The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20182210.tiffPage 13 of l USDA United States simi Department of Agriculture MRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part ?VJ2IIIC/�ut:blar�h 2018-2210 Page 14 of l ttr 40° 13 14' N 8 illl 1 I 8 r 40° U. 3Z N 498600 498600 I 498700 Custom Sod Resource Report Sod Map Soil Map may not I)u valid at this scale. 498500 498%0 N A 498700 I I I I 4986w =98900 499000 Map Scaie : 1:6,190 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") Beet. Meters 0 50 100 2100 300 499100 I I I 499100 0 Feet 0 300 600 120) 1800 Map pr tiecrtx n: Web Mercator Corner conjinaies 'r'1GSS4 Edge $Cs: '1TTl :one 13N WGSS 4 9 498300 Ln u .94 4994C0 I 1.10 8 I 40° IT 14" N 40i° 11 3Z' N )ut:hluh1L 7/3/2( Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI ) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons . . Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points O Special Point Features V 0 4k 53/4 Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spat Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot • • Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation *-.-.. Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 24.000. Warn?ng: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale rlease rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map• Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data- Version 15. Sep 22. 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1.50.000 or larger Date(s) aerial images were photographed Mar 16, 2012 Apr 13, 2012 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident Page 16 of l Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (CO618) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name I Acres in AOI Percent of AO1 42 Nunn clay loam. 1 to 3 percent slopes 41.6 25.7% 82 Wiley -Colby percent slopes complex. 1 to 3 120.6 74.3% Totals for Area of Interest 162.2 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions. along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape. however, the soils are natural phenomena. and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus. the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely. if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made u p of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit. and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called n oncontrasting. or similar. components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting. or dissimilar. components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed. and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions. especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the u sefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into andforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the 11 nit:blank 7/3/2( Page 17 of 1 Custom Soil Resource Report development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 nut:blank 7/3/2( Page 18 of 1 Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 42 —Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlpl Elevation: 3,900 to 5,840 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt - 9 to 13 inches: clay loam Btk - 13 to 25 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 25 to 38 inches: clay loam Bk2 - 38 to 80 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 7 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 0.5 Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO) Hydric soil rating: No 13 rut:blank 7/3/2( Page 19 of 1 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO) Hydric soil rating: No Satanta Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) Hydric soil rating: No 82 —Wiley -Colby complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3643 Elevation: 4,850 to 5,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 170 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Wiley and similar soils: 60 percent Colby and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Wiley Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 11 inches: silt loam H2 - 11 to 60 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 60 to 64 inches: silty clay loam 14 )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 20 of 1 Custom Soil Resource Report Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: High (about 11.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Colby Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous eolian deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: loam H2 - 7 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) Hydric soil rating: No 15 nrt:blank 7/3/2( Page 21 of ] Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Weld Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Keith Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No 16 )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 22 of 1 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/n res/detail/national/soi ls/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987, Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres 142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17 )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 23 of 1 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres 142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Intemet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 18 >ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 25 of l DEVELOPED COMPOSITE ° % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS , 911-014 A . Morse February 23, 2018 Surface Char ac'er. ;tic Percent Irnpervfous Runoff Coefficients Storm Frequency (year) 2 5 10 1 100 Residential. 0: 0 46 0 67 100 0 83 0 85 0.87 0 89 40 0.3C 0.36 0.43 0.65 Drives and Walks 90 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.85 Roofs 90 0 74 0 77 0.79 0.85 Lawns. Sandy Sod 2 0.01 i 0.05 0.15 0.49 Lawns Clayey Sod 2 0.01 0.05 0.15 0.49 Motes: 1) Percentage impervious taken from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Drstnct. Volume 1. Chapter 6, Table 6-3 (March 20171. 2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Chapter 6. Table 6.5. Soil Group C. (March 2017 Update) l Basin ID Basin Area (at) Area of Asphalt (act Area of (ad A opts (ac) Area of Lawns and Landscaping (ac) Composite Imper+r 2 -year Composite Runoff Coefficient 5 -year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10 -year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100 -year Composite Runoff Coefficient OS 1 ,.4.34 0.244 3.000 0.000 I 14.10 3.6% 0.02 0.06 0 16 0.50 0S2 200.73 6.022 '0.000 0.000 194.71 4.9% 0.03 0.07 017 0.50 Al 1.43 0.820 0.174 0.000 0.44 68 r 0 57 0.59 0.64 0.63 A2 21.13 0.000 0.349 0.554 20.23 5.8% 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.51 0S2 & A 1 202.17 6.842 0.174 0.000 195.15 5.4% 0.04 0.08 0.17 0.50 0S2, Al & A2 223.30 6.842 0.523 0.554 215.38 5.4% 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.50 Bi 4.37 1.096 0.226 0.859 2.19 48.4% 0.40 0.43 0.49 0.68 B2 4.54 0.999 0.267 0.865 2.41 45.5% 0.37 0.41 0.47 0.67 B1 and B2 8.92 2.096 0.493 1.724 4.60 46.9% 0.38 0.42 0.48 0.67 B 0.54 0.357 0.01 7 0.048 012 0.64 0.67 0.71 0.80 77.7% B4 7 34 1 802 0 376 1 286 3 87 46 0% 0 38 0 41 0 47 0 67 B1 to B4 I 16.79 4.255 0.885 i 3.057 8.59 47.5% 0.39 0.42 0.48 0.68 B5 1.31 0.000 0 02 0.033 1 25 6.1% 0 04 0.08 0.18 0 51 BI to B3 & 65 10.76 2.452 0.538 1.804 5.97 43.5% 0.36 0 39 0.45 0.66 E36 3.65 1.059 ' i ' - 0.753 1 59 54 6% 0 45 0 48 0.53 0 7+0 7.13 1.635 0.364 1.429 3 70 46.6% 0.38 0.41 0.48 0.67 3.63 1.158 0.265 0.862 1.34 60.6% 0.50 0.53 0.58 0.73 • 10.04 0.000 0.27€ 0.417 9.34 8.1% 0.06 0.10 0.19 0.51 rA2.B1toB6. Cl, 02 P-2 65.11 8.928 2.588 7.104 46.49 28.5% : 0.27 0.34 0.60 01 5.87 1.330 0.307 0.969 3.26 43.4% 0.35 0.39 0.45 0.66 D2 0.15 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.05 I 66.8% 0.55 0.58 0.63 0.75 D3 1.41 0.000 0.028 0.129 1 25 11 8% 0.09 0.13 0.22 0.53 DI to D3 I 7.42 1.426 0.334 1.099 4.56 37.8% 0.31 0.34 0.41 0 64 k 1 0.65 0.378 3.079 0.000 0.19 69.8% 0.58 0.60 0.65 0 77 4.43 0.000 J.233 0.388 381 14 3% 011 015 024 054 OSI, , El & E2 19.42 I 0.619 0.312 0.388 i 1810 8.3% 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.52 El 5.43 1.616 1204 0.672 294 45 4% 0 37 0.40 0 47 0.67 E4 ' 25 0.551 0.124 0.496 1 08 50.3% 0.41 0.44 0.50 0.69 E3 & E4 7.68 2.167 0.32' 1.168 4.01 I 46.8% 0.38 0.42 0.48 ` 0.67 5 73 1.454 .3ut 1 115 2 85 48.7% 0 40 0 43 0.49 0 68 Lt: 3 85 0.914 U 298 0 975 1 6F 54 4% 0.45 0 48 0 53 0 70 E5 & E6 9.58 2.368 0.604 2.090 4 51 51 0% 0.42 0 55 0.51 0 69 E3 TO E>: I.7.25 4 535 0.933 3.259 8.53 49 1% 0.40 044 0.49 0 68 95 -3 74 0 37 59 1% 0.49 0 52 0-57 0 72 0.46 61 9% 0.51 0.54 0.59 0 73 i 04 74 3% 0.61 0 64 0.68 0.79 051, El TO E9 38.99 6.200 3.821 ±- TO 29.5% 0.24 0.27 0.35 0.60 _ 33 r 44 - 0.37 . 40 0 46 0.66 - 59 37 9 0.31 0 34 M 0.64 .z 07 3C 0.24 . 28 _ 35 0.60 49 12 I 0.09 0 13 0 22 0.53 , -56 ., 2E ^21 0.25 0.33 0.59 V _ , ,3 r , }�__ - _ - wt.:hlank 7/3/2( Page 26 of 1 I 1U.JU V.vVV U.G`4L if -Jail. i 3_ S V V.3 /0 V.V.) V -Vs V- l V -J 1 El to E9, Fl to F8, G 1. G2. Hi, H2, 01 to D3, J1 & P- 91 07 18.827 4.420 12.160 55.66 38.3% 0.31 0.35 0.42 0.64 U-1 0.52 0.136 0.040 0000 035 342% r 028 0.31 0.39 062 U-2 0.13 0.114 0.000 0.000 O02 87 0% 0 72 0 74 0 77 0.84 U- 3 0.44 0.000 0.000 3.000 0.44 2.0°%r 0.01 0.05 0 15 0.49 I I-1 1.17 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 17 2.0% 0.01 0.05 0.15 0.49 1-2 0.81 0.000 0.000 0.000 _ 0.81 2.0% 0.01 0.05 0.15 _ 0.49 )ut:hlank 7/3/2( Page 27 of 1 DEVELOPED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS Overland Flow, Time of Concentration. .395 ( 1 . 1 - C 5 I L. Protect- 911-014 j UDFCD Volume 1: Chapter 6, Equation 6-3 Calculations By: A. Morse — i ti • Date! February 23. 2018 Gutter..'Swale Flow. Time of Concentration: T. = I. 60V UDFCD Volume 1. Chapter 6. Equation 6-4 Ti = To + Tt UDFCD Volume 1: Chapter 6, Equation 6-2 Velocity (Gutter Flow). V = 20-S UDFCD Volume 1: Chapter 6. Table 6-2 Velocity (Swale Flow' V = 15 5 UDFCD Volume 1. Chapter 6. Table 6-2 Design Point " Overland Flow Gutter Flow Swale Row lent l • 500 ') length. Slope (%) T .,,,. - . c +. Slope, (%) Velocity_ (R/s) T (min) (min) . - r - -- (mrnl Lenr;. - (ft) Slope € S Velocity Otis) T (mrt Yes 0.7c 1.2u 0.0O` 4 N/A N;A 124 I I4 12 u 52.6 52.6 ,,,,.e," 0 nr - 100'- '4'. N;A 3:' , IQ 3 92.E 32 8 i 1 NA 3.8 4.I 41 24.2 35.9 a -4 :sale OS2 & A i Yes 0.08 '1.9U 43 4 i 59 5 :' 4.5 , Q 6 53 1 0.90 a I 39_3 83.3 NIA i3 3 A2 0S2. Al & A2 Yes 0.08 , 511 3.90% 43.4 159 5 L� , 4.5'.' 0.6 4/20 el.? 0.90% . 4_ 55.3 99.2 NIA `:)9.2 1 : B1 No 0.55 70 _41% 8.3 886 1.05% 1 2.05 ' 2 NA N;.. N/A 15.5 17 8 15 5 3„ 82 No 0.43 55 '8% 7.5 1197 1.06% 2.06 9.1 ) NA NA NiA 17.2 18.3 17.2 82 B1 and B2 No 0.41 4 1% 7.8 1197 1.06% _ 2.06 9.7 0 Pt/A F44/P• N/A 17.5 18.1 17.5 B3 0.43 2.88 6.6 641 ' 07:33°:o 1 45 7.3 N/A • 14.0 12.8 12.8 6-« 84 No 0.08 13E 23.8 1193 0.87% . E6 10.1 ' . N/A 34.5 18.2 + 18 . 84 BI to B4 No 0.39 24 8.6 1850 0.87% 1.87 _ 16.5 NA N/A 25.1 18.0 18.0 EV_ N 0.4: 5 8 0 0.00% N,A NA 0.55% 6 1 12.C 25 0 :2 0 B5' B1 to 63 & 85 i N ^ -, ' 5.2 1312 1.28% 2.26 9.7 0.5 r,a. 5 1 21.0 18.7 18.7 3t.; Bt. t4 344 646 ,1 417-1 ° : 11 )4 ' C ' ' ', Q C I A2" 0S2. Al. A2; 61 to 86 Yes 0.90% 43.2 159 5 _ 4.59 0.6 _ 1.42 6C 103.8 C:1 C N 0.4 8 .3 r ..21% 9.1 891 r U.85% 1.84 8.1 NiA NSA N:A iii 18.1 17 ' C2 C4 N 0.41 f 0.09% 23.8 1. 0.57% 1.50 13 N/A NiA NA 36.8 15.7 15 P2 P2 N 1" a ^ 4 8r:° q -' N/A 0 C2 108 28 7 47 Al. A2, B1 to 86. C1, C2 & P 2 Al, A2. 81 to 86. Cl, C2& P-2 No 0.27 112 419 :.•9• WA N/A N.A 3272 0.75% 130 42 51.6 21.2 21 2 1 D1 0.53 8.•; .:f4% _ u4 9-6 _ N/A N/A N/A ' 9 187 D2 0.39 5..3 . _ , 1.18% 2.18 , 0.9 N/A s.2 N/A , N/A .. 14..' 5. D3 0.58 5 . 0 0.00% NA N/A .3-__ 1 02% 1 51 3 8 8.9 24.r 3.9 DI to D3 0.13 14.3 .215 100.00% 20.00 1.0 342 1.02 0 1.51 3 19.1 19 -E 19.1 * 2 385 1.00% 2.00 3.2 U NAN„ ' 5.9 14 . ` 26 t. N/A N/A .a4°,� 1 45 4.6 2 23.6 O51, Li & E2 Yes 0.10 5UU 38.5 126 3.59% 3.79 0.6 665 1.38% 1.76 6.3 45.4 l NIA 45.4 N 0.40 23 3.8 1750 0.78% 1-7/ RA 4,A NiA 20.3 18.: 18.3 1 Nc 0.44 _ 1 i 7 760 1.46%.. 2.42 _ NiA NA 17.0 17 ' 7.0 E3 & E4 - No 0.42 J 3.8 1990 0.80% 1.79 18.6 N/A • N/A 22.4 18.1 18.1 , E5 N 0.43 I- 92 10.7 1084 1.14 4 ` 2.13 8I.5 'VA Nil N/A 19.1 I 17 8 :7.8 E6 N 0.48 178 3r 10.1 34 0.53°-- 1.46 3 S 'VA Nit N/A 13.9 16 8 :3.9 EE E5 & E6 0.55 92 1 34 8.7 .84 1.� ?.OS 9.4 !�A N/A 18.2 17 4 17-4 E6 I.N. E3 TO E6 N.- r 0.44 - 93% 3.7 �.' :.74 _'2.4 0 WA QA N/A 26.1 17 7 17 7 E7 No 0.52 9. :.15% 9.7 ::1: 0.66 * ..63 5.3 NSA N/A a 15.1 16.0 15.1 i E8 0 `_ 2.98% 5...i 832 1.74% __ 64 5.3 NiA NIA .t:A 10.5 15.5 10.5 F 2 E9 0.:.-, i ., 4.25 a 2.. 84 0.43'. . 31 1.1 N/A N/A N/A 5.0 13.4 5.0 Si,.,.: 0S 1, El TO E9 t 0.27 50r ' 20% 31 8 240 ' 149'. ; 7-: 1.1 138°.: 1.76 6 3 39.2 N/A 39.2 40 _ 084` _ . 83 9 3 N/.A NA N/A .3 4 18.4 NL 34 4 . 24 33% 4 1.8 15 NANAN/A • 32.1 19.e 19.6 Nc 128 ' U 19.3 158°`0.85% 1 8 :4 3 N/A NiA N/A 33 F 21 i_ :1 N•, '3 3 19.6 3 '.0.51% 14 3 N/A N/A NA :: 241 23.3 F3 & F4 No 0.._ 0.3t) 20 1901 0.79% i7.8 '4/A NiA N/A 37.8 21.6 21.‘- F`_ N 0 4 26 937 1 2J8 1 75 '• '1 15 ' 10 F6 N 0.u_ -« 3.u� 44 ICS 1.co '08 8.1 14w '2.� Fl to F6 Plc 0.35 33 0.36 17.5 2 L 0.77°. .. 76 20.1 N/A , NIA r,i; A 19 = 9 4 v N 0.47 , 3 ,. ' 4C 5.9 le . 0.5' 51 l 8 NA NAA ', ' N 0 15 85 2c, 8.3 0 0 4 NIA N'A 1 16 1 61 . x8 "' .6 8 ,.151. El. E2&F8 n 11 20 38..: 404 1 t ' _. - i 6 `t4.4 '4/A 4 1 33 1411 ....2.9 1.4.6 487 9 c I 1 I , . - I 1 to E9. F1 to F8. G1, G2 . Fl2.DItiO3.11&P1 0.15% 1 . . 1 I . 0 - I - ' . ir )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 29 of 1 RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS DEVELOPED dtauonal Matlrod Easation; ) _ C l (CXi X.4 Il 1 Nadia .' tv'fa'I P"tit' nth *Aim fro -t,!! 1 Yvpi.3 ' Stornnwater Standa.ds (Town of Me,tc! �t�.•r ' flnW'aeee r'rt,)r;3l • Project 911-014 Calculations 8y: A. Morse Date: February 23. 2018 Design Basin(s) Area a (acres) T; (rein) Cz - _ intensity iz (in/hr) Intensity. ito inihr) Intensity i Urt no Flow fl2 (cfs) F1cA Qio (cfs) Flow, Qum (cfs) 0S1 ?S i i4.34 52.6 0.02 0.16 0.0 1.03 . 69 2 70 0.35 3.92 19.24 0S2 32.8 0.03 0.17 ii 0.50 0.58 0.90 1.49 4.03 31.06 150.4/ a Al 1.43 14.3 0.51 0.64 .64 2.40 4.38 6.38 1.95 3.74 3 72 A2 2113 35.9 0.04 i 0.18 0.51 1.44 2.41 3.81 1.26 1 9.02 10.69 1 0S2 & Al 202.i / 33..: 0.04 V 0.17 3.50 0.58 I 0.90 1.49 4.51 31.88 152.10 OS2, Al & AZ 223.30 99.2 0.04 0.18 0.50 0.58 0.90 ' .49 5.01 35.26 168.0E, 4.37 15.5 0.40 0.49 0.68 2.33 3.95 �. i9 :.04 8.45 18.38 4.54 17.2 0 37 i3O.48 0.47 0.67 2.20 3.72 5.83 1 i 71 i 7 91 17.69 82 81 '. 