous asphalt1 1 Porous asphalt is considered a provisional treatment BMP pending performance testing in Colorado and is not included in this manual at the present time. can be accomplished using ASTM C1701 Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of In Place Pervious Concrete. BMP Maintenance Chapter 6 6-16 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 11.2 Debris Removal, Sweeping, and Vacuuming • All Pavements: Debris should be removed, routinely, as a source control measure. Typically, sites that require frequent sweeping already plan for this activity as part of their ongoing maintenance program. For example, a grocery store may sweep weekly or monthly. Depending on the season, city streets also may have a monthly plan for sweeping. This is frequently performed with a broom sweeper such as the one shown in Photo 6-4. Although this type of sweeper can be effective at removing solids and debris from the surface, it will not remove solids from the void space of a permeable pavement. Use a vacuum or regenerative air sweeper to help maintain or restore infiltration. If the pavement has not been properly maintained, a vacuum sweeper will likely be needed. • PICP, Concrete Grid Pavements (with aggregate infill), Pervious Concrete, and Porous Asphalt1: Use a regenerative air or vacuum sweeper after any significant site work (e.g., landscaping) and approximately twice per year to maintain infiltration rates. This should be done on a warm dry day for best results. Do not use water with the sweeper. The frequency is site specific and inspections of the pavement may show that biannual vacuuming is more frequent than necessary. After vacuuming PICP and Concrete Grid Pavers, replace infill aggregate as needed. 11.3 Snow Removal In general, permeable pavements do not form ice to the same extent as conventional pavements. Additionally, conventional liquid treatments (deicers) will not stay at the surface of a permeable pavement as needed for the treatment to be effective. Sand should not be applied to a permeable pavement as it can reduce infiltration. Plowing is the recommended snow removal process. Conventional plowing operations should not cause damage to the pavements.  PICP and Concrete Grid: Deicers may be used on PICP and grid pavers; however, it may not be effective for the reason stated above. Sand should not be used. If sand is accidently used, use a vacuum sweeper to remove the sand. Mechanical snow and ice removal should be used.  Pervious Concrete: Do not use liquid or solid deicers or sand on pervious concrete. Deicers can damage the concrete and sand will reduce infiltration. Mechanical snow and ice removal should be used.  Porous Asphalt2 11.4 Full and Partial Replacement of the Pavement or Infill Material : Use liquid or solid deicers sparingly; mechanical snow and ice removal is preferred. Do not apply sand to porous asphalt.  PICP and Concrete Grid: Concrete pavers, when installed correctly, should have a long service life. If a repair is required, it is frequently due to poor placement of the paver blocks. Follow industry guidelines for installation and replacement after underground repairs. If surface is completely clogged and rendering a minimal surface infiltration rate, restoration of surface infiltration can be achieved by removing the first ½ to 1 inch of soiled aggregate infill 2 Porous asphalt is considered a provisional treatment BMP pending performance testing in Colorado and is not included in this manual at the present time. Chapter 6 BMP Maintenance November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 6-17 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 material with a vacuum sweeper. After cleaning, the openings in the PICP will need to be refilled with clean aggregate infill materials. Replacement of the infill is best accomplished with push brooms.  Porous Gravel: Remove and replace areas of excessive wear or reduced infiltration as needed. The frequency is dependent on site characteristics including site uses, vegetation, and materials.  Pervious Concrete: Partial replacement of pervious concrete should be avoided. If clogged, power washing or power blowing should be attempted prior to partial replacement because saw cutting will cause raveling of the concrete. Any patches should extend to existing isolated joints. Conventional concrete may be used in patches, provided that 90 percent of the original pervious surface is maintained.  Reinforced Grass: Remove and replace the sod cover as needed to maintain a healthy vegetative cover or when the sod layer accumulates significant amount of sediment (i.e., >1.5 inches). Maintenance and routine repairs should be performed annually, with sod replacement approximately every 10 to 25 years. When replacing sod, use a high infiltration variety such as sod grown in sandy loam.  Porous Asphalt3 12.0 Underground BMPs : Conventional asphalt may be used in patches, provided that 90 percent of the original permeable surface is maintained. Maintenance requirements of underground BMPs can vary greatly depending on the type of BMP. Frequent inspections (approximately every three months) are recommended in the first two years in order to determine the appropriate interval of maintenance for a given BMP. This section provides general recommendations for assorted underground BMPs. For proprietary devices, the manufacturer should provide detailed maintenance requirements specific for the BMP. 12.1 Inspection  All Underground BMPs: Inspect underground BMPs at least quarterly for the first two years of operation and then twice a year for the life of the BMP, if a reduced inspection schedule is warranted based on the initial two years. Specifically look for debris that could cause the structure to bypass water quality flows. Strong odors may also indicate that the facility is not draining properly. Inspection should be performed by a person who is familiar with the operation and configuration of the BMP.  Inlet Inserts: Inspect inlet inserts frequently; at a minimum, inspect after every storm event exceeding 0.6 inches. Removal of flow blocking debris is critical for flood control. 12.2 Debris Removal, Cartridge Replacement, and Vacuuming  All Underground BMPs: Follow the manufacturer's recommended maintenance requirements and remove any flow blocking debris as soon as possible following inspection. 3 Porous asphalt is considered a provisional treatment BMP pending performance testing in Colorado and is not included in this manual at the present time. BMP Maintenance Chapter 6 6-18 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3  Filter Cartridges: Inspection of filter cartridges is recommended twice yearly. Replacement of filter cartridges is anticipated on an annual basis. Depending on site characteristics, the replacement frequency may be extended to no less than once every three years. However, semi-annual inspection should continue to ensure that proper function of the system is maintained. Maintenance is required when any of the following conditions exist: o If there is more than 4 inches of accumulated sediment on the vault floor. o If there is more than ¼ inch of accumulation on the top of the cartridge. o If there is more than 4 inches of standing water in the cartridge bay for more than 24 hours after the end of a rain event. o If the pore space between media granules is full. o If inspection is conducted during an average rainfall event and the system remains in bypass condition (water over the internal outlet baffle wall or submerged cartridges). o If hazardous material release (automotive fluids or other) is reported. o If pronounced scum line (≥ 1/4" thick) is present above top cap. o If system has not been maintained for three years.  Hydrodynamic Separators: Vacuum units at least once annually and more frequently as needed, based on inspections. 13.0 References CONTECH Stormwater Solutions. 2007. StormFilter Inspection and Maintenance Procedures. www.contech-cpi.org. Koski, T. and Skinner, V. 2003. Colorado State University Extension. Fact Sheet no.7.202, Lawn Care. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07202.html. Law, N.L., K. DiBlasi, and U. Ghosh. 2008. Deriving Reliable Pollutant Removal Rates for Municipal Street Sweeping and Storm Drain Cleanout Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Center for Watershed Protection. Prepared for U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Grant CB-973222-01: Ellicott City, MD. www.cpw.org. Wright Water Engineers, Inc., Wenk Associates, Muller Engineering Company, Inc., Matrix Design Group, and Smith Environmental. 2004. City and County of Denver Water Quality Management Plan. Denver, CO BMP Maintenance Chapter 6 6-12 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 7.6 Irrigation Scheduling and Maintenance Adjust irrigation throughout the growing season to provide the proper irrigation application rate to maintain healthy vegetation. Less irrigation is typically needed in early summer and fall, with more irrigation needed during July and August. Native grass and other drought tolerant plantings should not require irrigation after establishment. Check for broken sprinkler heads and repair them, as needed. Completely drain the irrigation system before the first winter freeze each year. Upon reactivation of the irrigation system in the spring, inspect all components and replace damaged parts, as needed. 