1 B2 8.92 17.5 0.38 • 0.67 2.20 3.72 5.83 7.52 15.87 35.04 B.3 0.54 1.2.8 0.64 0.71 0.80 2.52 4.28 6.70 0.87 1.62 2.87 B,: 7.34 L8.2 0.38 0.47 0 6 ' 2.14 3.62 5.67 5.91 12.52 27.88 4 B4 B1 to B4 16 74 18.0 0.39 ' 0.48 i 0. L', C 2.17 3.6 , 5.75 14.15 29.74 65.28 B'.. 85 1 _ 12 0 04 0.18 0.51 2.65 4 5 7 05 4 0 1 : 1.06 -I 68 35 81 to 83 & B5 10 7E. 18.7 0.36 0.4:; 0.66 2.14 3.61 5.67 8.18 17.65 40.27 ?f_ 36 1 5 3 0.45 3.53 0.70 2.33 6. _ 80 _5.89 17.1 0.38 0.48 0.67 2.20 3.72 5.83 ..98 12.63 17.97 15.7 0 50 3.58 0.71• 2.33 3 95 6.19 1.21 8.30 _6.38 P-2 _ 24.7 0.06 0.1'' 0.51 1.84 3 4.87 : 11 6.03 '5.1 'Al A2. B1to86.Cl C2&P2 Al, A2, 81 to B6. CI. 02 & P2 0.23 0.3� 0.60 1.98 3.34 524 29.73 74.7.1 204.25 1 5.87 a J.3_, I 0.40 0.66 2.11 3.6; 5. i 0 I 1.51 9.14 2.24 0.15 o.2 0.55 ‘ 0.63 0.75 3.28 ' 5.62 1 8.75 0.26 0.51 0.97 �0 1.41 8.9 I 0.09 0.22 0.53 2.98 5.09 7 95 9.38 1 59 5.93 03 I DI to D3 7.42 19.1 0.31 0.41 0.64 2.08 3.52 5.52 4.76 10.76 2.6 .08 E 1 0.65 5.9 0. ja 0.b3 0.11 s.41 9.26 h ..it, I 2.50 4.01 4.43 23.6 0.11 0.24 0 ' 1.88 4.99 0.94 3.37 _1.95 0S1, E.1 & E2 19.42 45.4 0.06 0.20 0.52 1.18 1.95 3.11 1.43 7.42 31.11 5.43 18.3 0.37 14 0.6 2.14 3.62 5.67 1.31 9.19 20.55 L-1 2 25 .7.0 0 41 ;.56 0.6C' 2.26 3.83 6.00 2 09 4,33 3.28 E3 & E4 ; 7.68 18.1 _ 0.38 0.48 0.67 2.14 3.62 5.67 6.30 13.28 29.32 [5 _ 5.73 17.8 0.4C 0.49 0.68 2.17 3.67 5.75 4.95 10.33 22.43 IE:6 3.85 13.9 0.45 0.53 0.70 2.48 4.21 6.59 4.25 8.63 1 7 8F E5 & E6 9.58 17.4 0.42 0.51 0.69 2.20 3.72 ' 5.83 8.79 18.11 38.56 !3 TO E6 in5 1 17.7 i 0.4' 0.49 0.68 2.17 3.67 5.75 15.06 31.32 67.75 0.95 r, I. 0.4 : 0.57 0.72 2.33 3.95 6.19 .. 08 2 14 4 21 1.22 _ ., 5 0.51 0.59 0.73 2.75 4.69 7.32 1.71 3.36 6.54 0 14 5.0 0 61 0.68 0.79 3.47 5.95 9.26 0.29I 0.56 1.00 S .ale 051, El TO E9 38 99 39.2 v 0.24 n 35 0.60 1.33 2.21 3.51 12.41 30.27 82.37 F 1 4.30 18.4 0 1 ' 0.46 0.6E 2.14 3.60 i _ �: ' 3.37 1 '{ 16.22 2 F2 9.05 19.6 0 31 0.4' 0.64 2.08 3.52 Jr:- 5.8L 13 _.4 31.81 F3 F3 5.19 21.0 0.24 0.3O 0.60 2.03 3.43 5.38 2.86 7.04 .8.83 Fa F4 1.66 23.3 0.09 0.22 _ 0.53 1.88 3.1 ' 4.99 0.29 1.18 L40 F4 F3 & F4 7.45 '' 6 i 0.21 0.33 0.59 1.98 3.34 5.24 3.09 8.10 '_ 97 F5 F5 1 56 _ �.1 0.50 0.58 0.73 2.75 4 69 7 ' .. _ 14 4.24 s 33 F6 F6 1 54 12.5 0.57 0.64 0.76 2 56 4.3€ 6.o_ _.25 4.31 8.03 F6 11 to F6 23.90 19.4 0 32 0.42 0.64 2.08 3 r ' 5.52 15.81 35.3K_ 84.59 F7 ` ' 0.31 ' 6 45 _ 3.53 0.1C 3.05 5, ._ 3.13 ).43 0.8 ,` 1.80 F8 3.18 3 11 0.24 0.54 2016 3.8. 6.00 00.80 2.91 .0.30 Swale 0S1, P E2 & F8 22.60 54.9 0.07 1.20 0.52 0.99 1.62 2.59 1.55 7.39 30.45 I 8.60 19.0 0 34 1 3.61 5 67 6 24 13.66 • 1 81 1 06 9 fr 0 54 4.88 ,2 ? 64 3 , �. n , , , I1 , , , . I i I • J ItoE9.F1tof8,GI. G2 131. H2. DI to D3. J1 & P 3.52 pi. iv 133.11 321.00 r I 1 I , , )ut:blank -11 v Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk R AutoCAD R Civil 3D R Plan 5 Outfali. Project File. 911-014_Storm 1 stm Number of lines: 5 Date 2/26/2018 Pu Cra w IN) Storm Sewers v a Pt c 6- Storm Sewer Inventory Report Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Line ID Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) Junc Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (n) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) 1 End 234.269 -3.034 None 17.82 0.00 0.00 0.0 5007.63 0.20 5008.10 30 Cir 0.012 0.15 5011.90 Pipe - (20) 2 1 402.242 2.513 None 8.26 0.00 0.00 0.0 5008.10 0.20 5008.91 24 Cir 0.012 0.15 5015.46 Pipe - (21) 3 2 309.937 -0.061 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5008.91 0.20 5009.53 24 Cir 0.012 0.47 5017.55 Pipe - (24) 4 3 72.237 -24.774 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5009.53 0.20 5009.67 24 Cir 0.012 0.15 5012.05 Pipe - (25) 5 4 13.900 0.019 None 11.25 0.00 0.00 0.0 5009.67 0.22 5009.70 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 5012.08 OUTFALL STRUCTURE Project File: 911-014_Storm 1.stm Number of lines: 5 Date: 2/26/2018 w Storm Sewer: O �-h cz Storm Sewer Tabulation Pg 2✓ Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C TC Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (ft/s) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Line ID 3 End 1 2 3 4 234.269 402.242 309.937 72.237 13.900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.33 19.51 11.25 11.25 11.25 19.90 11.00 10.99 10.96 11.43 8.10 6.21 3.58 3.58 3.58 24 24 24 24 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.22 5007.63 5008.10 5008.91 5009.53 5009.67 5008.10 5008.91 5009.53 5009.67 5009.70 5009.70 5011.72 5014.36 5015.11 5015.29 5011.59 5014.27 5015.02 5015.26 5015.32 5010.58 5011.90 5015.46 5017.55 5012.05 5011.90 5015.46 5017.55 5012.05 5012.08 Pipe - (20) Pipe - (21) Pipe - (24) Pipe - (25) OUTFALL SI Project File: 911-014 Storm 1.stm Number of lines: 5 Run Date: 2/26/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box L.J N Storm Sewers v c Storm Sewer Profile Pro j . file: 911-014_Storm 1. E Elev. (ft) 5029 00 5024.00 5019 00 5014.00 5009.00 5004.00 -73 4'c r 2os Csi 0 4, toO tO tnfn 4 cos tO C E J •_ • _ , • t • o akp, Grnd, El. 5012 Inv. EIS. 5009.6' Inv. EL 5009.6' Sta 10+32.584 E; O C3 CC) 0000 r EWa3 t C. 1 co `� `n ,c Ill: - LO O o i 0 • 00 co - J. El E 5 c, C CO 0 -Et!'3 C�C Ccc tES co _ ._.. .._..., ( - . • 1 ] i • -__ s ----- 309.9 , //� •\(��(, i/� (�I�y }L'.��,30"0.20% 1 i • • .. _.......... _ n I 0 100 200 HOL EQL 300 400 500 600 Reach (ft) 700 800 900 1000 1100 5029.00 5024.00 5019.00 5014.00 5009.00 - 24" @ 0.22% 0.20% 5004.00 U4 CD O Storm 5ev Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk.® AutoCAD® Civil 3D Plan I • Outfall • Project File: 911-014_Storm 2. stm p CIQ rD Date. 2/26/2018 Number of lines: 2 Storm Sewer Inventory Report Pi V - Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Deft angle (deg) Junc Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 2 End 1 141.934 59.017 -90.002 38.532 None None 8.26 10.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 5006.80 5008.70 0.81 0.34 5007.95 5008.90 24 15 Cir Cir 0.012 0.012 0.67 1.00 5012.42 5012.20 Pipe - (26) Pipe - (27) Project File: 911-014_Storm 2.stm Number of lines: 2 Date: 2/26/2018 UQ CD Storm Sewer C z- Storm Sewer Tabulation Pi p Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (ft/s) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Line ID End 1 141.934 59.017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.51 10.25 22.06 4.07 7.07 8.35 24 15 0.81 0.34 5006.80 5008.70 5007.95 5008.90 5008.36 5009.95 5009.50 5011.22 5008.61 5012.42 5012.42 5012.20 Pipe - (26) Pipe - (27) Project File: 911-014_Storm 2.stm Number of lines: 2 Run Date: 2/26/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box co w oc Storm Sewers v O - Storm Sewer Profile Proj. . file. 911-014_Storm 2.5 Elev. (ft) 5024.x00 5020: 00 5016,.00 50120 5008.00 5004,00 . . cCNI O C M eZ i L 2 oo a CU co N Grnd, El, 5012 Inv, EL. 5008,9( a © Ca in O) C3 rt- op ID L00►0 Ld0 I 0_ ( ; w 0 C4 .s —. s j j i ; 1 a »• .... f - 1I .rw.r L .w.�a ___ ..•...w...b H • — I { [ 1 1 T T S 3 eel 1 -- } i _._- { 4- et rtst934Lf24!@-Ot"'•.Nr�♦sf..n.cia--f.a.n-•••• - • •w1•�e A. M1yltave va�a-c�t.aas..o�.. t- . a( _. •• . ..! .— T.b.�Yw♦NfA�' w.r.�.... v -� •.. -- i 11 . . • ..•. m H .m - 4.a& . ru.._ srw-tea+.-- -- ..u...u.•.M..ssro•r+s rm__ I -. _ r w.w-.♦ye.e.�♦eew...ww•..(.a4WP9!YfN...ry.Yfwr.•..aW.4W»s¢ ... a.,o. .. -Aar . , �,„..,...�., 0 25 HOL....._._«..,._...- _....._-. EGL 50 75 100 Reach (ft) 125 150 175 200 5024.00 5020.00 5016.00 5012.00 5008.00 5004.00 225 cjq a Lei a Storm 5ev r+; Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® AutoCADO Civil 3D® Plan r 2 I Outfall I I Project File: 911 a014_Storm 3.stm Number of lines: 2 Date: 2/26/2018 frt �CD Storm Sewers v O N rt-s �- Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD Civil 3D R Plan 2i • Outfall Project File: 9_-11 m014 Storm Istm Number of lines: 2 Date 2/26/2018 Storm r Sewers v o s✓ Storm Sewer Inventory Report 2✓ Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defi angle (deg) Junc Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope r/o) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID P� 1 2 End 1 124.161 40.024 -90.081 2.177 None None 4.77 8.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 5008.00 5011.90 3.14 0.30 5011.90 5012.02 15 15 Cir Cir 0.012 0.012 0.15 1.00 5015.33 5015.32 Pipe - (28) Pipe - (29) Project File: 911-014_Storm 3.stm Number of lines: 2 Date: 2/26/2018 Storm Sewer: O Storm Sewer Tabulation Pa Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (ft/s) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (n) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ff) Line ID 1 2 End 1 124.161 40.024 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.03 8.26 12.40 3.83 10.62 6.73 15 15 3.14 0.30 5008.00 5011.90 5011.90 5012.02 5009.35 5013.92 5013.66 5014.48 5009.80 5015.33 5015.33 5015.32 Pipe - (28) Pipe - (29) Project File: 911-014_Storm 3.stm Number of lines: 2 Run Date: 2/26/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box CD Storm Sewers v O '-h Fi,'" Storm Sewer Profile Prof. file 911-014_Storm , Elev. (ft) 5025.00 5021.00 5017.00 5013:00 5009.00 5005:00 co.) N r-, IMMO CC St oS C CDI. C CI OD in tui CO O F+- 1—..w...r.w . 3 1 l el 05 C41- 00 r- CD e-- r : wic) In 0 0E2 Sta Lao esti tet .a_ POIWO N.Y+!4va� KfOxV c a 1 Iii ..1 1 5 a.aa.Yu. 5025.00 5021.00 .�w.r 5017,00 — ~ 5013.00 tweet .a. _ 0 25 HGL — -...w _._we a. EGL p ....eMw.FV.Y.w wanuai.WfM>_'.NPM..4KKtc. �. .. 4Ch0241.1-----1 4: ' . @ ..0.,30 IL..y j 75 50 100 Reach (ft) 125 150 175 5009.00 5005.00 rc a 0 Storm Sev Hydrafiow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® AutoCADr.t CivIl 3D® Plan 5 Outfail• 3 Project File: 1 i-014 'corm 4 stm Number of lines: 6 Date 2/26/2018 Storm Sewers v �-h Storm Sewer Inventory Report Pi Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) June Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet! Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 End 85.720 -81.968 None 5.35 0.00 0.00 0.0 5013.00 0.73 5013.63 30 Cir 0.012 0.17 5018.30 Pipe - (114) 2 1 10.000 -8.032 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5013.63 0.73 5013.70 30 Cir 0.012 1.00 5018.60 Pipe - (115) 3 2 212.325 90.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5013.70 0.94 5015.70 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 5019.74 Pipe - (35) 4 3 48.676 -91.181 None 12.79 0.00 0.00 0.0 5015.70 0.41 5015.90 24 Cir 0.012 0.15 5019.46 Pipe - (36) 5 4 358.007 1.181 None 10.88 0.00 0.00 0.0 5016.40 1.10 5020.34 18 Cir 0.012 1.00 5023.55 Pipe - (113) 6 2 29.994 0.000 None 5.35 0.00 0.00 0.0 5014.70 0.20 5014.76 18 Cir 0.012 1.00 5018.30 Pipe - (33) Project File: 911-014_Storm 4.stm Number of lines: 6 Date: 2/26/2018 GC? CD Storm Sewer O Storm Sewer Tabulation Pa Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area lncr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (ftis) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Line ID 1 3 4 6 End 1 2 3 4 2 85.720 10.000 212.325 48.676 358.007 29.994 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.37 29.02 23.67 23.67 10.88 5.35 38.09 38.02 23.78 15.69 11.93 5.07 8.20 7.21 8.03 7.54 6.50 3.24 30 30 24 24 18 18 0.73 0.73 0.94 0.41 1.10 0.20 5013.00 5013.63 5013.70 5015.70 5016.40 5014.70 5013.63 5013.70 5015.70 5015.90 5020.34 5014.76 5014.99 5015.62 5015.54 5017.70 5018.29 5016.02 5015.62 5015.54 5017.43 5018.16 5021.60 5016.08 5015.95 5018.30 5018.60 5019.74 5019.46 5018.60 5018.30 5018.60 5019.74 5019.46 5023.55 5018.30 Pipe - (114) Pipe - (115) Pipe - (35) Pipe - (36) Pipe - (113) Pipe - (33) Project File: 911-014_Storm 4.stm Number of lines: 6 Run Date: 2/26/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box Storm Sewers v Starm Sewer Profile Prof: fie: 911-014 Stor4:5 Elev. (ft) 4- 41 C O r 0 0, seza Y Q - :ate L 5039:00 ,..�. 5033:00 5027..00 5021.00 5015.00 5009.00 r SO 0+85.72¢Ln littiaistata I 44 y.•sa•r.c. CDCPs •t CO CD Qt, trir 00 LO G S Sta. 0+95,72 - Lit 2 ci0c •0o 00 Cr C S 4. -r- E .: E _Nb t 0 in LC) o tr)� 04 0 q) -611-1 w C > > c Ste 3+56.72 w, Ln: 4 212.325U- 1,0.0001. a� - _ _ .... . m ...�- 0 50 100 150 HGL- EGL _ e to •ta LO tii O:ES 1.4&5-5Lf..24" 4 181--6 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 Reach (ft) C) or) to to Cs1 SL.. 5' 70O 750 5039:00 5033.00 5027.00 5021.00 5015.00 5009.00 Q Storm Sev '� Storm Sewer Profile Proj , file: 11 QO 141_ torn 4,E Li) raTh Elev. (ft) 5030.00 5026,00 5022.00 5018.00 7014.00 5010.00 i 0 0 CO CO t ui it inW 0 0-4 — r,n acCsoa 7 T- HV.viwviY 1 ms...setsv� 0 sss'sx- _ w 1 10 20 30 40 HGL E L Sta 0+85.72 - Ln: I a()£ co co on LO 7jW 80 50 60 70 Reach (ft) • 00 C •OO CO 11.1's- vs- vile tor' e • 0 Vim' 0 LI LH fa, F55 I 90 CD C LCrtt W Lai cot Ora 1 f f hill' 100 110 120 5030..00 5026 00 5022.00 5013.00 5014:00 5010.00 130 '-d PD CiQ Cxo O Storm Sev Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk AutoCADR Civil 3D Plan I I Outfall l l Project File: 911-014__Storr 5..stm Number of lines: 1 Date, 3/6/2018 Storm Sewer Inventory Report Pt J lJ Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) Junc Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 End 99.688 -176.826 None 3.31 0.00 0.00 0.0 5003.30 0.50 5003.80 15 Cir 0.012 1.00 5010.00 Pipe - (37) Project File: 911-014_Storm 5.stm Number of lines: 1 Date: 3/6/2018 (r4 Vl Storm Sewer: t Storm Sewer Tabulation P: Station Len (ft) Drng Area Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (ft/s) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Line ID Line To Line Incr (ac) Total (ac) Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) 1 End 99.688 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.31 4.95 4.33 15 0.50 5003.30 5003.80 5004.03 5004.56 5004.74 5010.00 Pipe - (37) Project File: 911-014_Storm 5.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 3/6/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box v tJ Storm Sewers v c - Storm Sewer Profile sb-7 Ekev. (ft) 50.16.00 501 3,,00 5010.00 5007 00 5004.00 Mime C O -O r "W 0 O . 0 to to 0 al -46 ELI S-^ H +sues v..4 ^.[.ouD....F f Prof[ file: 9t 1=014 Storm 5: O E 00 0O COLOC) 7 Ci. CDC: O -al co c 5 meK'!'9ls_ssrci I f 4wWT.wwGG'Jie ».ov xaa.w✓�..