7.7 Sediment Removal from the Forebay, Trickle Channel, and Micropool Remove sediment from the forebay and trickle channel annually. If portions of the watershed are not developed or if roadway or landscaping projects are taking place in the watershed, the required frequency of sediment removal in the forebay may be as often as after each storm event. The forebay should be maintained in such a way that it does not provide a significant source of resuspended sediment in the stormwater runoff. Sediment removal from the micropool is required about once every one to four years, and should occur when the depth of the pool has been reduced to approximately 18 inches. Small micropools may be vacuumed and larger pools may need to be pumped in order to remove all sediment from the micropool bottom. Removing sediment from the micropool will benefit mosquito control. Ensure that the sediment is disposed of properly and not placed elsewhere in the basin. 7.8 Sediment Removal from the Basin Bottom Remove sediment from the bottom of the basin when accumulated sediment occupies about 20% of the water quality design volume or when sediment accumulation results in poor drainage within the basin. The required frequency may be every 15 to 25 years or more frequently in basins where construction activities are occurring. 7.9 Erosion and Structural Repairs Repair basin inlets, outlets, trickle channels, and all other structural components required for the basin to operate as intended. Repair and vegetate eroded areas as needed following inspection. 8.0 Sand Filters Sand filters have relatively low routine maintenance requirements. Maintenance frequency depends on pollutant loads in runoff, the amount of construction activity within the tributary watershed, the erosion control measures implemented, the size of the watershed, and the design of the facility. 8.1 Inspection Inspect the detention area once or twice annually following precipitation events to determine if the sand filter is providing acceptable infiltration. Also check for erosion and repair as necessary. Chapter 6 BMP Maintenance November 2010 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 6-13 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 8.2 Debris and Litter Removal Remove debris and litter from detention area to minimize clogging of the media. Remove debris and litter from the overflow structure. 8.3 Filter Surface Maintenance Scarify the top 2 inches of sand on the surface of the filter. This may be required once every two to five years depending on observed drain times. After this has been done two or three times, replenish the top few inches of the filter with clean coarse sand (AASHTO C-33 or CDOT Class C filter material) to the original elevation. Maintain a minimum sand depth of 12 inches. Eventually, the entire sand layer may require replacement. 8.4 Erosion and Structural Repairs Repair basin inlets, outlets, and all other structural components required for the BMP to operate as intended. Repair and vegetate any eroded side slopes as needed following inspection. 9.0 Retention Ponds and Constructed Wetland Ponds 9.1 Inspection Inspect the pond at least annually. Note the amount of sediment in the forebay and look for debris at the outlet structure. 9.2 Debris and Litter Removal Remove debris and litter from the pond as needed. This includes floating debris that could clog the outlet or overflow structure. 9.3 Aquatic Plant Harvesting Harvesting plants will permanently remove nutrients from the system, although removal of vegetation can also resuspend sediment and leave areas susceptible to erosion. Additionally, the plants growing on the safety wetland bench of a retention pond help prevent drowning accidents by demarking the pond boundary and creating a visual barrier. For this reason, UDFCD does not recommend harvesting vegetation completely as routine maintenance. However, aquatic plant harvesting can be performed if desired to maintain volume or eliminate nuisances related to overgrowth of vegetation. When this is the case, perform this activity during the dry season (November to February). This can be performed manually or with specialized machinery. If a reduction in cattails is desired, harvest them annually, especially in areas of new growth. Cut them at the base of the plant just below the waterline, or slowly pull the shoot out from the base. Cattail removal should be done during late summer to deprive the roots of food and reduce their ability to survive winter. The District at Campus West Preliminary Erosion Control Report MAP POCKET C600-C601 – DRAINAGE EXHIBIT �.�. 1 STORY WOOD �/ BSMT 1,376 ��.��. COLUMBINE ST. 1 STORY WOOD �/ BSMT 1,874 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD 1,215 ��.��. METAL SHED 43 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD 1,575 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD �/BSMT 1,402 ��.��. WOOD GARAGE 582 ��.��. WOOD SHED 124 �.�. 1 STORY BRICK �/BSMT 1,252 ��.��. WOOD SHED 83 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD & STONE �/BSMT 1,412 ��.��. 1 STORY BRICK & WOOD 1,257 ��.��. CITY PARK AVE. DAISY ST. (50' ROW) OS7 OS8 ����� OS8 0.81 0.38 1.00 W. PLUM STREET (ROW VARIES) OS9 ����� EX0 0.44 0.78 � � 1 STORY WOOD �/ GARDEN LEVEL 1,481 ��. ��. STAIRS �.�. �.�. 1 STORY WOOD 1,341 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD 1,436 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD 2,687 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD �/ BSMT 1,036 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD GARAGE 436 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD �/ BSMT 1,594 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD 1,220 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD �/ BSMT 1,384 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD �/ BSMT 1,128 ��.��. 1 STORY WOOD GARAGE 572 ��.��. BUILDING HEIGHT 11.5' 2-1/2" DIA. IRON PIPE BLUEBELL ST. (50' ROW) ASTER ST. (50' ROW) COLUMBINE ST. (50' ROW) 1 STORY BRICK �/ CONC. STAIRS �/HANDRAIL COVERED � ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST CO CO CO DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS (1201) (733) TAU OF GAMMA PHI BETA SORORITY INC. (728) TAU OF GAMMA PHI BETA SORORITY INC. (700) SUNSTONE CONDOMINIUMS (1225) ZETA TAU ALPHA FRATERNITY EXISTING COLUMBINE STREET TO BE VACATED (50' ROW) 3a 3d 3e 3f 3g 3h OS1 OS2 3b 3c OS5 2a 2b 2c 2d 2f ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST � � � � ��� ��� OHE CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS ADDITIONAL ROW WIDTH VARIES (SEE PLAT) EXISTING DAISY STREET TO BE VACATED (50' ROW) (700) SUNSTONE CONDOMINIUMS (700) SUNSTONE CONDOMINIUMS EXISTING COLUMBINE STREET TO BE VACATED (50' ROW) No. Revisions: By: Date: REVIEWED BY: N. Haws DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: 12/05/12 PROJECT: 670-001 Sheet Of 39 Sheets THE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST T���� �������� ��� ����������� �� ������� �������� �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ��� ��� ���� �� ������������ ������ ������ ��� ������ �� � P����������� E������� �� ��� ������ �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW SET 12/05/12 200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 010 F��� C������, C������� 80524 E N G I N E E R I N G � � � � � � �� PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 ���.�������������������.��� C709 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS K. Brazelton K. Brazelton N/A Date Date Date Date Date Date APPROVED: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: City Engineer Water & Wastewater Utility Stormwater Utility Parks & Recreation Traffic Engineer Environmental Planner City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO Know what'sbelow. Call before you dig. R VEHICLE CONTROL TRACKING PAD NOT TO SCALE COMPACTED BACKFILL FLOW SILT TRENCH FENCE AND FABRIC ATTACHED (ASTM TO D6461) POST. ANCHORED IN 24" MIN 6' MAX FLOW TRENCH AND ATTACHED TO POST. 4"x4" TRENCH SILT FENCE FABRIC (ASTM D6461) ANCHORED IN 18" MIN 24" MIN 42" MIN POSTS {PREASSEMBLED SILT FENCE} JOIN FIRST ROTATE SECOND POSTS SHALL OVERLAP AT JOINTS SO THAT NO GAPS EXIST IN SILT FENCE. NOTE: THICKNESS OF GEOTEXTILE HAS BEEN EXAGGERATED. POST SHALL BE JOINED AS SHOWN, THEN ROTATED 180� IN DIRECTION SHOWN AND DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND. {SILT FENCE JOINTS} DRIVE POSTS VERTICALLY INTO THE GROUND TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 18". EXCAVATE A TRENCH APPROXIMATELY 4" WIDE AND 4" DEEP ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER. ANCHOR TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED BY HAND, WITH TRENCHER, OR WITH SILT FENCE INSTALLATION MACHINE. NO ROAD GRADERS, BACKHOES, ETC. SHALL BE USED. NOT LESS THAN THE BOTTOM 1' OF THE SILT FENCE FABRIC SHALL BE BURIED IN THE TRENCH. THE TRENCH SHALL BE COMPACTED BY HAND, WITH "JUMPING JACK" OR BY WHEEL ROLLING. COMPACTION SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE SILT FENCE RESISTS BEING PULLED OUT OF ANCHOR TRENCH BY HAND. SILT FENCE INDICATED IN THE PLANS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. USE WOOD POSTS OR OTHER MATERIAL AS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. {INSTALLATION NOTES: }1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT SILT FENCE EVERY TWO WEEKS AND AFTER SIGNIFICANT STORM EVENTS AND MAKE REPAIRS OR CLEAN OUT UPSTREAM SEDIMENT AS NECESSARY. SEDIMENT ACCUMULATED UPSTREAM OF SILT FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THE UPSTREAM SEDIMENT REACHES A DEPTH OF 6". SILT FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THE UPSTREAM DISTURBED AREA IS STABILIZED AND GRASS COVER IS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. IF ANY DISTURBED AREA EXISTS AFTER REMOVAL, IT SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED OR OTHERWISE STABILIZED IN A MANNER ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. {MAINTENANCE NOTES: }1. 2. 3. 4" MIN. 4" MIN. {1 " x 1 " WOODEN FENCE POSTS} COMPACTED BACKFILL MANHOLE ROCK BERM SHALL 2"x 4" WOOD STUD EXTENDED INTO CONCRETE BLOCKS WIRE ENCLOSED 1 1/2" WASHED ROCK CONCRETE BLOCKS CURB INLET GRAVEL FILTER WIRE SHALL ENCLOSED BE 2"x4" WOOD STUD OVERFLOW FILTERED RUNOFF %SECTION A-A A A %PLAN VIEW {CURB INLET GRAVEL FILTER (CONTINUOUS GRADE)} %SECTION B-B %PLAN VIEW B B ROCK BERM SHALL BE PLACED TIGHTLY AGAINST CURB FACE WIRE ENCLOSED 1 1/2" WASHED ROCK CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER BE PLACED TIGHTLY AGAINST CURB FACE GRAVEL FILTER 1/2" TO 1" BELOW TOP OF CURB TUBULAR MARKER IF AREA ADJACENT TO CURB INLET BOX IS NOT STABILIZED, INSTALL A TEMPORARY SEDIMENT/EROSION CONTROL BMP UNTIL THE SURROUNDING AREA IS SUFFICIENTLY STABILIZED. TUBULAR MARKER TUBULAR MARKER 2' 3' 4' CURB INLET WIRE ENCLOSED SETTLED RUNOFF GRAVEL FILTER CURB INLET MANHOLE {CURB INLET BLOCK AND GRAVEL FILTER (INLET IN SUMP)} INTERIM CONFIGURATION INLET PROTECTION IN STREETS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF POURING INLET. INLET PROTECTION (AFTER PAVING) SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN 48 HOURS AFTER PAVING IS PLACED. WASHED ROCK SHALL COMPLY WITH A 1-1/2" MINUS GRADATION. WIRE MESH SHALL BE FABRICATED OF 10 GAUGE WIRE TWISTED INTO A MESH WITH A MAXIMUM OPENING OF 1" (COMMONLY TERMED "CHICKEN WIRE"). ROLL WIDTH SHALL BE 48". TUBULAR MARKERS SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD). OTHER CURB INLET PROTECTION METHODS WILL BE ALLOWED IF ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. {GENERAL NOTES: }1. 2. 3. 4. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT INLET PROTECTION EVERY TWO WEEKS AND AFTER SIGNIFICANT STORM EVENTS AND MAKE REPAIRS OR CLEAN OUT AS NECESSARY. SEDIMENT ACCUMULATED UPSTREAM OF INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THE SEDIMENT DEPTH UPSTREAM OF ROCK BERM IS 2 1/2" OF THE CREST. INLET PROTECTION IS TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE UPSTREAM DISTURBED AREA IS STABILIZED AND GRASS COVER IS ACCEPTED. UNLESS THE CITY ACCEPTS EARLIER REMOVAL OF INLET PROTECTION IN STREETS. {MAINTENANCE NOTES: }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x 1" WOOD STAKES 18"-24" BAILING WIRE OR NYLON ROPE WATTLE "A" WATTLE "B" 1' 2' TYP. 1' 1' WATTLES - DETAIL B W2 NOTES: INSTALLATION: STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER AND ON EACH SIDE OF THE WATTLE. LEAVING 4"-6" OF STAKE PROTRUDING ABOVE THE WATTLE. BAILING WIRE OR NYLON ROPE SHOULD BE TIED TO THE STAKES ACROSS THE WATTLE. STAKES SHOULD THEN BE DRIVEN UNTIL THE BAILING WIRE OR NYLON ROPE IS SUFFICIENTLY SNUG TO THE WATTLE. WHEN INSTALLING RUNNING LENGTHS OF WATTLES, TO PREVENT SHIFTING, BUTT THE SECOND WATTLE TIGHTLY AGAINST THE FIRST. DO NOT OVERLAP THE ENDS. STAKES SHOULD BE DRIVEN 1 FT. FROM END, ACROSS FROM AND ON EACH SIDE OF WATTLE LEAVING 4"-6" OF STAKE PROTRUDING ABOVE THE WATTLE. BAILING WIRE OR NYLON ROPE SHOULD BE TIED TO STAKES IN AN HOUR GLASS FORMATION (FRONT TO BACK OF WATTLE "A", ACROSS TO FRONT OF WATTLE "B", ACROSS TO BACK AND BACK TO FRONT OF WATTLE "A"). STAKES SHOULD THEN BE DRIVEN IN UNTIL BAILING WIRE OR NYLON ROPE IS SUFFICIENTLY SNUG TO THE WATTLE. SEDIMENT DEPOSITION ZONE STORM WATER LINE WEIGHTED WATTLE LIP OF GUTTER SIDEWALK EXISTING OR PROPOSED INLET TOP BACK CURB FLOW LINE %CURB INLET WATTLE PROTECTION SETUP% SEDIMENT DEPOSITION ZONE STORM WATER LINE LIP OF GUTTER WEIGHTED WATTLE AT 45 DEG. TO CURB SIDEWALK TOP BACK CURB FLOW LINE SIDEWALK TOP BACK CURB FLOW LINE W4 NOTES: 1. NUMBER OF WATTLES AND SPACING SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SLOPE AND SITE CONDITIONS. 2. TUBULAR MARKERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) 3. CITY RECOMMENDS INSTALLING AT LEAST 3 CHECKDAMS WHEN USING THIS SETUP. LIP OF GUTTER WEIGHTED WATTLE W1 & W2 INSTALLATION NOTES: 1. THE LOCATION AND LENGTH OF WATTLE IS DEPENDENT ON THE CONDITIONS OF EACH SITE. 2. WATTLES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. 3. WATTLES SHALL CONSIST OF STRAW, COMPOST, EXCELSIOR, OR COCONUT FIBER. 4. NOT FOR USE IN CONCENTRATED FLOW AREAS. 5. THE WATTLES SHALL BE TRENCHED INTO THE GROUND A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) INCHES. 6. WATTLES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. 7. ON SLOPES, WATTLES SHOULD BE INSTALLED ON CONTOUR WITH A SLIGHT DOWNWARD ANGLE AT THE END OF THE ROW IN ORDER TO PREVENT PONDING AT THE MID SECTION. 8. RUNNING LENGTHS OF WATTLES SHOULD BE ABUTTED FIRMLY TO ENSURE NO LEAKAGE AT THE ABUTMENTS. 9. SPACING - DOWNSLOPE: 10. VERTICAL SPACING FOR SLOPE INSTALLATIONS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY SITE CONDITIONS. SLOPE GRADIENT AND SOIL TYPE ARE THE MAIN FACTORS. A GOOD RULE OF THUMB IS: 1:1 SLOPES = 10 FEET APART 2:1 SLOPES = 20 FEET APART 3:1 SLOPES = 30 FEET APART 4:1 SLOPES = 40 FEET APART, ETC. 11. HOWEVER, ADJUSTMENTS MAY HAVE TO BE MADE FOR THE SOIL TYPE: FOR SOFT, LOAMY SOILS - ADJUST THE ROWS CLOSER TOGETHER; FOR HARD, ROCKY SOILS - ADJUST THE ROWS FURTHER APART. A SECONDARY WATTLE PLACED BEHIND THE ABUTMENT OF TWO WATTLES IS ENCOURAGED ON STEEP SLOPES OR WHERE JOINTS HAVE FAILED IN THE PAST. 12. STAKING: THE CITY RECOMMENDS USING WOOD STAKES TO SECURE THE WATTLES. 1/2" TO 5/8" REBAR IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE. BE SURE TO USE A STAKE THAT IS LONG ENOUGH TO PROTRUDE SEVERAL INCHES ABOVE THE WATTLE: 18" IS A GOOD LENGTH FOR HARD, ROCKY SOIL. FOR SOFT LOAMY SOIL USE A 24" STAKE. SNUG WITH WATTLE. W3 NOTE: IF THE AREA BEHIND THE INLET IS NOT STABILIZED, A BMP SHOULD BE USED TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE INLET 1"x 1" WOOD STAKES 18"-24" W1 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT WATTLES EVERY TWO WEEKS AND AFTER ANY SIGNIFICANT STORM EVENT AND MAKE REPAIRS OR REMOVE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATED BEHIND WATTLE AS NECESSARY. SEDIMENT ACCUMULATED BEHIND WATTLE SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THE SEDIMENT HAS ACCUMULATED TO ONE HALF THE DIAMETER OF THE WATTLE. WATTLES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE UPSTREAM DISTURBED AREA IS STABILIZED AND IS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. WATTLE MAINTENANCE NOTES: 1. 2. 3. ENDS SHALL ABUT TIGHTLY TO BACK OF CURB END SHALL ABUT TIGHTLY TO BACK OF CURB ENDS OF ADJACENT WATTLES SHALL BE TIGHTLY ABUTTED TO PREVENT SEDIMENT BYPASS 4' MAX. {IMPERVIOUS INSTALLATION} SEDIMENT DEPOSITION ZONE W3 W2 NOTE: ONLY WATTLES MADE WITH COCONUT FIBERS SHALL BE USED WHEN INSTALLATION COMES IN CONTACT WITH A WATER BODY. SIDEWALK CULVERT/CHASE/PAN W4 W3, W4 & W5 NOTES: 1. WHEN USING STRAW WATTLE, THE STRAW WATTLE MUST HAVE A WEIGHTED CORE. 2. ALL PRODUCTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3. OTHER PRODUCTS MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF WEIGHTED WATTLES UPON WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY. NOTE: A COPY OF DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS WILL NEED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SWMP. END SHALL TIGHTLY ABUT TO BACK OF CURB SEDIMENT DEPOSITION ZONE W5 TUBULAR MARKER EXISTING OR PROPOSED INLET CONCRETE CHASE/TRICKLE CHANNEL SETUP END SHALL TIGHTLY ABUT TO BACK OF CURB CURBSIDE CHECKDAMS SETUP VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL PAD SHALL BE LOCATED AT EVERY ACCESS POINT TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. A SIGN SHALL BE PLACED NEXT TO THE VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL PAD TO DESIGNATE THE LOCATION AS THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT. VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL PADS SHALL CONSIST OF HARD, DENSE, DURABLE STONE, ANGULAR IN SHAPE AND RESISTANT TO WEATHERING. ROUNDED STONE (i.e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x4'S, PIPES, DIRT, GRAVEL OR ASPHALT, SHALL BE PLACED IN GUTTER TO FACILITATE MOUNTING CURB; HOWEVER, CURB MAY BE CUT DOWN TO A HEIGHT OF 2" OR HIGHER FOR EASIER ACCESS AND REPLACED AT PROJECT COMPLETION. OTHER ACCESS DEVICES MAY BE USED AS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. 3" - 6" ROCK %PLAN% CURB CUT 50' MIN. 2" MIN. 6" MIN. 6" MIN. ALTHOUGH NOT NORMALLY USED, THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL WITH A TEMPORARY CATTLE GUARD AND/OR WHEEL WASH FACILITIES AT SITES WHERE TRACKING ONTO PAVED AREAS BECOMES A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR. IF VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL WITH WHEEL WASH FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED, ALL WHEELS ON EVERY VEHICLE LEAVING THE SITE SHALL BE CLEANED OF MUD USING A PRESSURE-WASHER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING A WATER SOURCE AND CONSTRUCTING A WASHWATER SEDIMENT TRAP. 5. 