=evtla» vnuuw..Y tiaar nM.wntlryAeN+n.A �T4' maYJya¢�a�tlSgwA�4R+, 4+T\m.Mti4NUXmvY44±.HV YJ ibeNXb4a.see. e. Vuaw«hYffh:,1,Ku.C.x,. SN. sMi.Y,.-••.\. H • . [.•A.a,=...na.,.a..._..[.. s r ,.e 5 { '11.. • h 5016 00 5013.00 -el 5010:00 1 7 9 5001.00 L 0 Loa 99.6881.f - _. ce', ^N+-rzr. 6�DAT24 YfLDYXlfCVZJ.9AS(YSO4V. htfliffifaSaaot 10 20 30 HGL EGL • .rwSt[awaDao..var. --. 0.50% .9e.,,nn:e.eevfsr.Vetlsl. 40 50 60 70 80 90 Reach (ft) 5007:00 5004.00 5001.00 100 014 NJ Storm Sev Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® Plan 3 2 Outfall Project File: 911-014_Storm 6.stm Number of lines: 4 Date: 3/2/2018 GC? CD Storm Sewers v O •-h cr Storm Sewer Inventory Report Pt Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) June Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (1)/0) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 2 3 4 End 1 2 371.380 99.631 13.900 64.815 -89.732 54.873 1.579 76.476 None None None None 0.00 0.00 15.87 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4996.89 5001.04 5002.03 4997.26 0.10 1.00 1.01 0.09 4997.26 5002.03 5002.17 4997.32 24 21 21 8 Cir Cir Cir Cir 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.98 0.15 1.00 1.00 5007.74 5004.12 5004.22 4998.09 Pipe - (38) Pipe - (39) Pipe - (39) (1) Pipe - (70) Project File: 911-014_Storm 6.stm Number of lines: 4 Date: 3/2/2018 Storm Sewer. O Storm Sewer Tabulation Pa Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap. full (cfs) Vel (ft/c) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd 1 Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Line ID 1 2 3 4 End 1 2 1 371.380 99.631 13.900 64.815 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.87 15.87 15.87 2.00 7.75 17.16 17.23 0.40 6.33 7.73 7.36 5.73 24 21 21 8 0.10 1.00 1.01 0.09 4996.89 5001.04 5002.03 4997.26 4997.26 5002.03 5002.17 4997.32 4998.41 5002.36 5003.50 5001.29 5000.80 5003.50 5003.64 5002.81 4999.14 5007.74 5004.12 5007.74 5007.74 5004.12 5004.22 4998.09 Pipe - (38) Pipe - (39) Pipe - (39) (1 Pipe - (70) Project File: 911-014_Storm 6.stm Number of lines: 4 Run Date: 3/2/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box Storm Sewers v o '—h R: Storm Sewer Profile Prof. file. 911-O i 4_Storrn p Elev. (ft) 5018.00 501100 5008.00 5003.00 4998.00 4993.00 a E NO Cl CD 0W a V)e NT 1 I CO CO a1- to trmd. El. 5004 Inv, EL 5002,0 Inv. El, 5002.0 r0 F t) in all c xMELI OE tO I •I 1 —...---..c..—., I I i .»nsac .9uw-+.-wY v s 11.. 1 •\N' — -_- - .. •. t \ b _ _ w♦ - Vtt .. i .\TT .. ..• • •.-�.�s. r��..w-¢ n .w....r F • __•... ^. a4..^ . _ . _ ... .. _ r i _ .-._..b.. • *.--,l un . -- '-a..§ wwL wrV.w...9.b. "' ra•Y - r: -. -.. /K^'yW": — — olw .. " _.-> .4-- a . Mw_t a..,+ ... a- .._. .---t"'--Yi �•— ._ .—_. —+—� __� _— — - 13.91 -- — \ 371.380Lf _ " 2 4 pi 0.10°I ,_ .. _• .•:y . . _ .... ..... L..•...• ......_.. w.._ .._... ' .. 0 50 100 HGL• - EGL. 150 200 250 Reach (ft) 300 350 400 450 5018.00 5013.00 5008.00 5003.00 4998.00 0Lf - 21" @ 1.01% 4993.00 500 p IfQ CD cm O Storm Sev '-b Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® Plan 2 1 Outfall• Project File: 911-014_Storm 7.stm Number of lines: 2 Date: 2/27/2018 b AD CIA? CD Storm Sewers v Pt s✓ L Storm Sewer Inventory Report Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) June Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 2 End 1 134.634 41.495 -89.886 1.536 None None 8.26 10.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 5014.00 5016.60 1.56 0.24 5016.10 5016.70 21 15 Cir Cir 0.012 0.012 0.15 1.00 5019.99 5020.05 Pipe - (43) Pipe - (44) Project File: 911-014_Storm 7.stm Number of lines: 2 Date: 2/27/2018 `'d (TQ CD O0 Storm Sewer: O Storm Sewer Tabulation P. Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (ft/s) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up Line ID 1 2 End 1 134.634 41.495 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.51 10.25 21.43 3.44 8.41 8.35 21 15 1.56 0.24 5014.00 5016.60 5016.10 5016.70 5015.46 5017.85 5017.66 5018.74 5015.80 5019.99 5019.99 5020.05 Pipe - (43) Pipe - (44) Project File: 911-014 Storm 7.stm Number of lines: 2 Run Date: 2/27/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box ''d CD LA Storm Sewers v O rt • Storm Sewer Profile Prod . file: 911-014_ torn 7 . E Elev. (ft) 5031.00 5027.00 5023.00 5019.00 5015.00 5011.00 4-0 C a)OC 0p 0 O"6al • coi c) ui NSJ oo CO oOQ) Wit= r Cs to rrasr C 00 N- to r W W . ai 7SWIW O cc iii S r 7 OE CO 0 CO ..... ... ... ...-.w ..,._ .3 - . Y - — .. - . _. ^' _ __...+.ae>a veauna+u.'w.d<c•.-•.:�...+v+..:.•._v..>+.uj - .aea: - i -. - ._.so+.Yi ....... -.wYw.e..,.v+.w�.n-aro. __...m.-___ a a v _ - . •a•..- mn..• m»sv.,x.awsu.�..zaa.•. -•..�...:av+w-�..-.....+Y.�.+� ! . .ew-.. _- ....'.-s-_ .a . .a . -- ..... . . -. .4 ..-- y ---..w • 43 w. ..•.. _ . _. -....g.- • u L • ... A _ ... . _. - u ...• as .--..J.. u.v---4 .. .. .. • u-�w - ' .. ..... ... . ._.. _ ... .. -... . ` _..--- - . _ ._ _ ..ww...ewr«w..•.,...- - • .....a u ._..... ea......._.,. —..-•.s+ _ .. _ .... -. - .. - ..r..._ae... m - __ .r. r - .... a. ._ • .-•awMwrr+•. amps .ate."{•s.�r. .• • • ... _w _ _• __ __„ .. �{ ,� ..,. ..wu. # L , _ • • .. -" aea eaw. a.mea.... .. . -. • Mw _ ...... ,3 __, w - . ' :...... ..... ..e.Y,.e .., _ ._.n.ee.«.. �--- I k w V I .•s,. •P • ...... .bo....5 .I. t.“..:4.+._.a.-.. s.a.A. .- y...M.FW.Y.a • "w...r,.•• na.tiYilM..MM..M • •� - .• �� .. ,.�...Wwv..•-..WHU.w.rM1•rwMW...MV•iT"RIOaKiO•... r-.... ib E r - { — .wa .... • n u • 04.634 ...._o....,.,?�.._. .._ -. .4 - -•a» axa o - we•.syss+�-f �fe•_vi. C.'--v--sue. w. r - _...a.•. .ar.assaaa• �u1 6rc+vY-4.`'t - r Y 1• ua+.w•"w+ - .va . .. •• ...•..u++u .-.�-.. a - - w.-2• v..s6/smsxe¢�ro+....•+a - - ...r.. ..w..y.-r...w_ac ea... ...ay - - .w.. . �_ a..•••.•1 s>Yefa •.w.a w • ' ., "-J""'- - - ------•............x.•...v..u...Y..•. - dxc ; • .,.rt.ms. n........ua• .....,....,.....h.n.....,Y. .. .wem.e ,w..�... ._,. a.. .w.--.•.-....••••••• .a .•••• HGL 25 EGL. 50 75 100 Reach (ft) 125 150 175 5031.00 5027.00 5023 00 5019.00 5015.00 5011.00 200 p cJQ rD 0 O Storm Sev'-L Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® Plan 3 2 Outfall Project File: 911-014_Storm 8.stm Number of lines: 3 Date: 2/27/2018 vo CD Storm Sewers v O Pt 6- Storm Sewer Inventory Report Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) Junc Type Known 4 (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 2 3 End 1 2 142.061 39.993 27.004 -148.57' 3.768 -0.284 None None None 8.26 10.25 18.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 5019.40 5019.70 5020.11 0.20 0.52 4.78 5019.69 5019.91 5021.40 30 24 24 Cir Cir Cir 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.15 0.15 1.00 5024.05 5024.08 5023.78 Pipe - (40) Pipe - (41) Pipe - (42) Project File: 911-014_Storm 8.stm Number of lines: 3 Date: 2/27/2018 w N A) (Tq CD Storm Sewer O •-h Storm Sewer Tabulation Pi Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (ft/s) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Line ID 1 2 3 End 1 2 142.061 39.993 27.004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.73 28.47 18.22 20.08 17.75 53.55 8.00 9.06 5.80 30 24 24 0.20 0.52 4.78 5019.40 5019.70 5020.11 5019.69 5019.91 5021.40 5021.45 5022.81 5023.54 5022.68 5023.35 5023.69 5022.19 5024.05 5024.08 5024.05 5024.08 5023.78 Pipe - (40) Pipe - (41) Pipe - (42) Project File: 911-014 Storm 8.stm Number of lines: 3 Run Date: 2/27/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box Storm Sewers v o '"h Storm Sewer Profile Proi. file. 911-014_Storm 8,w Elev. (ft) 5036.00 5032.00 5028,00 5024:00 5020.00 5016.00 C- • E coo 0 Y O to ,FY '�. '.Y Sta 2+09.058 - T T\ En �u .�I F_.J et0 0 iLJ IJ I W 73 W �u s co ca err .� CO0 CO ..na.,,: ,..:„_ ..........�.... t ..._..,...... ... ...«.... -- -- ...♦ - ...6 .'.._..•--•--_.era-. - -. M.... .-- •,.�•.,w,_.,...d,,...•...-...p. .��..�..�..... It a ... . ,. ..nw.w,---. ..,♦.•••. ,,,.x,._. . _ .Afton ._ 1. .ire r �. tir V' - I• _• - . •• ••-• AW - - ..n•�.,.4..•..•R•..f.A . ••'a.# - .- ....Y..�r•u ----a•.vt. . iA,MOn..Y.At..ifa ..r.v.w.M•Y.r, • 1 i �,......—, .. ...._ Y •- - .w:wwNss�xceoQ-...-+........... -.,ww...�snvR<..maw.Nar -- ,......,+ . ,, - .•,.,.a...... . in ._..weer... He -n o se.xa __ .x n..� .............n,,, "I".. ..._. .«....._.. .. ---_. _...... ......_... .........Y� _. MR..,. �..._ e,, • ..r..._N w . . x ...._ _..._ _ .... A a _____ -- .,...� • KN. �.p••1�/AM•.a01 •••�'♦x-(l-n /. ...♦ , xG-,,\e+w•M . , ' •M• �.. •. a. . -__ M•, . ... M9..., .A . S !•�I.•.•••. M,.,,+.M , ,• a •a • x=16..1.11 .. a s. .$• _ �4 .20%r or f • •M- -.:. - •... _ µR.ybNfi[ - - - - -.. .�••xv1• S. Dan'. ..• . -... . -. .. • .. —. .. _�-.. •..xe.vuvs.t.Wn-.r iw f Cl>Y..A ••�.../,v.,.r.wri•e rocareval i- .- _ ..onwre 4 >7,rssoe t -s --+,,-a - _ -. - _ - — ... . xa.a n� - - _ _...m•—as.._a _ ._ .�.:. _. ..... _ , - •rrww j 0 25 HGL--�•. .•._. .._... EGL 50 75 100 125 Reach (ft) 150 175 200 5038.00 5032 00 5028.00 5024.00 5020.00 .187 6.00 225 CIQ (J 0 Storm Sev ~' Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® Plan 1 Outfall Project File: 911-014_Storm 9.stm Number of lines: 1 Date: 2/27/2018 cz Storm Sewer Inventory Report Pi Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Deft angle (deg) Junc Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 End 118.349 -87.967 None 13.54 0.00 0.00 0.0 5023.60 0.42 5024.10 18 Cir 0.012 1.00 5027.75 Pipe - (45) Project File: 911-014_Storm 9.stm Number of lines: 1 Date: 2/27/2018 UQ CD Storm Sewen Storm Sewer Tabulation PI Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (Ws) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Line ID End 118.349 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.54 7.39 7.83 18 0.42 5023.60 5024.10 5024.97 5026.62 5025.69 5027.75 Pipe - (45) Project File: 911-014_Storm 9.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date: 2/27/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box N r1 Storm Sewers v o Storm Sewer Profile Cr x Proj, , file: 911-014_Storrn 9.E Elev. (ft) 5036.00 5033 00 5030.00 5027.00 5024.00 5021.00 4.0400. 3 a re' 4ma E toe) J r. CD CO CA 0 © to.. C co O'wt r Grnd. Inv. El et -6 al ID CO O S w : r„ , 1 - ... v .« .3/4 00~.••••••••• '..uY:d':. w.w..a.wwu '- .r..•-:-..�.., ..... ....�,..+.. ____ __..._ ... ,. - . _ t _ _... liL.�».s.n/...11•'+ tOJfYs+YY1nHM.r•w ~ACM Yt.'Kw.v tttµi)Y.e. MN.YIYNWCOeiY.u.cw•.....vs.rwi+ ..awxx.r-, _♦=.w»..n. .u�«..... , .. -. ..c.« t.....• I..+» r w_____ l r •swawPYt l irs' .....••••••••••• "h.3i'l.: ..... v- YWHS..u..•.�v n'•••�-n.w• n •v „ .- .� • _. ... WM+ wow Mxbpu. ....... ..+.....• • .. - W • _ • .•..ww♦W ...4 a _ .. ) ...re ' £. •..��s�....� ..� •�.rr.�u .. n -. Mme... ♦. .. . . u . '..•.I.run•.I -. .. Y »1MA - - tmrerrr.+•. n�rv.. Narlwoss...�r • _ rx>t��a�• ' '�s..::.nr.ew ".:: as i ♦ .• • »..._ .� i.<.,. .-... .., f . ♦ ro.. l •r+nn„w�w••ww••.•t wa.•.t•.taw••ww.x :.. %Wonwo. fa .. ... -. �r age w.swwwOOMxMr.♦xtin....Y.nta•.•wrwawHRiaarn �rrxa.s...�r i.. .. rte........ .. .�.. - -'-•. -• .. _ 0 10 HGL 20 EGL 30 40 50 60 Reach (ft) 70 80 90 100 110 5036.00 5033.00 5030.00 5027.00 5024.00 5021.00 120 p 0.4 OO r-, O Storm Sev " Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® Plan 7 6 2 3 8 4 9 Outfall• Project File: 911-014_Storm 10,stm Number of lines: 9 5 Date: 2/27/2018 "17 to co Storm Sewers v cr Storm Sewer Inventory Report Alignment Flow Data J J Line No. Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) Junc Known Type Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID P< 1 End 47.779 -88.237 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5023.80 0.50 5024.04 36 Cir 0.012 1.00 5029.39 Pipe - (49) 2 1 165.135 88.088 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5024.04 0.20 5024.37 30 Cir 0.012 1.00 5029.29 Pipe -(51) 3 2 77.526 0.006 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5024.37 0.21 5024.53 30 Cir 0.012 1.00 5028.98 Pipe -(57) 4 3 346.644 0.008 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5024.53 0.55 5026.45 21 Cir 0.012 1.00 5030.71 Pipe - (57) (1) 5 4 30.020 -90.004 None 8.86 0.00 0.00 0.0 5026.70 0.50 5026.85 18 Cir 0.012 1.00 5030.44 Pipe - (58) 6 1 26.988 -2.028 None 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.0 5025.29 1.89 5025.80 15 Cir 0.012 1.00 5029.12 Pipe - (50) 7 2 47.594 -91.186 None 9.16 0.00 0.00 0.0 5024.37 2.00 5025.32 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 5029.24 Pipe - (112) 8 3 30.003 -89.995 None 8.26 0.00 0.00 0.0 5024.53 0.20 5024.59 24 Cir 0.012 1.00 5028.71 Pipe -(110) 9 3 9.991 90.052 None 4.77 0.00 0.00 0.0 • 5024.53 2.00 5024.73 18 Cir 0.012 1.00 5028.72 Pipe -(111) Project File: 911-014 Storm 10.stm Number of lines: 9 Date: 2/27/2018 (IQ CD v O Storm Sewer O Storm Sewer Tabulation Pi p Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (ft/s) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Line ID 1 End 47.779 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 2.4 0.0 35.82 51.23 7.21 36 0.50 5023.80 5024.04 5025.83 5025.98 5027.32 5029.39 Pipe - (49) 2 1 165.135 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 2.0 0.0 31.05 20.04 6.33 30 0.20 5024.04 5024.37 5026.54 5027.34 5029.39 5029.29 Pipe -(51) 3 2 77.526 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.7 0.0 21.89 20.13 4.46 30 0.21 5024.37 5024.53 5027.96 5028.15 5029.29 5028.98 Pipe - (57) 4 3 346.644 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.86 12.77 3.68 21 0.55 5024.53 5026.45 5028.46 5029.39 5028.98 5030.71 Pipe - (57) (1 5 4 30.020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.86 8.04 5.01 18 0.50 5026.70 5026.85 5029.60 5029.78 5030.71 5030.44 Pipe - (58) 6 1 26.988 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.77 9.61 5.97 15 1.89 5025.29 5025.80 5025.98 5026.69 5029.39 5029.12 Pipe - (50) 7 47.594 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.16 34.61 2.92 24 2.00 5024.37 5025.32 5027.96 5028.03 5029.29 5029.24 Pipe - (112) 8 3 30.003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.26 10.9E 2.63 24 0.20 5024.53 5024.59 5028.46 5028.50 5028.98 5028.71 Pipe -(110) 9 9.991 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.77 16.10 2.70 18 2.00 5024.53 5024.73 5028.46 5028.48 5028.98 5028.72 Pipe - (111) 2 3 Project File: 911-014_Storm 10.stm Number of lines: 9 Run Date: 2/27/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box ..r Storm Sewers w O 0: Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: 911-014_Storm torm 10 100- r. E Elev. (ft) 5041,00 503x.00 5033 00 5020:00 5025.00 5021,00 CO C Ctil O c� O © M to o v. R I r-- / N., • - •.,y. tfle_Nts4 oNI �LO + CO CI cli w now �� —11C44.4 W al „It CO -, WAY* s amm.rno w . 5 E -6 E C9I I- OC- coo .. .aa• •. max." -w ♦ rP 'i .»M.n w,,.-e..q:�ap a wITv5 RW.ma- a V'R m. _/ 4t �._.N_w♦ ..•-ae.+:,vr-+.m...e...0 .. vN_V -,.•• . • 1 /RYA -T .:uN.w sarn+.r wwmR *a.... _'4- ,..... , t . . a w . 4 _q e1.V.ve.W.W41. •• o�. •?utvtrs.ic•uMfrzva•.._t-ro .uaasmv, s0'�a....: .. .s .<'......4-- .e.>.taw.xr+r- .. .aaa..Iwwr-.rrw.wVrtw< 1 i.r, . .s�•.asFa-a_x.��_Y YI- w-,.,"-.-_,— .m.w..w.t. %faP+nKw 4.. - ._ _ .. - ( "♦lVv�o3b' — e roee:a .. e,qig - f _ __ - _ -i.-- .- _ - _ ._. 1 _ ' Y/.e __• ___ 3 h. .....� w _ _� r._ n _ __N ...__- _ __ _ �_ _ _.«_.__«_ - j r.... N�.«..._e n . . .................... .._-a•r-..[ t•*-_.�� wmac-- _ _ -.a.^_'•.. uvsu.wu .�__.�•--�: ..( - -. .. u.r.wn... -- \ <�•_.-Y a .- r .w s« 11 Mega¢use.•^.w.-«.....fwnea•X.watart.an w.w+.ee' �wawrwm r.nrmr. - - �.. .. • . n �+-.rw..ava..r w -_ w.•.an.. .swwa.s i f 1 t.,w.-....... .. .+. ww... ,...... - ... -....»..............+.,.:....m..v.•.....,...-....._.»a.. .,r ........�.......+.... - Y.......=.. ..w - - •-. .:+.-...+a-......... - ...... .. eurwarreal a.w • ..... . N .. « '_..r.. .w_.w..a_.+—....v.. ... o .r ww.arrw...a.. .✓ - _n........a...:.� , - 4 �41 s 1 .-.al -. _ _ �• 2rY : _ NYaLf tiAA wrN .. »..--...e. ". i._.. �ma ..-.-......_. . _ -a.”... .. x..a‘-.+.<+<asw•,....-_ ....._.,et • _ .� . .stir_-,•<.:-, ....+.�. .ru_rn+avdils 7 �c Gl�,a.vw...w.«�_. Y� l�,aa•.Xd. • v3tfnsis..mr w.+_.......,. •...tt r aft.. Va4e�.m• ' �Y < .._ ...fk .A*. 4RMWONNMPawf - ' -�NeLrp6)M�N..... s ..went > - - avv xeaau.naa5a.._✓ t n..w.nueeruuae 4.. _ - l.a.fh.MY.a l.f.•�ffe�/a »r_.NM'M# agyN wu.• .. n. a..pa..RG..waa •-• aa..+.+w.n -.-.- aw.ww. .«va. .•^VPPXZrAa,!'Mf.PR.tl -' r< ..f..amiKa4(4Wtlf p I -lHuawanyaVN.i.ea♦ • .. 4- • -a •..�•' a n.. r.rswsfaesa..N..♦ r..v♦♦e-: ..«s.•«... r... .. • 1 « - ... __.. + rr _!gA •• . vv.... .. ... �i -. l.k..... 1 A ... .. _. lsa.e.•s R the .. ._. .. _ .. 0 10 20 EGL 30 40 50 Reach (ft) 60 70 80 90 5041,00 5037.00 5033.00 5029.00 5025.00 5021.00 100 V3 0 Storm Sev '-b Eip's Storm Sewer Profile Prof file: 911 014_ Corm 10 100-yr.E Elev. (ft) 5041 00 5037.00 5033.00 5029.00 5023.00 5021,00 ZN a)OS • C, a c • C 4-0 Lt, 45i c O at O (5 aWO Grnd. EL 5029 Inv. El. 50243 Inv. E(. 5024,3' Ste 2+42.66 - izi Grnd, El, 5030. Inv. EI.. 5O26.4P Inv. El.. 5026.7( Sta 6+19.325 - Grnd. EL 5030, Inv. El.. 502:0..$( (0 OW LO LO W so -= + 0-61w + L!J!€ll to co to O c c YI —_ .n. .0 _ rwe�-...... Y»s .._.h. ._. ..>„....ff .. r t 4- i z t _..... rooPiseissigWilialle _ .. .. .....� ice. .�.... = — ----- • r +p O. esaSKee.-?:^.»aV- wen..w..avMa. a•.}aY.d �..f i..T. p. w r a _ i _... tee...__ .._ _ tc I :Y 0 yxa.luw✓.'M{:AIV W Wr.wuFwW:M' 50 100 150 HGL _ EGL. 200 250 300 350 Reach (ft) 400 450 500 550 600 5041.00 5037.00 5033.00 5029.00 5025.00 -18"@0.50% 5021.00 650 CJ�rD J O Storm 5ev :se,: Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file; 911.014_Storm 10 100-yr.s —, Li) resm Elev. (ft) 5037.00 5034,00 5031.00 5028:00 5025.00 5022.00 _ al0S cti to OA ell Y . Let co • o Csil Sta OtOC it 043 to W saa W w De E 5 5 Es 4 j } t ..... ... _.�...�..Nm� � -- I d a iyt • .e..e.................,_....... ..�A �...».�..- } . i ..z.. .. . ..... 3 x F .._..�.Av. P F .._..._____._... ........... ._. .. .-s.. r---. .. _ r I - w..... _ _.. _. w _.... F _ � i ..- • 1! % •• '�' - ._ . .. .. ---- F i f.. ..- ._...- ...—v...-.....r _ -l.. ...... ,a,...p.-s.....-,. .. - vs ..... �.. ..e--- .. ... _ .- _ . .- .._ - - .. ..- ... ...... ... ... .. .. _. .. .. ._ s t D ew.!.�•..- +.�w:c--.a•:w: ... ._...xa. .. ..ov-xi.........r:.'.-.. -. ...-....._..-.....—, <:...._««. ..-w.. ,L.<-1 m...........-.�-:wnP.v+..x..�wm.-.�..L... .. .+�..r.....N..ww.....r I 41' w�. _c .ALL - ve..w.nex..+...........+.v.»...w.--_.s.s».». JNT•OROYfIY}[GlsvrN 1 - 4 ...u.n.N+w.ww_. �..vxOS>. :-. Mww'wln..M.w/ TfFN/->aMM.'M.la.•%iWh4Y.-Y%..YI.VC.TT` ...V....A...MYKaN.tt-MNiv+-.W.nbtt'OA/a.+...v. ..... r. �.. _ T..V JAs»fa/.tt� Fw.w./w- Y.v.nnwvM}Y.'.W.R.MSSA`AY-_..I" Nr..vWIMYYHWNaVtMVnV.� 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HGL EGL Reach (ft) 5037,00 50340}0 5031.00 5028.00 5025.00 5022.00 sti CD N O Storm Seer Storm Sewer Profile Prof. file: 911-014_Storm 10 7 00-yrs Elev. (ft) 5037.00 5034.00 5031.00 5028.00 5025.00 5022..00 .y.i CO CD e) 00 U5 U5 t) c) d' d` 0 to 04 CNA co w J I 0) CD Csi 4.4 re) OQ 44. 0tIAIII wco c0 O16LU co uj - 5 E . P.. - ._.,..-..l I . 11M•I�M^ i i, w_ 2 , 30..Jo311- 24 " @t :20 _ ... ...... _... ....... _ -. _ . �.... ...._. __......-- 0 10 HOL .T_�-W_.r.... r✓MM 20 EGL 30 40 50 Reach (ft) 60 70 80 90 5037.00 5034.00 5031.00 5028.00 5025.00 5022.00 100 c7Q J v, O Storm Sev FL-si, Storm Sewer Profile Prof, file: 911-014.Storm rm 10 100-yr. s, Elev. (ft) 5037.00 5034:00 5031.0 5028.00 5025.00 5022,00 - 4_i z coyo S�q .1J re; Q p r *Ct. r1/4-. O N • o 44. to N Sta 0+0Q ihn LO Li 0 L, E > a5 .. . _ .-. _ - ,._.... • . 1 j T P..' / ''.ww... 'l - ':! «. .'r3rSnr9.b�: A.. ... .f •Pa `Nk. ... .»/ _ G-r,a.<. ... .. s. .[aa� .. n ....a ,oe. .ras++-. ... \Gw.- Ya nr .. i... rp'A.yttgg .. ., ...... ,s»•s-- .[GG[v+eaa•/.wr-ItG+r+x+TGva�w...w<wen •.9 r aw.aMw.wn '- S' H' ... '•rDRa+x1VYs)?`�a. earn.", FY_-r.nnia�..... .w. I f > :". � - rO..�FNC 1 I WSswo.,[...p.,2 9 1L ! .. ,..-. _._- -" 2.000/6j{ _�. _ ___1 0 10 20 HL EGL 30 40 50 Reach (ft) 60 70 80 90 5037,00 5034,00 5031.00 5028.00 5025.00 5022.00 100 p (IQ CD rTh O Storm Sev Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® Plan 2 Outfall• Project File: 911-014 Storm 11.stm Number of lines: 2 Date: 3/2/2018 'v SID ua CD Storm Sewero v Storm Sewer Inventory Report Pt Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Deft angle (deg) June Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 2 End 1 74.027 49.670 -90.634 0.061 None None 3.47 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 5037.00 5039.60 0.95 3.93 5037.70 5041.55 15 15 Cir Cir 0.012 0.012 0.15 1.00 5042.96 5042.99 Pipe - (54) Pipe - (55) Project File: 911-014 Storm 11.stm Number of lines: 2 Date: 3/2/2018 CCD v O0 Storm Sewer. O Storm Sewer Tabulation Pa Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (ft/s) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Line ID End 1 74.027 49.670 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.82 0.35 6.80 13.86 3.90 3.53 15 15 0.95 3.93 5037.00 5039.60 5037.70 5041.55 5038.25 5039.74 5038.49 5041.78 5038.45 5042.96 5042.96 5042.99 Pipe - (54) Pipe - (55) Project File: 911-014 Storm 11.stm Number of lines: 2 Run Date: 3/2/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box Storm Sewers v �'h Storm Sewer Profile Prof file: 911O14_ for w N Elev. (ft) 5054.00 5050.00 5046 00 5042.00 5038.00 5034.00 tt- Co0a EN s• r0 Grnd, E(. 5042 Inv. EL. 5O41.5st OS to O) toels) 0 Cr) itiLO -0- al Q 0 al 1:i C0O_• V) 0=c .... ..� .� - _ ..- .— _ ��. .a..._ A ...~.4.0•1•••••5.w ....�.."z ......_S t t 1 t f--'- I r r � f . _. _ �. 1 ...._ “ .. ....... -`..••-+t - _ .� ... - a+r+aea!,..er.. ••........•«.-..- __ . .► «•«— ..'...a�auw7:-.ate _. - _ , lswaaa. a.•«__ - t • w �. tl 9.s•nfJ. •'Ix sll 1R•..�fVibY Vs - I meex.+w.5w. 1 s.r,4- ..- . ...... ...� • - _... i _ r m.�a..w.o... n.aw Ax., «r . _ . «... _ - - _ f T .-._«. J. .. - - «....«.� .. « __«_ . « __ . 0 10 20 30 HOL _ EGL 40 50 60 70 Reach (ft) 80 90 100 110 120 5054.00 5050.00 504600 5042.00 5038.00 5034.00 130 dq rD O O Storm Sev 'at Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk R AutoCAD Civil 3D0 Plan Outfafl Project File: 911 -014_3Storm 12,stm Number of lines: 2 Date; 3/2/2018 vJ ICJ Storm Sewers v O Storm Sewer Inventory Report Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) Junc Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope r/o) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID P¢ 1 2 End 1 75.857 48.204 -109.990 19.234 None None 3.47 4.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 5032.10 5034.50 2.00 2.07 5033.62 5035.50 15 15 Cir Cir 0.012 0.012 0.38 1.00 5036.79 5036.94 Pipe - (56) Pipe - (56) (1) Project File: 911-014 Storm 12.stm Number of lines: 2 Date: 3/2/2018 CD 00 Storm Sewer. O Storm Sewer Tabulation Pa Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (I) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vel (ft/s) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Line ID 1 2 End 1 75.857 48.204 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.50 4.03 9.90 10.08 6.61 6.27 15 15 2.00 2.07 5032.10 5034.50 5033.62 5035.50 5033.19 5035.05 5034.71 5036.31 5033.55 5036.79 5036.79 5036.94 Pipe - (56) Pipe - (56) (1 Project File: 911-014_Storm 12.stm Number of lines: 2 Run Date: 3/2/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box "ta UQ rP O0 La Storm Sewers v O oret Storm Sewer Profile Prof. file: 911-014_ for 12..5 J.3 ""ni r ---. CV . 41-0 0 to C1 ir 0 C'°3 'i' to CO o liy us)� o co �,co Elev. (ft) D.in 04 �;c) ' 0 4. I -ciici.1 r -mi l E 5 5 as E. 5 CO O = 0 c c 0 OE 5049] 00 »M__ _ 5045.00 -- I ,__ ?es �.. ._ . 1 5041 00 + c . sm... 5037.00 _ awe will MIS,,,'_ - { ,.,.�r _ ..�.. .... - .. �. 110111111.0 5033.00 �---- .. 1 . f - } I • _ .. .� _. S J. I sr.na.,... 1. ,:q F ... wrc ..f�. -.. .y ... ... .wv.-.c T.»».,.,s,..u.,. _ i 5029.00 _ ._.._.. _ .. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Ha EGL --------- Reach (ft) 5049.00 5045.00 504100 5037 00 5033.0© 5029,00 '-d CJQ CD 00 N (3- O Storm Secs Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® Plan 2 1 Outfall• Project File 911-014_Storm 14.stm Number of lines: 2 Date: 2/27/2018 a- Storm Sewer Inventory Report P< w N r-, Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) Junc Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (°/0) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line Shape N Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 2 End 1 89.377 25.100 -90.431 0.000 None None 0.00 31.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 5023.80 5026.10 2.01 6.77 5025.60 5027.80 24 18 Cir Cir 0.012 0.012 0.15 1.00 5029.76 5030.18 Pipe - (117) (1) Pipe - (117) Project File: 911-014_Storm 14.stm Number of lines: 2 Date: 2/27/2018 '-d AD (JQ CD 00 Storm Sewer. O Storm Sewer Tabulation P¢ Station Line To Line Len (ft) Drng Area Incr (ac) Total (ac) Rnoff coeff (C) Area x C Tc Incr Total Inlet (min) Syst (min) Rain (l) (in/hr) Total flow (cfs) Cap full (cfs) Vet (ftls) Pipe Invert Elev HGL Elev Grnd / Rim Elev Size (in) Slope (%) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Dn (ft) Up (ft) Line ID 1 2 End 1 89.377 25.100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.11 31.11 34.78 29.60 10.15 17.96 24 18 2.01 6.77 5023.80 5026.10 5025.60 5027.80 5025.68 5027.48 5027.48 5029.29 5026.18 5029.76 5029.76 5030.18 Pipe - (117) Pipe - (117) Project File: 911-014_Storm 14.stm Number of lines: 2 Run Date: 2/27/2018 NOTES:Known Qs only ; c = cir e = ellip b = box UQ CD O0 Storm Sewersv Storm Sewer Profile Prof. file: 911-01. _term 14 100- r E Elev. (ft) 5040 00 5036.00 5032 00 5028.00 5024.00 5020.00 ticri c e E (DO C inn E CO O - r € r (NI ' en•s,_ • o ciaz ON 04 cl En ,0404 O -35 WW O13 i > E 5 as -d,LU E 5CO O a c CO C l: S •• -. �[ - i - T YOCA in. �.y.eM • / wwWuwvMV.�..wl•1lvMY9.wv9?YfN+.ty .r.W..•W' .OLOSS•ifblax•R•/s..• - .. u. ... _Is •••••• ''''''.'41 --1 . . ti.ws .. .. - • i L l a II r f �• { .. .. s..ma{i• ` .........w.•...>....>..... - v. - <[e .� _ i •--•J�`.•..� • = { i l l • i - .. .., .. - ••-.-`-^Y...v..w........ - .: „. r.+..nm.w .. v >.a...ns ..........• ti.ww•n.�w. .r . f,•v. ......_....•w_w•w..n s.� i'- et F - CIS t_ f I, -oseasiessr .. ......w. ..._-- -_.... L -.e.---.--... . . ��i�� f i z - _'--_^`_�.---' -Y f wYss•/•w.P..w 9. _ �'fnw.iem 1 wrIS } I • - v......._. ' - f ,V...V t d !n ....._. , a ,._ ^^.r ..Y�...M.s... _..�..._.. w ..[.e -vv. y- • - 4 0:-4 . .4.. - r.._..--'-u..eY4.� ..•s... .. -. _ .... �1..... ±,.... ..... _ . ... .•L... , �. _. _ L - . _. ..... ._ �i.... _... _ ......._.. _ __ ro 0 10 20 EGL 30 40 50 60 • Reach (ft) 70 80 90 100 110 5040.00 5036.00 5032,00 5028.00 5024.00 5020,00 120 (74 CD 00 00 O Storm Sep ~�� Pale 89 of l APPENDIX D Culvert Calculations )ut:blank 7/3/2( e 5019,5 V V 1 . 0 5018,5 5018.0 5017.5 g 5017,0 4 Lu 5016.5 ' 5016.0 5015-,5 5015,0 5014.5 v-) Li I— - i C • V.�yWNA. Roadway Crossing: 9911s014 Storm 13 Culvert Front View (Not to scale) 17s Desi n Headwater Culvert 1: Y -fop Culvert 1: YeBctto .t"�Sa"YJPWAtc.•Wa, -10 -20 tlp1 YIHNVM.JLacceis 1��^�WJapyy6y�Mw 7 4.•'4 tedsc ZyRavMA -ao _�nKM�0'AM'Y.bY%A6..mYJVM.. _, roxmA9W4'��uY�'� y:ytlai Y:sg= �,nwttyW.ftxS ' ttANWti'AM•�'V�• �vp;mnnn�vnav�mw�mi��''Y4Y.t'FAa�Mri�.. y�xax�.x:�H�' a50 -60 Station (ft) -70 -8 e0 -100 -110 p C CD 0 °; 5019 5018 5017 C O 5016 W VV N) 5015 5014 5013 • Crossing 911MI4 ter 1 3 Culvert, Design Discharge - 6 3 cfs Culvert - Culvert I, Culvert Discharge 663 cfs 1200 1150 1100 Station (ft) 1050 1000 950 Page 92 of 1 HY-8 Analysis Results Crossing Summary Table Culvert Crossing: 911-014 Storm 13 Culvert Headwater (ft) Elevation Total Discharge (cfs) Culvert (cfs) 1 Discharge Roadway (cfs) Discharge 'Iterations 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.10 66.27 66.27 0.00 1 5019.13 66.53 66.53 0.00 Overtopping )ut:blank 7/3/2( Pa • e 94 of 1 APPENDIX E Riprap Calculations )ut:blank 7/3/2( CALCULATIONS FOR RIPRAP PROTECTION AT PIPE OUTLETS Calculation Project: 911-014 Date: March by: ALM 15, 2018 - IN P C{ L LATE 1 OUTPUT Culvert Parameters Circular Pipe (Figure MD -21) Rectangular Pipe (Figure MD -22) Expansion? 