6. IF VEHICLE WHEEL WASH FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL AND WHEEL WASH FACILITIES DAILY. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENTS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PAD SURFACE. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT IN THE WASHWATER/SEDIMENT TRAP SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THE SEDIMENT REACHES AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 12-INCHES. 4. 5. VTC CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CONCRETE PLACEMENT ON SITE. VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL IS REQUIRED IF ACCESS TO CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA IS OFF PAVEMENT. SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED AT THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, AT THE WASHOUT AREA, AND ELSEWHERE AS NECESSARY TO CLEARLY INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA TO OPERATORS OF CONCRETE TRUCKS AND PUMP RIGS. THE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA SHALL BE REPAIRED AND ENLARGED OR CLEANED OUT AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN CAPACITY FOR WASTED CONCRETE. AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION, ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF AT AN ACCEPTED WASTE SITE. WHEN THE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA IS REMOVED, THE DISTURBED AREA SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED OR OTHERWISE STABILIZED IN A MANNER ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. LOCATION OF CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA ON SHEET EC1 IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY. FINAL LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD AT CONTRACTOR'S DISCRETION. {NOTES: }1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 3H:1V OR FLATTER SIDE SLOPES 12" MIN 8'x 8' MIN OR AS REQUIRED TO CONTAIN WASTE CONCRETE 12" 2'-0" MIN. COMPACTED EMBANKMENT MATERIAL, TYP. BERM AROUND PERIMETER GROUND SURFACE SIGN TO INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA NOT TO SCALE CWA SF 1 C709 3 C709 2 C709 4 C709 5 C709 WATTLE WATTLE OR NOTE: INSTALLATION OF WATTLE STAKES MAY VARY WITH NO GAPS (TYP.) TIGHTLY ABUTTING INLET PLAN VIEW ENTRENCH 3" FLOW FLOW NOTE: ENTRENCH WATTLE 3" INTO NATURAL GROUND AT THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF CONCRETE APRON IP NOT TO SCALE 6 DROP INLET PROTECTION C709 WP 2a 2b 1a 1d 1g 1h 1j 1k 1i 1f 2f 2e 1b acres 2a 0.95 0.70 1.00 acres 1a 0.95 0.38 1.00 acres 1b 0.95 0.31 1.00 acres 2e 0.44 0.05 0.55 acres 2f 0.59 0.08 0.73 acres 1c 0.95 0.23 1.00 acres 1h 0.74 0.21 0.92 acres 1i 0.53 0.09 0.67 acres 1j 0.77 0.07 0.96 acres 1j 0.77 0.07 0.96 acres 1g 0.95 0.01 1.00 acres 1k 0.48 0.03 0.59 1e acres 1f 0.25 0.02 0.31 acres 1e 0.25 0.04 0.31 acres 1d 0.28 0.04 0.35 1c IP IP IP IP IP WP 50' EXIST. ROW BUILDING 1 FFE=5036.80 BUILDING 1 FFE=5034.30 BUILDING 2 FFE=5033.34 CITY PARK AVENUE (50' ROW) WEST PLUM STREET (ROW VARIES) BUILDING 1 FFE=5035.30 WEST PLUM STREET (ROW VARIES) No. Revisions: By: Date: REVIEWED BY: N. Haws DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: 12/05/12 PROJECT: 670-001 Sheet Of 39 Sheets THE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST T���� �������� ��� ����������� �� ������� �������� �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ��� ��� ���� �� ������������ ������ ������ ��� ������ �� � P����������� E������� �� ��� ������ �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW SET 12/05/12 200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 010 F��� C������, C������� 80524 E N G I N E E R I N G � � � � � � �� PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 ���.�������������������.��� C600 CONTROL PLAN DRAINAGE AND EROSION H. Feissner H. Feissner 1"=30' City UTILITY of Fort PLAN Collins, APPROVAL Colorado Date Date Date Date Date Date APPROVED: City Engineer Traffic Engineer Parks & Recreation Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO K��� ����'� �����. C��� ������ ��� ���. R ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. 30 0 30 Feet 30 60 90 LEGEND: NORTH FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED CONTOURS 80 79 EXISTING TREES EXISTING ROW EXISTING EASEMENT LINE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED 2.5-FOOT VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER SECTION EXISTING CONCRETE PROPOSED EASEMENT A A 1.23 ac DESIGN POINT FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (AC) DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY NOTES: 1.REFER TO THE "FINAL DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST' BY NORTHERN ENGINEERING, DATED DECEMBER 5, 2012 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2.THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE THE MINIMUM ELEVATIONS REQUIRED FOR PROTECTION FROM THE 100-YEAR STORM. WATTLE PROTECTION WP INLET PROTECTION IP VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL PAD VTC SILT FENCE SF PROPOSED ASPHALT MILL AND OVERLAY PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BED/PLANTER PROPOSED ENHANCED PAVING PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVING DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE DESIGN POINT BASIN ID TOTAL AREA (�����) C2 C100 2-�� T� (���) 100-�� T� (���) Q2 (���) Q100 (���) B���� 1 1.70 0.82 1.00 7.9 7.6 3.44 14.58 B���� 2 1.20 0.85 1.00 8.6 8.2 2.39 10.05 B���� 3 0.81 0.78 0.97 5.4 5.0 1.79 7.81 1� 1� 0.38 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.04 3.83 1� 1� 0.31 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.84 3.10 1� 1� 0.23 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.64 2.34 1� 1� 0.04 0.28 0.35 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.14 1� 1� 0.04 0.25 0.31 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.13 1� 1� 0.02 0.25 0.31 5.0 5.0 0.01 0.06 1� 1� 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.12 1� 1� 0.21 0.74 0.92 5.0 5.0 0.44 1.91 1� 1� 0.09 0.53 0.67 5.0 5.0 0.14 0.61 1� 1� 0.07 0.77 0.96 5.0 5.0 0.15 0.67 1� 1� 0.03 0.48 0.59 5.0 5.0 0.04 0.16 2� 2� 0.70 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.90 6.98 2� 2� 0.16 0.88 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.41 1.63 2� 2� 0.09 0.91 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.23 0.88 2� 2� 0.06 0.31 0.39 5.0 5.0 0.06 0.25 2� 2� 0.05 0.44 0.55 5.2 5.0 0.06 0.27 2� 2� 0.08 0.59 0.73 5.0 5.0 0.13 0.58 3� 3� 0.39 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.04 3.84 3� 3� 0.09 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.24 0.88 3� 3� 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.12 3� 3� 0.06 0.52 0.64 5.0 5.0 0.09 0.39 3� 3� 0.06 0.60 0.76 5.6 5.2 0.09 0.41 3� 3� 0.05 0.68 0.84 5.0 5.0 0.09 0.41 3� 3� 0.05 0.25 0.31 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.15 3� 3� 0.05 0.67 0.83 5.0 5.0 0.10 0.45 OS0 OS0 0.13 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.35 1.28 OS1 OS1 0.05 0.73 0.91 5.6 5.4 0.10 0.46 OS2 OS2 0.18 0.86 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.45 1.83 OS3 OS3 0.10 0.94 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.26 0.98 OS4 OS4 0.09 0.94 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.25 0.94 OS5 OS5 0.64 0.86 1.00 8.5 8.2 1.33 5.37 OS5 1�,2� & OS5 0.87 0.86 1.00 8.5 8.2 1.80 7.33 OS4 2�,2� & OS4 0.25 0.76 0.96 5.0 5.0 0.54 2.35 OS3 3� & OS3 0.15 0.84 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.37 1.53 OS5 1�,2�,2�,2�,3�,OS3,OS4 & OS5 1.28 0.84 1.00 8.5 8.2 2.57 10.69 OS1 3� & OS1 0.10 0.70 0.88 5.6 5.4 0.19 0.87 OS2 3�,3�,OS0,OS1,OS2 0.47 0.82 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.10 4.65 OS2 1�,2�,2�,2�,3�,3�,3�,OS0 ���� OS5 1.74 0.83 1.00 11.2 10.9 3.10 13.19 DETENTION POND SUMMARY T�������� A���(�) P��� L������� VOLUME REQUIRED (��-��) VOLUME PROVIDED (��-��) RELEASE RATE (���) DETENTION METHOD WATER QUALITY METHOD 1� & 1� 1� 0.082 0.082 0.71 P�������� P����� P�������� P����� 1� & 1� 1� 0.062 0.062 0.40 P�������� P����� P�������� P����� 2� 2� 0.130 0.130 0.50 D�������� V���� �/�� B������� 2 S��� F����� 1� ���� 1�, 2� & 2� 2� & 2� 0.061 0.610 0.40 P�������� P����� P�������� P����� 3� & 3� 3� 0.033 0.033 1.33 P�������� P����� P�������� P����� No. Revisions: By: Date: REVIEWED BY: N. Haws DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: 12/05/12 PROJECT: 670-001 Sheet Of 39 Sheets THE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST T���� �������� ��� ����������� �� ������� �������� �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ��� ��� ���� �� ������������ ������ ������ ��� ������ �� � P����������� E������� �� ��� ������ �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW SET 12/05/12 200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 010 F��� C������, C������� 80524 E N G I N E E R I N G � � � � � � �� PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 ���.�������������������.��� KEYMAP NTS WEST PLUM ST. CITY PARK AVE. BLUEBELL ST. ASTER ST. C600 C601 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C601 2e acres 3a 0.95 0.39 1.00 acres 2a 0.95 0.70 1.00 acres OS5 0.86 0.64 1.00 acres OS2 0.86 0.18 1.00 acres OS1 0.73 0.05 0.91 acres OS3 0.94 0.10 1.00 acres OS4 0.94 0.09 1.00 acres 3b 0.95 0.09 1.00 acres 3c 0.95 0.01 1.00 acres 3d 0.52 0.06 0.64 acres 3f 0.68 0.05 0.84 acres 3e 0.60 0.06 0.76 acres 3h 0.67 0.05 0.83 acres 3g 0.25 0.05 0.31 acres 2b 0.88 0.16 1.00 acres 2d 0.31 0.06 0.39 acres 2c 0.91 0.09 1.00 acres 2e 0.44 0.05 0.55 acres 2f 0.59 0.08 0.73 acres OS0 0.95 0.13 1.00 WP IP IP IP IP IP WP WP WP WP VTC OS3 OS4 VTC BUILDING 2 FFE=5033.34 FFE=5033.00 WEST PLUM STREET (ROW VARIES) WEST PLUM STREET (ROW VARIES) ASTER STREET (50' ROW) FFE=5032.50 BUILDING 3 FFE=5031.34 BLUEBELL STREET (50' ROW) No. Revisions: By: Date: REVIEWED BY: N. Haws DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: 12/05/12 PROJECT: 670-001 Sheet Of 39 Sheets THE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST T���� �������� ��� ����������� �� ������� �������� �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ��� ��� ���� �� ������������ ������ ������ ��� ������ �� � P����������� E������� �� ��� ������ �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW SET 12/05/12 200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 010 F��� C������, C������� 80524 E N G I N E E R I N G � � � � � � �� PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 ���.�������������������.��� C601 CONTROL PLAN DRAINAGE AND EROSION H. Feissner H. Feissner 1"=30' City UTILITY of Fort PLAN Collins, APPROVAL Colorado Date Date Date Date Date Date APPROVED: City Engineer Traffic Engineer Parks & Recreation Stormwater Utility Water & Wastewater Utility CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CHECKED BY: CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE, OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO K��� ����'� �����. C��� ������ ��� ���. R ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = ft. 30 0 30 Feet 30 60 90 LEGEND: NORTH FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED CONTOURS 80 79 EXISTING TREES EXISTING ROW EXISTING EASEMENT LINE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED 2.5-FOOT VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER SECTION EXISTING CONCRETE PROPOSED EASEMENT A A 1.23 ac DESIGN POINT FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL BASIN DESIGNATION BASIN AREA (AC) DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY NOTES: 1.REFER TO THE "FINAL DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST' BY NORTHERN ENGINEERING, DATED DECEMBER 5, 2012 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2.THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE THE MINIMUM ELEVATIONS REQUIRED FOR PROTECTION FROM THE 100-YEAR STORM. WATTLE PROTECTION WP INLET PROTECTION IP VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL PAD VTC SILT FENCE SF PROPOSED ASPHALT MILL AND OVERLAY PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BED/PLANTER PROPOSED ENHANCED PAVING PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVING DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE DESIGN POINT BASIN ID TOTAL AREA (�����) C2 C100 2-�� T� (���) 100-�� T� (���) Q2 (���) Q100 (���) B���� 1 1.70 0.82 1.00 7.9 7.6 3.44 14.58 B���� 2 1.20 0.85 1.00 8.6 8.2 2.39 10.05 B���� 3 0.81 0.78 0.97 5.4 5.0 1.79 7.81 1� 1� 0.38 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.04 3.83 1� 1� 0.31 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.84 3.10 1� 1� 0.23 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.64 2.34 1� 1� 0.04 0.28 0.35 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.14 1� 1� 0.04 0.25 0.31 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.13 1� 1� 0.02 0.25 0.31 5.0 5.0 0.01 0.06 1� 1� 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.12 1� 1� 0.21 0.74 0.92 5.0 5.0 0.44 1.91 1� 1� 0.09 0.53 0.67 5.0 5.0 0.14 0.61 1� 1� 0.07 0.77 0.96 5.0 5.0 0.15 0.67 1� 1� 0.03 0.48 0.59 5.0 5.0 0.04 0.16 2� 2� 0.70 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.90 6.98 2� 2� 0.16 0.88 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.41 1.63 2� 2� 0.09 0.91 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.23 0.88 2� 2� 0.06 0.31 0.39 5.0 5.0 0.06 0.25 2� 2� 0.05 0.44 0.55 5.2 5.0 0.06 0.27 2� 2� 0.08 0.59 0.73 5.0 5.0 0.13 0.58 3� 3� 0.39 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.04 3.84 3� 3� 0.09 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.24 0.88 3� 3� 0.01 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.12 3� 3� 0.06 0.52 0.64 5.0 5.0 0.09 0.39 3� 3� 0.06 0.60 0.76 5.6 5.2 0.09 0.41 3� 3� 0.05 0.68 0.84 5.0 5.0 0.09 0.41 3� 3� 0.05 0.25 0.31 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.15 3� 3� 0.05 0.67 0.83 5.0 5.0 0.10 0.45 OS0 OS0 0.13 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.35 1.28 OS1 OS1 0.05 0.73 0.91 5.6 5.4 0.10 0.46 OS2 OS2 0.18 0.86 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.45 1.83 OS3 OS3 0.10 0.94 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.26 0.98 OS4 OS4 0.09 0.94 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.25 0.94 OS5 OS5 0.64 0.86 1.00 8.5 8.2 1.33 5.37 OS5 1�,2� & OS5 0.87 0.86 1.00 8.5 8.2 1.80 7.33 OS4 2�,2� & OS4 0.25 0.76 0.96 5.0 5.0 0.54 2.35 OS3 3� & OS3 0.15 0.84 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.37 1.53 OS5 1�,2�,2�,2�,3�,OS3,OS4 & OS5 1.28 0.84 1.00 8.5 8.2 2.57 10.69 OS1 3� & OS1 0.10 0.70 0.88 5.6 5.4 0.19 0.87 OS2 3�,3�,OS0,OS1,OS2 0.47 0.82 1.00 5.0 5.0 1.10 4.65 OS2 1�,2�,2�,2�,3�,3�,3�,OS0 ���� OS5 1.74 0.83 1.00 11.2 10.9 3.10 13.19 DETENTION POND SUMMARY T�������� A���(�) P��� L������� VOLUME REQUIRED (��-��) VOLUME PROVIDED (��-��) RELEASE RATE (���) DETENTION METHOD WATER QUALITY METHOD 1� & 1� 1� 0.082 0.082 0.71 P�������� P����� P�������� P����� 1� & 1� 1� 0.062 0.062 0.40 P�������� P����� P�������� P����� 2� 2� 0.130 0.130 0.50 D�������� V���� �/�� B������� 2 S��� F����� 1� ���� 1�, 2� & 2� 2� & 2� 0.061 0.610 0.40 P�������� P����� P�������� P����� 3� & 3� 3� 0.033 0.033 1.33 P�������� P����� P�������� P����� KEYMAP NTS WEST PLUM ST. CITY PARK AVE. BLUEBELL ST. ASTER ST. C600 C601 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C600 ALCOVE W. PLUM STREET W. PLUM STREET (ROW VARIES) OS1 OS2 OS3 OS4 OS5 OS6 ����� OS4 0.90 0.09 1.00 OS0 ����� OS6 0.91 0.09 1.00 ����� EX2 0.43 0.73 0.54 ����� OS5 0.84 0.23 1.00 ����� OS3 0.48 0.10 1.00 ����� EX3 0.48 0.75 0.60 ����� OS1 0.91 0.10 1.00 ����� OS0 0.91 0.10 1.00 ����� OS2 0.84 0.19 1.00 EX2 EX3 N�. R��������: B�: D���: REVIEWED BY: N. H��� DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: 12/05/12 PROJECT: 670-001 S���� O� 2 S����� THE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST T���� �������� ��� ����������� �� ������� �������� �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ��� ��� ���� �� ������������ ������ ������ ��� ������ �� � P����������� E������� �� ��� ������ �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW SET 12/05/12 200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 010 F��� C������, C������� 80524 E N G I N E E R I N G � � � � � � �� PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 ���.�������������������.��� 2 DRAINAGE EXHIBIT EXISTING CONDITIONS H. F������� H. F������� 1" = 20' 0.56 ����� OS9 0.45 0.18 0.56 ����� EX1� 0.42 0.58 0.53 EX0 EX1� EX1� ����� EX1� 0.50 0.15 0.63 ����� OS7 0.89 0.10 1.00 N�. R��������: B�: D���: REVIEWED BY: N. H��� DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: SCALE: DATE: 12/05/12 PROJECT: 670-001 S���� O� 2 S����� THE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST T���� �������� ��� ����������� �� ������� �������� �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. ��� ��� ��� �� �� ���� ��� ��� ���� �� ������������ ������ ������ ��� ������ �� � P����������� E������� �� ��� ������ �� N������� E���������� S�������, I��. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVIEW SET 12/05/12 200 S���� C������ A�����, S���� 010 F��� C������, C������� 80524 E N G I N E E R I N G � � � � � � �� PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 ���.�������������������.��� 1 DRAINAGE EXHIBIT EXISTING CONDITIONS H. F������� H. F������� 1" = 20' NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 ���� = ��. 20 0 20 F��� 20 40 60 GRAPHIC SCALE: G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G E E E E E E E E E E E 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 6" W 6" W 6" W 6" W 6" W 6" W FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 6" SS 6" SS 6" SS W W W W W W W W X X X X OHE SHIELDS STREET ASTER STREET BLUEBELL STREET W. PLUM STREET COLUMBINE STREET CITY PARK AVE. 114 112 110 108 107 106.5 106 105.5 105 104 103.5 103 102 100 DRAWN BY:ATC SCALE:1"=150' ISSUED:1/16/12 SHEET NO: PROPOSED CONDITIONS HEC-RAS EXHIBIT G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G E E E E E E E E E E E 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 20" W 6" W 6" W 6" W 6" W 6" W 6" W FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST 6" SS 6" SS 6" SS W W W W W W W W X X X X OHE SHIELDS STREET ASTER STREET BLUEBELL STREET W. PLUM STREET COLUMBINE STREET CITY PARK AVE. 114 112 110 108 107 106.5 106 105.5 105 104 103.5 103 102 100 DRAWN BY:ATC SCALE:1"=150' ISSUED:1/16/12 SHEET NO: EXISTING CONDITIONS HEC-RAS EXHIBIT Sloped: V = P * [(Dmin - (D min - 6*SL-1)) / 12] * Area Volume assumes uniform slope & lateral flow barrier spacing. Calculate the volume of each cell individually when this varies. 