1/(2tanq) MD Factor (From Figure MD -23) -24) Parameter Max Q/WH' Max Froude Q/D z s 6,0 or 8,0 5 V Urban Drainage pg MD -107 (From MD MD Riprap Type Figure -21 or -22) Spec pof Length of Riprap (ft) Spec Width of Riprap (fit) 2d>0, Depth Riprap p p (ft) for I../2. Flow Circular Box Culvert A,=Q/V (ft) L- l/(2tan )* Q (At/Yt))-Wj Storm Line/Culvert Label Design Discharge (cfs) Number BarrelsDepth of through g each Barrel (cfs) Diameter D or Da, Pipe (ft) H Culvert Height or Ha, (ft) W, Culvert Width (ft) Tai wtater (ft) Y1D ' , > QJD �� Q/D Y,/H o �, Q/WH Storm 1 17,82 1 17.82 2,50 1.00 0.40 4.51 1.80 N/A N/A 6,00 1,80 2,97 2,82 Type L 8.00 10:00 1.5 Storm 2 1851 1 18.51 2.00 0.80 0.40 6.54 3.27 N/A N/A 4.10 3.27 3,09 7.61 Type L 8.00 8,00 1.5 Storm 3 13,03 i 13.03 1.25 0.50 0.40 9.32 7.46 N/A N/A 1.50 - 7.46 2.17 4.64 Type L 6.00 5.00 1.5 Storm 4 34.37 1 34.37 2.50 1.00 0.40 8.69 3.48 N/A N/A 3.90 3.48 5.73 12.59 Type L 13.00 10.00 1.5 Storm 5 3.31 i 3.31 1.25 0.50 0.40 2.37 1.89 N/A N/A 5.40 1.89 0.55 -0.79 Type L 5.00 1.5 4.00 Storm 6 17.87 1 17.87 2.00 0.80 0.40 6.32 3.16 N/A N/A 4,20 3.16 2.98 7.24 Type L 8.00 8.00 1.5 Storm 7 18.51 1 18.51 1.75 0.70 0.40 8.00 4.57 N/A N/A 2.90 4.57 3.09 7.71 Type L. 8.00 7.00 1.5 Storm 8 36.73 1 36.73 2.50 1.00 0.40 9.29 3.72 N/A N/A 3.70 3.72 6.12 13.40 Type L 1.5 14.00 10.00 Storm 9 13,54 1 13.54 1.50 0.60 0.40 7.37 4,91 N/A N/A 2.40 4.91 2.26 5.43 6.00 1.5 Type L 6,00 Storm 10 35.82 1 35.82 3.00 1.20 0.40 6.89 2.30 N/A N/A 5.40 2,30 5.97 10.67 Type L 11.00 12,00 1.5 Storm 11 3.82 a. 3,82 1.25 0.50 0.40 2.73 2.19 N/A N/A 5.60 2.19 0.64 0.13 Type L 1.5 4.00 5.00 Storm 12 7.50 ! 7.50 1, 25 0.50 0.40 5.37 4.29 N/A N/A 3.30 4.29 1.25 4.13 Type L 5,00 5.00 1.5 Storm 13 66.27 1 66,27 3.00 1.20 0.40 12.75 4.25 N/A N/A 3.30 4.25 11.05 20.47 Type L 21.00 12.00 1.5 Storm 14 31.11 1 31.11 2.00 0,80 0.40 11,00 5.50 N/A N/A 2.20 5.50 5,19 9.86 Type L 10,00 8.00 1.5 1 '< - 100.64 2 50.32 2..75 1.10 0.40 11.03 4.01 N/A N/A 4.10 8.02 8.39 19.98 Type L 11.00 1.5 22.00 : 3 H {5.: •=i 66.93 2 33.47 2.50 1.00 0.40 8.47 3.39 N/A N/A 4.10 5.58 12.62 10.00 1.5 6,77 Type L 14.00 N NORTHERN ENGINEERING Page 97 of 1 7L 1 Project: Sorrento Subdivision Calculations By: A Morse Date: February 11, 2018 Street Capacity - 10O-yr within ROW STREET CLASSIFICATION CURB TYPE STREET GRADE {%) ALLOWABLE MINOR STORM (cfs) ALLOWABLE MAJOR STORM (cfs) Local Residential Drive Over 0.5 5.01 15.10 Local Residential Drive Over 0,8 6.33 19.10 Local Residential Drive Over 1.0 7.08 21.35 Local Residential Drive Over 2.0 10.02 25.19 Local Residential Drive Over 3.0 12.27 22.31 Local Residential Vertical 0.5 8.97 23.42 Local Residential Vertical 0.8 11.34 29.62 Local Residential Vertical 1.0 12.68 33.12 Local Residential Vertical 2.0 17.93 39.07 Local Residential Vertical 3.0 16.34 34.60 Modified Local Residential Drive Over 0.5 5.01 26.62 Modified Local Residential Drive Over 0,8 6.33 33.67 Modified Local Residential Drive Over 1.0 7.08 37.65 Modified Local Residential Drive Over 2.0 10.02 44.41 Modified Local Residential Drive Over 3.0 12.27 39.32 Modified Local Residential Vertical 0.5 8.97 41.07 Modified Local Residential Vertical 0.8 11.34 51.95 Modified Local Residential Vertical 1.0 12.68 58.08 Modified Local Residential Vertical 2.0 17.93 68.51 Modified Local Residential Vertical 3.0 16.34 60.67 WCR 32 Vertical 0.5 5.70 5.70 WCR 32 Vertical 1.0 8.07 8.07 WCR 32 Vertical 2.0 11.41 11.41 WCR 32 Vertical 3.0 13.97 13.97 WCR 32 Vertical 3.8 15.22 15.73 .3 7 5 2P 7 8P:28 r f:l D• ?'. c s 0' 0,4 Dra/ age•StrtCap 3' , , _Si. ee Capacty Tacle x+s Si Capacity 100-yr n ROI0 nit: blank 7/3/2( Page 98 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY F0RONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision Local Street Section - 0.5% Grade I r. -^y- �fi _ �. ..• T H EEr CROWN Gutter Geometry Enter data in the blue cells) Viaximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Yanning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Row Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown 3utter Width Street Transverse Slope Sutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Vanning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0..012 and 0.020) Viax. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm. iilax. Allowable. Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm ,flow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) IAINOR STORM Ailowabile Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion TBACK 5$ACK rtBACK "CURB = TCROWN nSTREET " 4.75 to 8. i ii x_023 0.098 0.006 0.016 ,aseta� Minor storm _max_ allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'inlet Management' Vajor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' ;..1 f ie ` Corm inches ft ft ftlft r'i`ft ft/ft Major Storm 18.E 6.57 or Storm m Major Storm ft inches check = yes t.feet DO Curt Cape _ xls n het _ 3115/2018 2 32 71 Pi rut: blank 7/3/2( Page 99 of l Version 4,05 Released March 2017 .ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) ased on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision Local Street Section Vertical Curb = 0:5% Grade TCROWN STREET CROWN r Gutter Geometry (Enter data In the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 tuft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Marc_ Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capaclty is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion TRACK • SSACK - nBAGK HOURS TCRQ+ N = i'S — Sx S, = SO nSTREET 9.0 0.02 'amain* 0.013 Not _ .1 6.00 10.0 2.00 23 0.083 0.0• 0.01 ft ft/ft inches ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft/ft Minor Storm Major Storm rt 18.0 18.0 eft x..00 ry .0o inches Minor Storm Manor storm ma allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'inlet Management2 Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet Tlniet Management° v ti Major Storm check = yes cfs r t if,.s J �:rl��i! �gl�e Q5:: xy ;:7' f. Inlet le1 t�l .i b ;• In. )ut.blank 7/3/2( 2( Page 100 of Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision •-••••,,,Ter-r7 IeR.nS1a7anC L"�mfa ? j immcir .Afn•-n .. Modified Local Drive -Over Curb Street Section 0:5 . ..s ._ ==1:112r' rad, Ww... _LLB J.. man"” " CnAn nrs...' r iVira"="^re`Tn Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's. Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Row Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 f'/fl) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max.. Allowable Spread .for & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Death at Street Crown (leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based en Depth Criterion WARNING: MINOR STORM max. allowable capacity is less than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management WARNING: MAJOR STORM max. allowable capacity is less than the design flow given on sheet 'inlet Management' TBACK 5BACK r BACK HCURB TCROWN 'u"fl SU SW Sc. nSTREET 9.0 0.029 aLf. f 18.0 1.17 0.0:2 0.0O5 0.010 Minor Storm inches ft ft ft/f ₹ ft/ft Major Storm Minor Storm Major Storm ft nches check = yes 5.01 4 .26,62 Qaffow cfs 91 143 14 Modified Local Street DO Cut Capacity 0 53.—i xs::-,''Tl .ifie1 315.2018. ,?-34 PM )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 101 of Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE -'HALF OF STREET {Minor & Major Storm) IBased on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision IModxied Local Street Section Vertical Curb - 0.5% Grade T,,, T, Tx STREET CROWN Gutter G:ornetry (Enter data in the brae ;cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.01.2 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 Inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Sc' tion (typically between 0.012 and 0.02O) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flovtiline for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM .Allowable Capacity is based en Depth Criterion TRACK SBACK nBACK HCURB TGROW N rat W = �Sx = .3r= So nSTREET = TivtAx dmAx 9.0 ft vs _ 0.O34 ; ft/ft 0.01 ,3. 6.00 *>l 2.00 0.023 0.083 0.005 0.016 Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management WARNING: MAJOR STORM max. allowable capacity is less than the design flow given on sheet 'inlet Management' Minor Storm Minor Storm inches ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft/ft lVlajo_r Stain Major Storm ft inches check = yes 1-014 _ ! 1 I Street Vertical . f Ef'.i ! .� �. i. 7 _ !TAG( ! �o .4 Nicol -fled Lo al S-� as Coin �. .iv"' ty r i i �Y 1 11:5, .l Local ..t ♦ \.. .ML ✓ i:r rsi� f ? J ti,�y ��le 1 2O18 2 35 PM )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 102 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET Manor Si major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth .and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision v AVOIDLWVWU^6vt• .lEft?W "Cwnrr. •-nw` w-^ennnW=LaUYtt=.1a¢avvn.... - a m�vim+»cam9 •v�.�:f�. fl'Tn .r _ �.1 £u] WCR 32 Street Section 'Ver icai Curb - 0,5% Grade________ 4SC :=1=.2RT^'-"rnv-'^mwmmit•ri4====rl +�i•••^•�...am_ - ..^Gi':tl� Tviown T, T w. I. T% STR EET CROWN Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Row Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/f) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable :Capacity is based on Spread Criterion HCURB ". TCROWN. W= SX SW so = nS i REST = CIMAx = 6.00 26.0 1�±LJ 0.023 0.083 0.016 Minor Storm Minor Storm Y6 ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ftlft Minor storm maxc ikruvabie capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management Major storm ma allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management Major Storm Major Storm ft inches check = yes 911-014 CR 32 Street VertIcal Curt.) CaOa ity 0 3''n x#sm Inlet 1 15, 2018. 2:31 PM )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 103 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) %I:U:4=Y 4X054:= Xrnattatt ZIT ,ESY rfaldmaI-tv131v=Z= tt I:C�1Y+Sil'.�GT.a14lC(DIS:JlIYR'Sdi41�7 i@0l=i1M _ Bas'ed on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision WCR 5 TcROWN T, Tama STREET CROWN 'JCSID9rCLWIDfR -a-a Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftift) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) TBACK = $BACK = ABACK = HCURB = TCROWN i = Sx SW = SO = nSTREET = TM AX — dmAx = MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based !on Spread 'Criterion Qaiiow Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management" Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'inlet Management' 31.5 6.00 26.0 _ -, 2.00 0.023 0.083 0.005 0.016 ft ft/ft inches ₹t ft ft/ft ft/ft f,lft Minor Storm Major Storm 14.0 14.0 6.0 Minor Storm Major Storm 5.70 5.70 ft inches check = yes cfs 911-014 CR 5 Street Vertic.;:o Curt Caoac ety 0 xism Inlet 3 15 2018 2 30 PM )ut:blank 7/3/2C Pa'e 104 of l APPENDIX G Inlet Calculations >ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 105f l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 I ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Aitowable Flaw Depth and Spread) 911 314 Sorrento Subdivision OP Al - WCR 32 - INLET 126 rS- '.1‘.641.. �� • F ~e• i Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between. 0.012 and 0.020) -Height of Curb at. Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftift) ,Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Semen (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm -Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable 'Capacity is based nn Depth Crliterio.n MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion licurte W= Sx = Sw n5TrtEET 21.5 0.020 0.013 ft ft/ft inches ft ft fllft ft/ft ft/ft Minor Storm Major Storm r 14.0 ft Ciat4ow =1 60 12.0 Minor Storm Major Storm SUMP SUMP inches i _ INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Lo (C) H -Curb N L Version 4.05 Released March 2017 VV Desiun information jWsputl CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) Number of Unit inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 215 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening information 'Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0 70) Low Head Performance Redaction iCalculatedill ITotal Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) hiet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms(>Q PEAK) Depth for Grate Midwrdth Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long inlets rated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long inlets Type = No = Ponding Depth = (G)- Cr (G) C.% (G) 7-1 (C) = L (C) Theta Wo Cr(C) Cvi (C) = C, (C) dcW- RFeen t<,nmtcs:, RFc:, MINOR MAJOR COOT/Ge.n'Ver 13 Combination 2.00 1 6.C €2.0 MINOR MAJOR 3.00 . 0.`r3 0.50 0.50 3.30 0.50 r 1i OR. MAJOR 1_ 3.00 6.50 h.._. a 0.00 2.00 0.20 0.20 3.70 0.66 MINOR 0.523 0.:33 L: 9 MAJOR MINOR PENS REEMIRED s I .'W 5 MAJOR 1.023 0.33 1 00 1.00 1 00 inches inches Override Depths feet feet feet inches inches degrees feet 4c ft 3.26 cfs fa a —•' F �f? 32 sheet vt:,,'rEtrOal Ciurt; OM t+ " ': '' a r` )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 106 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) ased on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento SubdWlsio:n A DP 82 - Ayrshire Street inlet 98 Saiet *ay L Gutter Geometry 6E' er data in the blue celts1 44ilaximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb -Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height oaf Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width ,Street Transverse Slope 'Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 Rift) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor 8. Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MOOR STORM Allowable Capar:ty lisbas_ed on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Ca city. `is based on Depth Criterion TBACX 8&ACK naAcx Hctiaza TcROWN = Sx v = nsxx T = TMAX dMAX 0/35 4.75 18.0 } 7 0.023 0.098 .._.. a.aaa 0.016 in ches ft ft Tuft ftlft Mt i'anor Storm Major Siomi 18.0 18.0 ft 4.75 r %.86 inches Minor Storm ;iortajor Storm SUMP SUMP ids INLET `1N A SUM OR SAG LOCATION Le IC, Lc (Gi Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Design Information (ftwut% Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) \Water Depth at Flowline (outside of focal depression) -Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 015-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2..15 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening kaiformation Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches k-leight of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches COOT Type R Curb Opening Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient. {typical value 0 60 - 0 70) Low Head Ferforntance Rechict oft $CalcuilateeiQ Depth for Grate Miclwidt'r Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Crete l inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Total [nisi interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than O Peak for Major Storm Type OG4Z = No = Ponding Depth La(G)= wo= Algae a C,(G) Ca (G) Co (G) MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening _.gala 425 sanaaarrmoracm aa. 418 _ _.g MINOR MAJOR Ni NIA NIA MINOR t -a) (C) _ 20.00 H+ n = .00 Htrraua Theta 6140 MAJOR m -.00 YYY .' Cg (C)= C,4(C)= C,(C) dGc. dcat, RF:_ t•rtin7}71Wi RFcyo R-3+iflo 0 PE:4.. qEQ.. RED l.. 20- 0.,20 D.67 t ssk` C)R 028 1)'cr, MAJOR I inches inches Override Depths feet feet feet inches riches degrees feet. • lit/'r: f2 O 3., 0 SG l nriststs=war..,.,-.:.ate, •,i:CA,..LICS41.,. m,N. 0 7f -(41.WATO440.03211101.64:40tatiSIOIMMSlir _ 7.76 13.54 •••=.4,4,t MAJOR ••=14,4 % maaall=sxa1AMwven.