4. Lateral Flow Barriers A) Type of Lateral Flow Barriers B) Number of Permeable Pavement Cells Cells = 1 5. Perimeter Barrier A) Is a perimeter barrier provided on all sides of the pavement system? (Recommeded for PICP, concrete grid pavement, or for any no-infiltration section.) YES NO Choose One YES- Flat or Stepped Installation NO- Sloped Installation Choose One Concrete Walls PVC geomembrane installed normal to flow N/A- Flat installation Other (Describe): Choose One YES NO UD-BMP_v3.02_MBP-Basin 2e and 2f, PPS 12/4/2012, 11:13 AM Sloped: V = P * [(Dmin - (D min - 6*SL-1)) / 12] * Area Volume assumes uniform slope & lateral flow barrier spacing. Calculate the volume of each cell individually when this varies. 4. Lateral Flow Barriers A) Type of Lateral Flow Barriers B) Number of Permeable Pavement Cells Cells = 1 5. Perimeter Barrier A) Is a perimeter barrier provided on all sides of the pavement system? (Recommeded for PICP, concrete grid pavement, or for any no-infiltration section.) YES NO Choose One YES- Flat or Stepped Installation NO- Sloped Installation Choose One Concrete Walls PVC geomembrane installed normal to flow N/A- Flat installation Other (Describe): Choose One YES NO UD-BMP_v3.02_MBP-Basin 2e and 2f, PPS 12/5/2012, 12:00 PM Sloped: V = P * [(Dmin - (D min - 6*SL-1)) / 12] * Area Volume assumes uniform slope & lateral flow barrier spacing. Calculate the volume of each cell individually when this varies. 4. Lateral Flow Barriers A) Type of Lateral Flow Barriers B) Number of Permeable Pavement Cells Cells = 1 5. Perimeter Barrier A) Is a perimeter barrier provided on all sides of the pavement system? (Recommeded for PICP, concrete grid pavement, or for any no-infiltration section.) YES NO Choose One YES- Flat or Stepped Installation NO- Sloped Installation Choose One Concrete Walls PVC geomembrane installed normal to flow N/A- Flat installation Other (Describe): Choose One YES NO UD-BMP_v3.02_MBP-Basin 1i, PPS 12/4/2012, 11:12 AM Sloped: V = P * [(Dmin - (D min - 6*SL-1)) / 12] * Area Volume assumes uniform slope & lateral flow barrier spacing. Calculate the volume of each cell individually when this varies. 4. Lateral Flow Barriers A) Type of Lateral Flow Barriers B) Number of Permeable Pavement Cells Cells = 1 5. Perimeter Barrier A) Is a perimeter barrier provided on all sides of the pavement system? (Recommeded for PICP, concrete grid pavement, or for any no-infiltration section.) YES NO Choose One YES- Flat or Stepped Installation NO- Sloped Installation Choose One Concrete Walls PVC geomembrane installed normal to flow N/A- Flat installation Other (Describe): Choose One YES NO UD-BMP_v3.02_MBP-Basin 1h, PPS 12/4/2012, 11:11 AM performance unequaled in the permeable paver industry. The unique Eco-Venetian Stone™ joint profile allows surface water to infiltrate into the pavement and its sub-layers. With initial permeability average flow rates of over 350 inches per hour, the Eco-Venetian Stone™ product, even with a 90% clogging factor, will still meet the majority of current storm water management plans (SWMP). The structural interlocking capability is achieved by the paving unit having interlocking joints with a minimum of two vertically aligned horizontal interlocking spacer bars on each of its sides. These spacer bars interlock throughout the depth of the block and nest adjacently with neighboring paving units. This optimum interlocking function resists lateral and vertical displacement when the unit is exposed to vehicular loading. The dynamics of pavement stress from traffic are better distributed providing a structurally superior permeable paving system. The horizontal edge to edge dimension is nominally 7mm. This small joint complies dimensionally with current ADA requirements for walking surfaces with spaces no greater than ½ inch. This narrow jointed surface diminishes vibration for wheelchairs and shopping carts when compared to other permeable paving products. Eco-Venetian Stone™ can assist in meeting current EPA best management practices and LEED certifications. The Eco-Venetian Stone™ product best achieves the balance of aesthetic segmental paving and the function of permeable pavement. COMPOSITION AND MANUFACTURE Eco-Venetian Stone™ is available in a height of 80mm. It is made from a “no slump” concrete mix made under extreme pressure and high frequency vibrations. Eco-Venetian Stone™ will meet or exceed ASTM C-936 with an average compressive strength greater than 8000 psi, minimum 7200 psi, and an average water absorption of 5%, maximum of 7%. Note: 80 mm product heights requires modifying the ASTM C 140 - Paver Annex A4 - “The test specimen shall be 60 ± 3 mm thick and, if necessary, cut to a specimen size having a Height/Thickness (width) [H/T] aspect ratio of 0.6 ± 0.1 INSTALLATION 1. Excavate unsuitable, unstable or unconsolidated subgrade material. Compact the area, which has been cleared as per the engineers of record (EOR) requirements. Backfill, level and densify the open graded aggregates as per the EOR’s structural and hydraulic design. 2. Place bedding course of hard and angular material conforming to the grading requirements of ASTM No. 8 or No. 9 to a uniform minimum depth of 1 1/2" - 2". (38mm-50mm) screeded to the grade and profile required. 3. Install Eco-Venetian Stone™ with joints approximately 1/4". (7mm). 4. Where required, cut pave stones with an approved cutting device to fit accurately, neatly and without damaged edges. 5. Tamp pave stones with a plate compactor, uniformly level, true to grade and free of movement. 6. Spread a thin layer of hard angular material conforming to the grading requirements of ASTM No. 8 or No. 9 aggregate over entire paving area. 7. Make one more pass with plate compactor to nest the aggregate and fill joints to the top. 8. Sweep and remove surplus joint material. © 2012 by Pavestone Company. All Rights Reserved. , Improving Your Landscape™, Eco-Venetian Stone™ are trademarks of the Pavestone Company. T T Ac S R 2  K 12/4/2012 10:00 AM Calculations By: 12/4/2012 9:55 AM T T Ac S R 2  K 12/4/2012 10:00 AM Calculations By: 12/4/2012 9:55 AM T T Ac S R 2  K 12/4/2012 10:00 AM Calculations By: 12/4/2012 9:55 AM T T Ac S R 2  K 12/4/2012 9:59 AM Calculations By: 12/4/2012 9:55 AM T T Ac S R 2  K 12/4/2012 9:59 AM Project Location : Fort Collins, Colorado 12/4/2012 9:55 AM (in/hr) 100-yr Tc (min) Is Sub-Basin Detained On-Site? Q C f C i A 12/4/2012 8:41 AM D:\Projects\670-001\Drainage\Hydrology\670-001_Proposed_Rational_Calcs\Runoff 3a 3a 0.39 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.04 1.78 3.84 Detained On-Site Roof runoff drains to MBPs in 3d 3b 3b 0.09 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.24 0.41 0.88 Undetained Runoff Roof runoff drains to 3g 3c 3c 0.01 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.03 0.05 0.12 Undetained Runoff Roof runoff drains to 3h 3d 3d 0.06 5 5 5 0.52 0.52 0.64 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.09 0.15 0.39 Detained On-Site Runoff from courtyard drains to MBPs 3e 3e 0.06 6 6 5 0.60 0.60 0.76 2.76 4.72 9.95 0.09 0.16 0.41 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to Plum Street 3f 3f 0.05 5 5 5 0.68 0.68 0.84 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.09 0.16 0.41 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to Aster Street 3g 3g 0.05 5 5 5 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.03 0.06 0.15 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to storm drain in Aster Street 3h 3h 0.05 5 5 5 0.67 0.67 0.83 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.10 0.18 0.45 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to Bluebell Street 0.81 0.81 0.89 OS0 OS0 0.13 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.35 0.60 1.28 Undetained Runoff OS1 OS1 0.05 6 6 5 0.73 0.73 0.91 2.76 4.72 9.95 0.10 0.18 0.46 Undetained Runoff Runoff drains to gutter in Aster Street OS2 OS2 0.18 5 5 5 0.86 0.86 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.45 0.77 1.83 Undetained Runoff Runoff in Plum Street downstream from on-grade inlet OS3 OS3 0.10 5 5 5 0.94 0.94 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.26 0.45 0.98 Undetained Runoff Runoff in Bluebell Street drains into Plum Street via surface OS4 OS4 0.09 5 5 5 0.94 0.94 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.25 0.43 0.94 Undetained Runoff Runoff in Bluebell Street drains into Plum Street via surface OS5 OS5 0.64 8 8 8 0.86 0.86 1.00 2.40 4.10 8.38 1.33 2.27 5.37 Undetained Runoff Runoff in Plum Street drains to on-grade inlet at DP OS5 OS5 1j,2b & OS5 0.87 8 8 8 0.86 0.86 1.00 2.40 4.10 8.38 1.80 3.08 7.33 Undetained Runoff Plum Street runoff OS4 2c,2d & OS4 0.25 5 5 5 0.76 0.76 0.96 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.54 0.92 2.35 Undetained Runoff Bluebell Street runoff OS3 3h & OS3 0.15 5 5 5 0.84 0.84 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.37 0.63 1.53 Undetained Runoff Bluebell Street runoff OS5 1j,2b,2c,2d,3h,OS3,OS4 & OS5 1.28 8 8 8 0.84 0.84 1.00 2.40 4.10 8.38 2.57 4.38 10.69 Undetained Runoff Plum Street runoff OS1 3f & OS1 0.10 6 6 5 0.70 0.70 0.88 2.76 4.72 9.95 0.19 0.33 0.87 Undetained Runoff Runoff to west gutter of Aster Street (runoff overtops EOP) OS2 3e,3f,OS0,OS1,OS2 0.47 5 5 5 0.82 0.82 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.10 1.87 4.65 Undetained Runoff OS2 1j,2b,2c,2d,3e,3f,3h,OS0 thru OS5 1.74 11 11 11 0.83 0.83 1.00 2.13 3.63 7.57 3.10 5.28 13.19 Undetained Runoff Plum Street runoff 9.59 Allowable Release (based on existing conditions) 6.12 Undetained Runoff 3.47 Actual Release Rate (distributed amongst Permeable Pavers) Q C f C i A 12/4/2012 8:41 AM D:\Projects\670-001\Drainage\Hydrology\670-001_Proposed_Rational_Calcs\Runoff Tc (min) 10-yr Tc (min) 100-yr Tc (min) 1a 1a No 0.95 0.95 1.00 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 1b 1b No 0.95 0.95 1.00 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 1c 1c No 0.95 0.95 1.00 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 1d 1d No 0.25 0.25 0.31 8 6.30% 2.4 2.4 2.