•mW'n1,x<awm,ww.vuMrxnna< xvx cis \1. )utoblank 7/3/21 Page 107 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 1-01,4 Sorrento Subdivision OP B3 - Guernsex Street - Sidewalk Culvert i7 i r r STREET CROWN Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells .Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TRACK = g.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) $BACK ' 0.020 ft/₹t Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.01.2 and 0.020) nBncK = _ _. 0.013 Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCut B 4.75 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCRawN = 13-d =I eGutter Width w = 1.177 f; Street Transverse Slope Sx _ 0.023 ftift :,Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft.) i�,. _ :..,... 3 8 MI Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition So = 0.005 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.01.2 and 0.020) s T REST _ 0.0.16 Minor Sturm Major joy Storm Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm T _ 18.0 18.0 ft Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm d Fx = 4.75 Ii 6.57 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion "" check = yes Minor Storm Major S torn MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Oaggow = 5.01 15.110 :ids Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow Bien on sheet °1niet Management' INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRAD E Lo (C) Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ---�- O i G Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a) Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than Wr Gutter Width) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical miry. value = 0.1) Design Information (Inoue r ..,.._.A,.,..ai.,ta, , ...::c... COOT Type R Curb Opening Type aL0CAL MINOR MAJOR = a (-DOT Tyoe Curb O- e ping ��^- -." f' `��V..[..[.4.' ,.. .... .. W. wu•wux . aziY..i. 6026Amn ±Qryj{rjy'.' No 'moo _ CeG = CrC F • es 4.00 v�L l/A N/A 0.20 aT 0 20 t Street Hydraulics: OK - Q < Allowable Street Capacity' Total inlet interception Capacity Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet) Capture Percentage = %P MINOR MAJOR '0.84 3.22 i cfs rna-•r+x,.y..a.,:auiM^ta2...3 . ..� r�WIZZ0F !'.n a'slt�rmnJ 0.03 11..88 G cfs 97 21 3)J 911-014 . Local Street DO Curb Capacity 5D xis^ Le F C 23.90218 3 51 ' ) ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 108 of 1 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 s _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor ,t Major Storm) inmeammis _ (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 9'11-014 Sorrento Subdivision 4JJ."39 . ... _ .. DP 85 Charb ray Drive - Inlet 8C =gaff II 1, nG Gutter Geometry 'Enter data in the blue cel1s� Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Cutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) `Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max_ Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor 8 Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on'Cfepth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based an Depth ;rites on Tom= SAce< naACK = (GW 9.0 0.029 0.013 ft ftfft inches ft ft f ti j`t ft;ft itft Minor Storm Major Stertrt 18.0 4.75 18.0 r .86 Minor Storm SUMP a ft inches Major Storm cfs SUMP • INLET IN :A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION I 1 _ Lo (C) --_r Les (G) Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Desien Information llnnut Type of Inlet local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression `a' from above) Slumber of Unit inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0-15-0 90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0/0) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 -• 0.80) Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in inches kngle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Part (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0 10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3 7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0 70) COOT Type R Curb Opening Low Head Performance Reduction iCalctelated1Y Depth for Grate Midwidth Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reducttor: Factor for Long inlets =fated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long inlets Total Inlet interception Capac,€ty (assumes clogged condition) AARNING: inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Major Storm Type = ae4ei No e- Ponding Depth Le(G)_ W., _ Aruba Cr (G) _ C., (G) . Ce(G) (C) at Elven = l" hive Theta t Wp= (C) = Cy, (C) = C;,(C)= Q MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening $ 25 1 5.9 MINOR MAJOR '.j/A I NiA os N/A m1 i oritSiri'T1T NIA .4^ % NiA inewi•—� i°wlrt MINOR MAJOR 15.'.7'1 t 6.00 6.00 011111111100 .1r421=1•SarlYarZ111= '-- '.S •.1 a.v ws;a xxrexxwaaxs-^r i .17 SNOB 0 ,nc 4 nu. x_20 0.^0 m _ 3.6n e a.a„ MINOR NIA 28 fl Ls NVA NIA 0.38 0.56 .78 . -mil • • ‘••,••=1 ,••Yas....v t.=,.., MiNOR MAJOR inches inches la-- Override Depths feet feet feet inches inches degrees feet ft ft vammYsaranavramsenvestwV elonma i.M,MbuANOtow"VenMFT,tztIM Fhaa WM .187 10.25 Leas 379 32 1 . .. ;A4 "b' tat.. ii >- _ ,•r )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 109 of 1 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911414 Sorrento Subdivision DP 86 - Charbray Drive - Inlet 86 .a_ gutter Geometry 1Enter data in the blue celisl Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion TRACK = SBACK = nBACK = HCUR8 TCROIYN = W= Sx Sw = So = nSTRE.ET = TMAX dMAX Qerics 9.0 0.029 0.013 4.75 18.0 1.17 0.023 0.098 0.000 0.016 Minor Storm ft ft/ft inches ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft/ft Major Storm 18.0 18.0 4.75 7.86 Minor Storm Major Storm SUMP SUMP ft inches cfs INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 1Desipn Information (Input) Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3 60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Angle of Throat (see USOCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2 3-3 7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0 70) COOT Type R Curb Opening Low Head Performance Reduction iCalcuiated) Depth for Grate Miciwidth Depth for Curb Opening We Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) WARNING: inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Major Storm Type = stawu No = Ponding Depth = 4.(G)= Wp Cr (G) C„ (G)= Cr, (G) = L,(C)= H,,e,c = Hume! = Theta = Wp= C, (C) = CW (C) _ C.,(C)= dcw 4.4 RF omtirta'oom RFctob RF- r ir. MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 4.25 1 4.8 5.9 MINOR MAJOR N/A N/A inches inches r Override Depths feet feet N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR 10.00 6.00 6.00 63.40 1.17 0.20 0.20 3.60 0.67 MINOR MAJOR N/A N/A 0.28 0.38 r 0.45 0.56 I 0.85 0.93 N/A N/A Q A REOL RED ' I 3 80 MINOR MAJOR Q. = 4.84 8.26 32 21 feet inches inches degrees feet ft ft cfs cfs • IL -4I• )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 110 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 9114114 Sorrento Subdivision DP Cl - Pinewoods Street - Inlet 7C t v• e S Gutter Geometry tinter data in the blue celis1 Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MtiOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion sTRLIET tvrorcti TRACK = SBACK = nBACK = HcuRB = TCROWN W= Sx= SW Sr, n3TREET 9.0 0.020 0.013 4.75 18.0 1.17 0.023 0.098 0.000 0.016 Minor Storm ft ft/ft inches ft ft ft/ft ft/ft Mt Major Storm 18.0 18.0 4.75 6.57 Minor Storm Major Storm SUMP SUMP ft inches cfs 4 Y INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION i Version 4.05 Released March 2017 0esion Information (Input) Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2. t5 - 3 60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Angle of Throat (see USOCM Figure ST -5) Skle Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0 1 0) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3 7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0 70) COOT Type R Curb Opening Low Head Performance Reduction iCalculate.d) Depth for Grate Midwsdth Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long inlets Type = ae,;a, = No = Ponding Depth = L,(G)_ W o k:,° = Cr (G) _ Ca (G) = Co(G)= Htrwa: _ Theta = Wl_ C.(C)= Cr, (C) = C (C) = _ dce:, = R RF,t, ,t; RF:,_ = Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) 'tea WARNING: inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Minor and Major Storms "^lv. IECte RE.G MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 4.25 _ 1 4.8 5.9 MINOR MAJOR N/A N/A N/A . N/A N/A N/A N/A MINOR 15.00 6.00 6.00 63.40 1.17 0.20 3.60 0.67 MAJOR 0.20 MINOR MAJOR N/A N/A 0.28 0.38 0 45 0.56 0 70 0.78 N/A N/A MINOR 5.87 598 MAJ OR inches inches Override Depths feet feet feet inches inches degree:, feet ft ft 10.25 C1`5 22 18 cfs `''•• • - - - I - ' • n it:blank 7/3/2( Page 111 of 1 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 0 3114)14 Sorrento Subdivision OP C2 - Pinewoods Street - Inlet 7B i t - - kmati err 4 Gutter Geometry IEnter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor &. Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion T3elcit = SSACK rt BACK 24 HCURs TC»VN . W= Sx SA! = So nsrr TMAX flt dnmr.N 9.0 0.020 0.013 4.75 18.0 1.17 0,023 0.098 0.000 0.016 Minor Storm ft ft/ft inches ft ft ft/ft ftlft ftlft Major Storm 18.0 18.0 4.75 6.57 r - Minor Storm Major Storm SWAP SUMP ft inches cfs INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Lo (C) A3esion Information (Input) Type of Inlet COOT Type RCurb Opening Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression'a' from above) Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth. at Flowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Crate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2 3-3 7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0 70) Low Head Performance Reduction 'Calculated) Depth for Grate Midweith Depth for Curb Opening Wear Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long inlets Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Major Storm Type = keel - No= Podding Depth (C) T Hve, Fluxing Theta = Wp= Ct (C) C,te(C)= (C) dGoate dc,at _ RFerwtsrmtzgi RFcur _ RFr ate PEAK R_a.:MED MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 4.25 5=(7 1 4.8 5.9 MINOR MAJOR NIA i.. N/A . N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA MINOR MAJOR 10.00 6.00 6.00 53.40 1.77 0 23 - 160=0... 0.20 en MINOR N/A 0?8 0.45 35 Ilee .0R NiA 0.38 0.56 MINOR MAJOR arracarecaxmacarmanarmatavoni 4484 8.26 cfs 39 inches inches Override Depths feet feet feet inches inches degrees feet " " :Street _.t: ele ,,, edet•t• - - e .1 24 PM )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 112 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) i (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision D1 Hereford Street - Inlet 1C STULT ti Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Critenon MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion T SMACK 0BACX HaiRfl = TCROWN W= Sx SW So nSiTzEET = TmAx = draAx = %How - 9.0 0.020 0.013 4.75 18.0 1.17 0.023 0.098 0.000 0.016 Minor Storm ft ftlft inches ft ft fttl't Mt Mt Major Storm 18.0 18.0 4.75 6.57 Minor Storm Major Storm SUMP SUMP ft inches cfs E INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION I Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ,f ----lo (C) Design Informal Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression °a' from above) Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0 90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 215 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0 10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3 7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0 70) on {Input) a COOTType R Curb Opening Low Head Performance Reduction !Calculated) Depth for Grate tvfidvticitt? Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor tor Long Inlets Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Major Storm T Type = a;, No= Ponding Depth LU (G) WQ Cr (G) G" (G) Co (G) MINOR MAJOR Theta W..= C, (C) Gw iC) C_(C)= = RF inate MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 4.25 2r 1 4.8 5.9 MINOR MAJOR Inches nches F Override Depths feet feet 10.00 6.00 6.00 63.40 1.17 0.20 0.20 3.60 0.67 MINOR MAJOR N/A NIA 0.28 0.38 0.45 0.56 0.85 0.93 N/A NIA MINOR MAJOR feet inches inches degrees feet ft ft )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 113 of weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodes Q AutoCAD® Civil 3 BO by Autodesk, Inc. Concrete Sidewalk culvert a Capacity (Weir) Rectangular Weir Crest Bottom Length (ft) Total Depth (ft) Calculations Weir Coe . Cw Compute by: No. Increments Sharp = 4.00 a 0.50 a 3.33 Q vs Depth 10 Town of Mead Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual Sump Inlet Theoretical Capacity = 80% 4.709*.8 - 3.76 cfs Depth (ft) 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 Highlighted Depth (ft) Q (cfs) Area (sqft) Velocity (ft/s) Top Width (ft) Concrete Sidewalk Culvert - Capacity (Weir) Monday, Feb 26 2018 - 0.50 4/00 2.00 2.35 4.00 . 1 I ( 1 I 3 ! t C i i I i \ 1 t 0 _,� rr<a� m.��x�rryansax.�n .5 Weir 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Depth (ft) 1.00 050 0.00 -0.50 Length (ft) )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 114 of 1 Area Inlet Performance Curve: Sorrento Subdivision - 911-014 Basin B3 - Design Point 03; Area inlet 1 S Governing Equations: At low flow depths, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation: ' where P = 2(L + W) * where H corresponds to the depth of water above the flawllne 0 =LOPLI At higher flow depths, the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation: * where A equals the open area of the inlet grate * where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area (A) 0 -- 0.67 A ( 2 g. The exact depth at which the inlet ceases to act like a weir, and begins to act like an orifice is unknown. However, what is known, is that the stage -discharge curves of the weir equation and the orifice equation will cross at a certain flow depth. The two curves can be found below: Discharge (cfs) 25. 