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 129 1.20% 1.64 1.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 1e 1e No 0.25 0.25 0.31 19 5.60% 3.9 3.9 3.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 109 1.25% 1.68 1.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 1f 1f No 0.25 0.25 0.31 4 13.00% 1.3 1.3 1.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 49 3.00% 2.60 0.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 1g 1g No 0.95 0.95 1.00 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 1h 1h No 0.95 0.95 1.00 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 1i 1i No 0.95 0.95 1.00 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 PROPOSED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS H. Feissner December 4, 2012 Design Point Sub-Basin Overland Flow Gutter Flow Swale Flow Time of Concentration (Equation RO-4) 3 1 1 . 87 1 . 1 * S Ti C Cf L  12/4/2012 8:40 AM D:\Projects\670-001\Drainage\Hydrology\670-001_Proposed_Rational_Calcs\Tc 1i 1i No 0.95 0.95 1.00 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 1j 1j No 0.25 0.25 0.31 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 1k 1k No 0.25 0.25 0.31 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 2a 2a No 0.95 0.95 1.00 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 2b 2b No 0.25 0.25 0.31 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 2c 2c No 0.25 0.25 0.31 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 2d 2d No 0.25 0.25 0.31 3 4.40% 1.6 1.6 1.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 296 0.95% 1.46 3.4 5.0 5.0 5.0 2e 2e No 0.25 0.25 0.31 17 2.00% 5.2 5.2 4.8 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.2 5.2 5.0 2f 2f No 0.95 0.95 1.00 0 0.00% N/A N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 3a 3a No 0.95 0.95 1.00 1 2.00% 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 3b 3b No 0.95 0.95 1.00 1 2.00% 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 3c 3c No 0.95 0.95 1.00 1 2.00% 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 3d 3d No 0.25 0.25 0.31 1 2.00% 1.3 1.3 1.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 3e 3e No 0.25 0.25 0.31 20 2.00% 5.6 5.6 5.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.6 5.6 5.2 3f 3f No 0.25 0.25 0.31 10 2.00% 4.0 4.0 3.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 3g 3g No 0.25 0.25 0.31 9 2.00% 3.8 3.8 3.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 3h 3h No 0.25 0.25 0.31 11 2.00% 4.3 4.3 4.0 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS0 OS0 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 39 1.00% 1.8 1.8 1.2 157 0.50% 1.41 1.9 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS1 OS1 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 8 1.85% 3.6 3.6 3.3 173 0.50% 1.41 2.0 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.6 5.6 5.4 OS2 OS2 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 26 4.00% 0.9 0.9 0.6 228 0.50% 1.41 2.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS3 OS3 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 21 3.50% 0.9 0.9 0.6 167 0.40% 1.26 2.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS4 OS4 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 19 3.75% 0.8 0.8 0.5 167 0.40% 1.26 2.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS5 OS5 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 23 4.00% 0.8 0.8 0.6 792 0.75% 1.73 7.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 8.5 8.5 8.2 OS5 1j,2b & OS5 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 23 4.00% 0.8 0.8 0.6 792 0.75% 1.73 7.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 8.5 8.5 8.2 OS4 2c,2d & OS4 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 19 3.75% 0.8 0.8 0.5 167 0.40% 1.26 2.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS3 3h & OS3 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 21 3.50% 0.9 0.9 0.6 167 0.40% 1.26 2.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS5 1j,2b,2c,2d,3h,OS3,OS4 & OS5 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 23 4.00% 0.8 0.8 0.6 792 0.75% 1.73 7.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 8.5 8.5 8.2 OS1 3f & OS1 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 8 1.85% 3.6 3.6 3.3 173 0.50% 1.41 2.0 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.6 5.6 5.4 OS2 3e,3f,OS0,OS1,OS2 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 26 4.00% 0.9 0.9 0.6 228 0.50% 1.41 2.7 1 100.00% 15.00 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS2 1j,2b,2c,2d,3e,3f,3h,OS0 thru OS5 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 23 4.00% 0.8 0.8 0.6 797 0.75% 1.73 10.4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 11.2 11.2 10.9 . * Time of Concentrations are calculated for the entire basin and used for both the Impervious and Pervious portions of the basins. 3 1 1 . 87 1 . 1 * S Ti C Cf L  12/4/2012 8:40 AM D:\Projects\670-001\Drainage\Hydrology\670-001_Proposed_Rational_Calcs\Tc Landscaping (sq ft) Area of Lawns and Landscaping (ac) 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient Composite % Imperv. 1a 16763 0.38 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 16763 0.38 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 1b 13578 0.31 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 13578 0.31 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 1c 10228 0.23 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 10228 0.23 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 1d 1724 0.04 0 0.00 69 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1655 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.35 4% 1e 1842 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1842 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.31 0% 1f 825 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 825 0.02 0.25 0.25 0.31 0% 1g 510 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 510 0.01 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 1h 9098 0.21 0 0.00 5915 0.14 1913 0.04 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1269 0.03 0.74 0.74 0.92 67% 1i 4005 0.09 0 0.00 1268 0.03 1645 0.04 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1092 0.03 0.53 0.53 0.67 45% 1j 3048 0.07 0 0.00 2248 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 799 0.02 0.77 0.77 0.96 66% 1k 1162 0.03 0 0.00 375 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 788 0.02 0.48 0.48 0.59 29% 2a 30544 0.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 30544 0.70 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 2b 7118 0.16 0 0.00 2044 0.05 0 0.00 4339 0.10 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 734 0.02 0.88 0.88 1.00 81% 2c 3838 0.09 0 0.00 1279 0.03 0 0.00 2348 0.05 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 211 0.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 85% 2d 2823 0.06 0 0.00 239 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 2585 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.39 8% 2e 2168 0.05 0 0.00 481 0.01 509 0.01 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1177 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.55 29% 2f 3474 0.08 0 0.00 1298 0.03 1743 0.04 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 432 0.01 0.59 0.59 0.73 54% 3a 16803 0.39 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 16803 0.39 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 3b 3861 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3861 0.09 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 3c 509 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 509 0.01 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% 3d 2677 0.06 0 0.00 734 0.02 1318 0.03 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 625 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.64 44% 3e 2396 0.06 0 0.00 1213 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1183 0.03 0.60 0.60 0.76 46% 3f 2127 0.05 0 0.00 1291 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 836 0.02 0.68 0.68 0.84 55% 3g 2087 0.05 0 0.00 5 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 2081 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.31 0% 3h 2389 0.05 0 0.00 1417 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 972 0.02 0.67 0.67 0.83 53% OS0 5617 0.13 5227 0.12 390 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0 0.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 99% OS1 2223 0.05 0 0.00 1530 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 693 0.02 0.73 0.73 0.91 62% OS2 8000 0.18 5418 0.12 1594 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 989 0.02 0.86 0.86 1.00 86% OS3 4294 0.10 2892 0.07 1339 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 63 0.