00 20.00 15.00 10.00 r y� Stage - Discharge Curves 0.00 �(� (� 0.20 (� �j(� {� �� ry {� 0.00 0.10 0.30 0.40 O.50 0.60 (ft) —4—Weir Flow Orifice Flow ^,5+a'Z�s«w•al:i: �'ricr let AnoAmoorPliao 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 if H > 1.792 (NP), then the grate operates like an orifice; otherwise it operates like a weir. input Parameters: Type of Grate: Length of Grate (ft): Width of Grate (ft): Open Area of Grate (ft2): FlowlUne Elevation (ft): Allowable Capacity: Depth vs.. Flow: Dual - COOT Type 13 Inlet M-604-13 0.541666 1.875 4.63 11.9000 50% Elevation Depth Above Inlet (ft) (ft) Shallow Weir Flow (cfs) Orifice Flow (cfs) Actual Flow (cis) 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.30 1.10 1.20 1.30 '1.4 0 1.50 1.60 1 70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 11.90 12.00 12.1,0 12.20 12.30 12.40 12.50 12.60 12/0 12..80 12.90 13.00 13.10 13.20 13.30 13.40 13.50 13.60 13.70 13.80 13.90 14.00 0.00 0.80 2.26 415 6.39 8.93 11.74 14/9 18.07 21.56 25.25 29.13 33._ 19 37.43 41.83 46.39 51.10 55.97 60.98 66.13 76.84 0:00 3.93 5.56 6.81 7.87 8.80 9.64 10.41 11.13 11.80 12.44 13.05 13.63 14.19 14.72 1524 15.74 16.22 16.69 17.15 17.59 18.03 0.00 0.80 -we-- 2-0..32 2.26 4.15 6.39 8.80 9.64 10.41 11.13 11.80 12.44 13.05 13.63 14.19 14.72 15.24 15.74 16.22 16.69 17.15 1759 18.03 -Q100=17.82 )ut:blank 7/3/20 Page 115 of 1 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) I 911-4014 Sorrento Subdivision OP El - WCR 32 - INLET 118 4.1 Zia , reweie e. s -Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb 'Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) `Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown mutter 'Wklth 16treet Transverse Slope 'teeter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) !vlax Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion HCURS _ TCrOwn = 'i/= Sx SIN = SO Z. nSTREET TµAx= dmA Q.,Gnaer 21.5 0.020 0.013 6.00 26.0 2.00 0.023 0.083 0.000 0.016 Minor Storm ft ft/ft inches ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft/ft Ma or Storm 14.0 14.0 I 8.0 I 12.0 9 Miner Storm SUMP Major Storm 1 SUMP J ft inches INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Lo (C ) Design Information (Input) Type of Inlet COOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Fiowline (outside of local depression) Grate information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 015-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) -Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening "Weight of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Aleight of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches -Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) fide Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0.70) Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated) Depth for Grate faiidv/klth Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Major Storm Type Nee No = Pondirag Depth = (G)= A.>,rro Cr(G) _ Gfr (G) e Ca (G) Theta = wp_ Cr (C) C� (C) Cc, (C) driG4Cl- del = RifttAr itativrr RFCbob R Fe e O Cc_Ati. REEQL)REG MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 3.00 1 5.2 i _ 5.2 MINOR MAJOR N/A L; N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 8 MINOR MAJOR 5.00 6.00 0 00 6140 2.30 ®� 0.20 0.70 360 0.67 MiNOR srmxhaax:earya7:=04=4-1721_-.ra.+TX=.:x (A 0.27 0.67 1.00 jf 9.27 'x_57 [00 ' VA inches inches r Override Depths feet feet feet inches inches degrees feet Itt 1 .3 ti7lhtii : �'. 'viAJOR .. .. .aa..-.. r.t aW S' -•.r .0.74 3.47 3.47 Cfs ma 2& 20 1 ,T 50 PM )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 116 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision DP E4 - Ayrshire Street - Inlet 10B-4 utter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion T6ACK = SBACK = n%ACK = HCURB TCROW N Sx SW So nSTREET -' Tm,x = dmAx = Qaliow 9.0 ft 0.029 ft/ft 0.013 4.75 18.0 1.17 0.023 0.098 0.010 0.016 Minor Storm inches ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft/ft Major Storm 18.0 18.0 4.75 7.86 Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Minor Storm Major Storm ft inches check = yes La (C) 4 INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Il Design Information (input) type of Inlet I CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a') Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W, Gutter Width) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical miry. value = 0.1). Version 4.05 Released March 2017 • • MINOR MAJOR MINOR MAJOR Street Hydraulics: OK - Q < Allowable Street Capacity Total Inlet Interception Capacity Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet) Capture Percentage = Q r Gtr _ Q Qb C% is) 4 i 1od :iec L Street DO (_ ;.r Orfr)ri. ? '1 1 ' r ❑ `T . '< C j %• - • )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 117 of 1 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE APACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor St Major Storm) Base n Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and read) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision .�, DP E5 Brown Swiss Street Inlet 10B -1B 4 STREET CROWN Gutter Geometry ('Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.01.2 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width, Street Transverse Slope .L Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition ', Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm ,allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blan; for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM .Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion TBACK SBACK ABACK FIcI IRS TCROW N Sx S, EFT Oallow V- 4.75 18.0 1.17 0^023 1 ,8 0.098 0.010 X06 Minor Storm Moor Storm Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design fkr_wv given on sheet 'Inlet Management' Minor Storm 4.8 LL. . inches ¢"v ft ft/ft fl/It ftift Major Storm ft inches check = yes cfs Le INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Version 4.05 Released March 2017 -1' Desicn information annul) 3ut w y,..0 .,.«� ............ ~w.,.:g.. ..rt:r:,.:.,:a.U,,.,.......� Ty of Inlet CDOT Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a') Total Number of Units in the inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W, Gutter Width) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min.. value = 0.5) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical Min. value = 0.1) MINOR MAJOR dDOT Type lk' uurb Opening---- xr�rnx csamx^a a a, - _ ful: :_. 1=4=4 L,P . i :.. .Yr...,,:,.z..... T� yi A /A 0.i ti .. . v inches 'ft ft Street Hydraulics: OK -CI < ,Allowable Street Capacity° Total Inlet interception Capacity Total :inlet Carry -Over Flow (flow byipassing inlet) Capture Percentage = %IQ,, = MINOR rVIA‘ifTh Si t..^' 3 4.75 0..20 9.16 6.:89 S+3ij+'wY.b' x'^n..pJ.l...iIS4u9�FJ119AL.u—.0YS 9. 57 .cfs cfs -:I 4.1 ...oc'. Seet. DO Curb capacity 0 5"':: XI. rn Dr 226;2018.'1 nit blank 7/3/2( Page 118 of Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based an Regulated Criteria for l'Iiaxnrnurn Allowable Flow Depth and Spread '911 J1314 Sorrento Subdivision �I .•.4 DP ES -.Ayrshire Street - !inlet `f 01B --2C., se, Gutter Geometry !Enter data ita The blue cells( Maximum Aliowabie Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow. Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftr'ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity as based on Depth Crriterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is cased on Depth Criterion HCUrRB = TCRUNT,: = gX SW S 18.0 -I1- 0.023 0.098 0.00O 0.016 Minor Storm it ,.nee ft to It ftift ftrft ftift Major Storm Minor Storm Major Storm SUMP SUMP vets INLET IN A SUM? , 'R SAG LOCATION 1 Lo (Cl H -Curb W Version 4.05 Released March 2017 • -'-- . Wo Desaun Information (Input) Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression a' from above) Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Ftowline (outside of local depression) -Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vetlical Curb Opening in Inches. "Height of Curb Orifce Throat in Inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3.7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.70) COOT Type R Curb Opening Low Head Performance Re luc€ion ICalculatedl Depth for Grate Midwelth Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Grated €nlet. Performance Reduction Factor for Lona Inlets Total Inlet interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Major Storm Type .: No µ Pending Depth !-a (G) Arabi, Cr (G) Cw -(G) Co(G)2-- LAC) Hie) Htete Theta -. Wv Cr(C) CW(C)_ (C) RECo,rAnnWitY/I miNCR MAJOR CDC; Type R Curb Opening 4.25 • 4.8 5.9 MINOR MAJOR NIA NIA N./,‘5, NEIA Nii./1/2 NfA ;fit NIA MINOR MAJOR 10.00 6.00 ( 0 340 .g 6:3.40 MIIIIMIm a.".47.—......—Ntic5m xv %sm. 1.1; 0.20 ^ 0.20 :3.50 0.67 I MINOR rJ,R /A s NIA. 0.78 r;_'S5 inches .aches Override Depths feet feet feet inches inches degrees feet ft n.38 ,X1•1171tA_ 0.56 Won 0.85 _ p 0.93 RFG/ne. _ 1 NIA cfs )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 119 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Itelinor & Major Storer) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable How Depth and Spread) `511-014 Sorrento Subdivision DP E7 - Ayrshire Street - inlet 10&-2A „Sawa 112 wrnirwiYearci ii 'rake gitref cappa aximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb ide Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Aanning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) eight of Curb at Gutter Flow Line istance from Curb Face to Street Crown utter Width -treet Transverse Slope utter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) treet Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition anning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) ax. Allowable Spread for Minor 8 Major Storm ax. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm heck boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions NOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion AJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion TBACK Sencx = n8Acx Retina TCFo:5tN w Sx° sw ' So - rr5TREET - TMAX " dM,.Ax 9.0 0.029 0.013 4.75 13.0 1.17 0.023 0.098 0.000 0.016 Minor Storm ft ft/ft Inches ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft/ft Major Storm i 18.0 4.75 i 18.0 7.86 Minor Storrn Major Storm SUMP SUMP ft inches cfs INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 La (C ) sian Information Ibuuti rype of Inlet ocal Depression (addit€onal to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) umber of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) '(Eater Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Grate information „Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Irate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Angle of Throat (see USOCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0 10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3_?) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient tyypccal value 0 60 - 0 70) COOT Type R Curb Opening ',Low Head Performance Rechiaimt tCalculated) -72:epth for Grate Midwedth Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Total /Wet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) vVARNING: inlet Capacity fess than Q Peak for Major Storm T Type = No = Pending Depth (C) �crx:Roc Theta W.. (C) C3 (C) MINOR. ;.k vp . N.,' a _.� an.,-.�, ...: - r. ' 1 urs_._ nom. 5w-.tvr. .00 MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 4.25 1 4.8 5.0 Nil NO •'W -.J OR NIA InUMMISMINPOS N/A NIA NIA MINOR MAJOR 5.00 6.00 8.00 63.40 1.17 0.20 0.20 azr 3.60 0.67 inches inches Override Depths feet feet feet inches inches degrees feet s N n Tf 0.38 1,76 A us=yam.lallallaSt V' vv MINOR .arsa.u•a:..mgc _ Q.a3.05 MAJOR 4.77 IGS if lit et: L•i •. it .3' .. r.' �- _ at'�i -'C. : •t ,53 i ;1 rDn A mut:blank 7/3/2( Page 120 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision DP E8 - Aryshire Street - inlet 10C AttAr J1 ra r rib -_I r -t at - Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cellsl Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion TBACK SSACK nBACK = HCURB = TCRGSVN = 4V = Sx = Sri = So nSTREET = TmAx = detAx = 14.6 ft 0.020 ft/ft 0.013 4.75 18.0 1.17 0.023 0.098 0.000 0.016 Minor Storm inches ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft/ft Major Storm 18.0 18.0 4.75 6.57 Minor Storm SUMP Major Storm SUMP ft inches cfs INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 4 _ - _ Lo (C) Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Design Information (Input) Type of inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0 10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2 3-3 7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0.70) COOT Type R Curb Opening Low Head Performance Reduction iCalculated) Depth for Grate Miclwrdth Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long inlets Grated inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) NARNING: inlet Capacity iess than G Peak for Major Storm Type = asocul = No µ Ponding Depth = (G)= W., _ A,attc = Cr (G) = co, (G) Co (G) �(C)= = Htrrout Theta = WO= C� (C) _ C,„, (C) C, (C) RF;�Rarw: xr = RFL,,, = RF;;,,,t;- = Vy � MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 4.25 1 . 4.8 5.9 MINOR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MAJOR N/A inches inches r Override Depths feet feet MINOR 63.40 1.17 3.60 MAJOR MINOR MAJOR N/A NIA 0.28 0.38 0.61 0.76 1.00 1.00 N/A NIA MINOR 3.05 i 71 4.77 - eet inches inches degrees feet ft ft cfs cis )ut:blank 7/3/20 weir Kepon Page 121 of 1 Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCA Concrete Sidewal Rectangular Weir Crest Bottom Length (ft) Total Depth (ft) Calculations Weir coeff. Cw Compute by: No,. Increents Ilia Civil 3D® by Autodesk, inn, k Culvert - Capacity (Weir) Sharp = 4.00 0,5' a % 33 0 vs Depth a 10 Town of Mead Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual Sump Inlet Theoretical Capacity = 80% 4 709* 8 3.7 6 cfs Depth (ft) 0 1.5 2 2.5 3.5 4 Weir Highlighted Depth (ft) (cfs) Area (sqft) elocit (ft/s) Top Width (ft) Concrete Sidewalk Culvert e Capacity (Weir) Monday, Feb 26 2018 0,50 4.709 2.00 235 4.00 4.5 5 Lengt Depth (ft) 0 5 0.0 -0.50 (ft) nut:blank 7/3/2( Page 122 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET EET {Minor ,& Major Storm) Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow'Depth and Spread) *tea- a4+.