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 95% OS4 4125 0.09 2773 0.06 1288 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 64 0.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 95% OS5 27913 0.64 17457 0.40 7027 0.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 3429 0.08 0.86 0.86 1.00 85% 1j,2b & OS5 38079 0.87 17457 0.40 11319 0.26 0 0.00 4339 0.10 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 4963 0.11 0.86 0.86 1.00 83% 2c,2d & OS4 10786 0.25 2773 0.06 2805 0.06 0 0.00 2348 0.05 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 2859 0.07 0.76 0.76 0.96 69% 3h & OS3 6683 0.15 2892 0.07 2756 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1035 0.02 0.84 0.84 1.00 80% 1j,2b,2c,2d,3h,OS3,OS4 & OS5 55547 1.28 23122 0.53 16881 0.39 0 0.00 6687 0.15 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 8857 0.20 0.84 0.84 1.00 80% 3f & OS1 4350 0.10 0 0.00 2822 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1528 0.04 0.70 0.70 0.88 58% 3e,3f,OS0,OS1,OS2 20363 0.47 10645 0.24 6018 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 3700 0.08 0.82 0.82 1.00 79% 1j,2b,2c,2d,3e,3f,3h,OS0 thru OS5 75911 1.74 33767 0.78 22899 0.53 0 0.00 6687 0.15 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 12558 0.29 0.83 0.83 1.00 80% 1. Table RO-11 | Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis PROPOSED COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS Composite Runoff Coefficient with Adjustment 12/4/2012 8:38 AM D:\Projects\670-001\Drainage\Hydrology\670-001_Proposed_Rational_Calcs\Composite C Allowable Release Rate 1.63 1.16 0.48 H. Feissner December 5, 2012 Flow, Q10 (cfs) Flow, Q100 (cfs) Intensity, i10 (in/hr) Intensity, i100 (in/hr) Q C f C i A 12/5/2012 11:51 AM D:\Projects\670-001\Drainage\Hydrology\670-001_Historic_Rational_Calcs\Runoff-FDP Tc (min) 10-yr Tc (min) 100-yr Tc (min) EX0 EX0 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 151 1.75% 16.2 16.2 15.0 0 0.00% N/A N/A 82 1.15% 1.61 0.8 17.1 17.1 15.9 EX1a EX1a No 0.25 0.25 0.31 65 0.80% 13.8 13.8 12.8 0 0.00% N/A N/A 75 1.00% 1.50 0.8 14.7 14.7 13.7 EX1b EX1b No 0.25 0.25 0.31 47 3.00% 7.6 7.6 7.0 158 0.36% 1.20 2.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 9.8 9.8 9.2 EX2 EX2 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 164 1.30% 18.7 18.7 17.3 93 0.35% 1.18 1.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 20.0 20.0 18.6 EX3 EX3 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 40 4.44% 6.1 6.1 5.7 122 0.50% 1.41 1.4 0 0.00% N/A N/A 7.6 7.6 7.1 OS0 OS0 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 20 3.30% 0.8 0.8 0.6 169 0.50% 1.41 2.0 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS1 OS1 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 22 1.67% 1.1 1.1 0.7 187 0.50% 1.41 2.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS2 OS2 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 28 4.40% 0.9 0.9 0.6 199 0.50% 1.41 2.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS3 OS3 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 21 3.90% 0.8 0.8 0.5 165 0.50% 1.41 1.9 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 HISTORIC TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS H. Feissner December 5, 2012 Design Point Basin Overland Flow Gutter Flow Swale Flow Time of Concentration (Equation RO-4) 3 1 1 . 87 1 . 1 * S Ti C Cf L  12/5/2012 11:51 AM D:\Projects\670-001\Drainage\Hydrology\670-001_Historic_Rational_Calcs\Tc-FDP OS3 OS3 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 21 3.90% 0.8 0.8 0.5 165 0.50% 1.41 1.9 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS4 OS4 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 20 4.00% 0.8 0.8 0.5 161 0.40% 1.26 2.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS5 OS5 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 28 3.90% 0.9 0.9 0.6 269 0.65% 1.61 2.8 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS6 OS6 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 17 5.40% 0.7 0.7 0.4 162 0.36% 1.20 2.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS7 OS7 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 23 3.00% 0.9 0.9 0.6 161 0.36% 1.20 2.2 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 OS8 OS8 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 21 3.75% 0.8 0.8 0.6 495 0.80% 1.79 4.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 5.4 5.4 5.2 OS9 OS9 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 46 0.65% 12.4 12.4 11.5 0 0.00% N/A N/A 139 1.00% 1.50 1.5 14.0 14.0 13.1 OS2 EX0 thru EX3 & OS1 thru OS9 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 151 1.75% 16.2 16.2 15.0 785 0.70% 1.67 7.8 82 1.15% 1.61 0.8 24.9 24.9 23.7 * Time of Concentrations are calculated for the entire basin and used for both the Impervious and Pervious portions of the basins. 3 1 1 . 87 1 . 1 * S Ti C Cf L  12/5/2012 11:51 AM D:\Projects\670-001\Drainage\Hydrology\670-001_Historic_Rational_Calcs\Tc-FDP (ac) 2-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10-year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100-year Composite Runoff Coefficient Composite % Imperv. EX0 - Impervious Area 9423.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 3255.51 0.07 55.38 0.00 6112.13 0.14 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0.00 0.000 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% EX0 - Pervious Area 24405.06 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 24405.06 0.560 0.25 0.25 0.31 0% EX0 33828.08 0.78 0.00 0.00 3255.51 0.07 55.38 0.00 6112.13 0.14 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 24405.06 0.560 0.44 0.44 0.56 25% EX1a - Impervious Area 6097.71 0.14 0.00 0.00 1667.98 0.04 0.00 0.00 4429.73 0.10 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0.00 0.000 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% EX1a - Pervious Area 19004.06 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 19004.06 0.436 0.25 0.25 0.31 0% EX1a 25101.77 0.58 0.00 0.00 1667.98 0.04 0.00 0.00 4429.73 0.10 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 19004.06 0.436 0.42 0.42 0.53 22% EX1b - Impervious Area 2293.31 0.05 0.00 0.00 643.49 0.01 0.00 0.00 1649.82 0.04 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0.00 0.000 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% EX1b - Pervious Area 4091.75 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 4091.75 0.094 0.25 0.25 0.31 0% EX1b 6385.06 0.15 0.00 0.00 643.49 0.01 0.00 0.00 1649.82 0.04 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 4091.75 0.094 0.50 0.50 0.63 32% EX2 - Impervious Area 8343.54 0.19 0.00 0.00 2446.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 5897.50 0.14 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0.00 0.000 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% EX2 - Pervious Area 23335.17 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 23335.17 0.536 0.25 0.25 0.31 0% EX2 31678.71 0.73 0.00 0.00 2446.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 5897.50 0.14 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 23335.17 0.536 0.43 0.43 0.54 24% EX3 - Impervious Area 10710.01 0.25 0.00 0.00 3478.17 0.08 0.00 0.00 7231.84 0.17 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0.00 0.000 0.95 0.95 1.00 90% EX3 - Pervious Area 22139.19 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 22139.19 0.508 0.25 0.25 0.31 0% EX3 32849.20 0.75 0.00 0.00 3478.17 0.08 0.00 0.00 7231.84 0.17 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 22139.19 0.508 0.48 0.48 0.60 29% OS0 3462.39 0.08 3088.66 0.07 373.73 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 0.00 0.000 0.95 0.95 1.00 99% OS1 4379.98 0.10 3311.49 0.08 796.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 272.45 0.006 0.91 0.91 1.00 92% OS2 9009.75 0.21 6523.92 0.15 993.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 204.38 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1288.40 0.030 0.85 0.85 1.00 84% OS3 4293.78 0.10 3159.31 0.07 859.54 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 274.93 0.006 0.91 0.91 1.00 92% OS4 4125.08 0.09 2988.00 0.07 842.30 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 294.78 0.007 0.90 0.90 1.00 91% OS5 10174.37 0.23 7295.55 0.17 1225.74 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1653.08 0.038 0.84 0.84 1.00 83% OS6 3756.67 0.09 2813.27 0.06 736.17 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 207.23 0.005 0.91 0.91 1.00 93% OS7 4144.22 0.10 3057.53 0.07 744.42 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 342.27 0.008 0.89 0.89 1.00 90% OS8 16729.11 0.38 9922.25 0.23 3405.26 0.08 98.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 3303.18 0.076 0.81 0.81 1.00 78% OS9 7852.14 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6330.63 0.15 0.00 0.00 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 1521.51 0.035 0.45 0.45 0.56 32% EX0 thru EX3 & OS1 thru OS9 197770.31 4.54 42159.98 0.97 21467.44 0.49 6484.43 0.15 25525.40 0.59 Clayey | Average 2% to 7% 102133.06 2.345 0.57 0.57 0.72 44% 1. Table RO-11 | Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis HISTORIC COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS Composite Runoff Coefficient with Adjustment 12/5/2012 11:50 AM D:\Projects\670-001\Drainage\Hydrology\670-001_Historic_Rational_Calcs\Composite C-FDP