-.as-mY:G"LtS LC .. trir.zonas _ Mal 911--014 Sorrento Subdivision OP Fl Brown Swiss Street Inlet 4F STREET C ROW N Gutter .Geometry Enter data in the blue cells4 Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Ftowtine for Minor & Major Storm Allow Row Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) eBRCK SBACK nSACK HCU2B TCRO W N f Y S SW _ SO .d. nS REET TM,X = dMaX h I.I ,, t- 1.17 0.023 0.098 0.010 0.016 Minor Storm inches ft It ft/ft ft/ft. ft/ft 18.0 .75 Major Storm 18.0 Et 7.86 ;inches check = yes MINOR STORM Al=lowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm _MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Qagiew = '. 14.72 `cfs Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'inlet Management' WARNING: MAJOR STORM max. allowable capacity is less than the design flow given on sheet 'Inlet Management' INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE ,#' Version 4.05 Released March 2017 4141, (G Design Information Ilnnut1 r COOT Type R Curb Opening .Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a') Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Length of -a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W. Gutter Width) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) Type = 8LOCAL = No Viz- o- CeG MINOR MAJOR M I NO R MAJOR OT Type R Curb Opening N/A f' N/A 0.15 N/A 0.15 inches r Street Hydraulics: WARNING: > ALLOWABLE Q FOR MAJOR STORM Total Inlet 'Interception Capacity Total inlet Carry -Over Flow tflow bypassing inlet) Capture Percentage = eafOe, 3,37 10.88 Ids 0.00 100 12.84 i �cfs 46 914-014 Modified ied Local S.t3 .ee'i DO °urn CCipaC!t n J . yos r. DP R . ≥6' )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 123 of Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) wrmr.vrs-wnwwrnr+•w^VI4etl =eertS1 TX;T 1ViIIT71¢ Er5i===i..a.rrT..^nr","^•• Based on Re elated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow oept? and S 911-014 Sorrento Subdivis on wirTr•r OP F2 - Brown Swiss Street , Millet 4E read) TCR0WN Tx STREET C ROW N Gutter Geometry (Enter data are the blue ©ells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street. Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftift) Street Longitudinal Slope Enter 0 for sump condition Manning`s Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowiine for Minor & }Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity its based on Depth Criterion Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow TBACK SBACK BACK HCURB TCRoWN Sx Sy so = nS rR EET 4 18.0 i 1 0..023 0.098 0.010 0.016 Minor. Storm W`ir for Storm f1 'rft inches ft ft ft/ft ftift ft/ft Major Storm Ma or Storm 7.08 37,65 given on sheet °Inlet Management' given on sheet `inlet Management' ft inches check = yes c'ts INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Le Version 4M5 Released March 2017 H -Curb N De:sicn Information (knout) Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a') Total Number of Units in the inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Length of a Single Unit inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W. Gutter Width) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) ..,............_....._..4.,..... CDOT Type R Curb Opening MINOR MAJOR MINOR iit4JOR. Street Hydraulics: OK - Q C AUlowa?ble Street Capacity' Total Inlet Interception Capacity Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow Mow bypassing inlet) Capture Percentage?: _ 5.36 4 12.79 cfs 0.50 91 22./7 36 911-011 Modified Locai °s it r 4 Din L !:I Capacity (' 5:.1'rZ xism. L.ir- F2 2126:20-18 '.3 35 1DAil )ut:blan.k 7/3/2( Page 124 of Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) A -v/A6aV.er...-.,£W M (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maxlrnurrt Allowable Pow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision 3.4 q t DP FS Charbray Drive Wet SIC• -'1 •Z Zuttex Geometry $Enter data in the blue cells) Maximus Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) sleight of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse: Slope Futter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm :heck boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions M@INQ'R STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Haft° TCROWN W= Sx = SIN O = nsrrtsET = IJ.5 ft 0.0"20 ₹rift Minor Storm i.rcries ft ft f1:!ft ft+ft ftlft Major Storm E568R.S9503R 18.0 18.04 -------- 6.00 9/2 ft inches INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Lo (C), H -Curb H-1; ed.. o (G) N es1ign Information (Input) COOT Type R Curb Opening we of inlet ocal Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) umber of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) ater Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) rate Information ength of a Unit Grate kith of a Unit Grate rea Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) logging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) rate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) rate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.610 - 0.80) orb Opening Information ength of a Unit Curb Opening eight of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches eight of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches ngle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) slogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) urb Opening Weer Coefficient (typical value 2 3-3.7) urb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0 70) w Head Performance Reduction iCalcula'ted) epth for Grate Midwidth epth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets ,urb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets otal Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) Type = aloe, No Ponding Depth = LAC) Hrn= Theta mac= Ct4C) C, (C) G,IC) = jG•nt7 dca; Qa IN WING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Minor and Major Storms nee ere.. MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 3..00 6.0 6.3 MINOR N/A - s N./A z m . . N/A ; WA NIA II IA NIA...,J^_ _. Mi OR 5.00 6.00 1 6.�A �1T f `f. ---I_ 7 y /1413 X 1 .,,,, F11"-1 - .FM �- --w - �9.0y0 r• ...r 'J . V le i m9T�i1J- 0.20 3.60 -- 1 - 0.617 MINOR MAJOR WA ' N/A 0.33 0.36 0 77 0.81 1 00 1 00 A NIA MINOR 4.78 7 08 MAJOR 535 inches nches r Override Depths feet feet feet inches Iriches degrees feet ft ft cfs fs )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 125 of] Version 4.€05 Released March 2017 . L .OA/ABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (inor & Major Storm (Bias on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Altowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-01,4 Sorrento Subdivisaon OP fFJ, Cha rbray Drive - Inlet 4E3 Geometry itEtter data in the blue celaximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb [utter de Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) `Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0':012 and 0.020) !eight cf Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face co Street Crown Gutter Width fStreet Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftlft) .Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Fio'Mkie. for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SIJMP conditions aliNOR STORM Aticwable Capacity is':aasedt on Depth Criterion 1/4M,4J0R STORM Allowable Capacity is tratcd sin Depth Criterion HCURS TCROWN = W= S.x Sw So ns stE.Er TMAX dr.!AX C2ab;ae: 15.5 (.3.020 rt inches ft ft ft/ ft ft/if ftift Mina? S;_,,t ri Major Storm '18.00 18.00 6.00 I _ Minor Storm SUMP 9.72 Major Storm SUMP ft inches INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION u La (C) Version 4.05 Released March 2017 H -Curb N ) pesi-> n Information fbaout) l CDOT Type R Curb Opening rype of inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) Number of Unit inlets (Grate or Curb Opening). dater Depth at Fiowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Aria" of a Link Grate .',Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values o.15-0.90) :logging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 = 0.60) Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches r3,ngle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) ide Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet} ;;.logging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2 3-3.7) urb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0.70) ow Head Pedcrsnanc.e Reduction Calculated epth for Grate MidScttb Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Wets urb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets rated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Total inlet Interception Capacity iiassuines clogged condition) NING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Major Storm Type :uca,i e - No = Ponding Depth = 1—n(G)= Wo= /1/43o0 Cr (G) C (G) Co (G) = Lo(',)=. Theta VV.; Cr(C) (C)= Ca (C) RFct,;: RFG„tor MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 1 3.00 ..--%--..... 6.0 6.3 MINOR N/A NIA NiA NIA iN/A N/ A NIA fJ21#'Oi~ MAJOR 5.00 ) 6.00 r 6.00 .=-- 63.40 I 2.003 0.20 120 3.60 .. 0.67 I MINOR N/A 0.33 0 77 OR X36 n Q i N:A MAJ OR Override Depths ies4t te',et feet inches inches degrees feet it t = 4.73 5.35 c1s ;TA.; paoup,cD ••1.-1 �.. 2_, 3 43.35 7,1 . 1 •,: 1:tt .jj . rsee3t, ter!. • •J. t• • .•; •) - .• 't •- • •:.a. . • 2(..2:a 18 3 30 PM Litoblalpk 7/3/2( Page 126 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (:Minor & majorStorm) 11 (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spreard) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision DP G1 - Pinewoods Street Wet 3C s laxirnum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb "sde Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) anning's/Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.0.12 and 0.020) eight of Curb at Gutter Flow Line istance from Curb Face to Street Crown utter Width treet Transverse Slope utter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) treet Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition anning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) lax. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm ax. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowiine for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM :lgowabfe Capacity -is based on Depth Criterion ,,1M&R STORM Allowable Capacity rs based on Depth Criterion TaaCrc Sar,CK fleece HCUR9 TCR0WN o= Svv — nsTRaEr Q 0.0 Seer 0.02€: 4.75 15.0 1 .17 0.023 0.098 0.000 0.016 ft ft/'ft inches ft ft tift ftfft Minor Storm Major Storm 18.0 18.0 eft 4.75 6,57 ;Minor Storm Major Storm SUMP I SUMP riches INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION it Lo Version 4.05 Released March 2017 H -Curb Wp -- '- o (G) Desoun information firaput) CDOT'Eype R Curb Opening i ylse of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression `a' from above) Humber of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) eter Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate iNkftli of a Unit Grate era Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 040 - 0.80) Curb Opening Enfor*rmation Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches 4ngle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0 10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3 7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0 704 Low Head Perfera arrce Reduction iCalculated) Depth for Grate Mrcwidt₹t Depth for Curb Opening Wear Equation Combination inlet Performance Reduction Factor' for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long inlets Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long inlets Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) 71 ype No- Ponding Depth _. MINOR MAJOR COOT -ripe R Curb Opening a n :4.r_„) j MINOR "N'.:JCR idA NfA. Cr (G) Co (G) MINOR Theta (C) (C) C_ (C.) = let. CI. !ARMING: Inlet Canacitu lass than U Peak for Minor and Major Storms O c_a,S new LO NIA Nee ( %IA. -JCR 10.00 ...... 6.00 -...cc v. ••..rtx+'rct mms 6.00 '-'3.40 t.17 t 0.20 0.20 3.60 0.67 Nee Xci®m: MAJOR NU.A n,. 0.3'8 0.56 =iratIllairC=ISYCJaZttnratOZN 93 0.35 4:84 MAJOR 825 25.20 inches - inches Override Depths feet feet feet inches inches degrees feet ft ft lcfs c3 • , rite.-: — • __ ,.L )utoblank 7/312( Page 127 of 1 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 i _ ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision TOP G2 - Pinewoods Street - Inlet 38 I 'err 4_ 4isett Gutter Geometry f later data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion TBACK = SBACK = ABACK = HUMS = TCROW N = W= Sx= Sw So= nSIRE .ET = TntAX delAx = 9.0 0.020 0.013 4.75 18.0 1.17 0.023 0.098 0.000 0.016 Minor Storm ft ft/ft inches ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft/ft Major Storm 18.0 18.0 4.75 6.57 Minor Storm Major Storm SUMP SUMP ft inches cfs INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Design Information input) Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Rote/line (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Srde Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.3-3 T) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0.70) CDOT Type R Curb Opening Low Head Performance Reduction (Calculated) Depth for Grate Midwidzhr Depth for Curb Opening WS Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inrets Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than G Peak for Major Storm Type = No Ponding Depth = (G) W„ Aee„ = Cr (G) C,„ (G) Co (G) L,(C)= Fiver' = Httroat = Theta = C1(C)= C.„(C)= C,(C)= dGr ale dCsal D RF iterenatl•.M, RFcwtr RFG,,,I, _ a J nn Q r'£ RE A...43LO MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 4.25 1 4.8 5.9 MINOR MAJOR MINOR MAJOR inches inches ,”-- Override Depths feet feet MINOR MAJOR N/A N;A 0.28 0.38 0.61 0.76 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A MINOR 3.05 3 04 MAJOR 4.77 25 20i eat inches inches degrees set cfs 11 1 y ..�.a1 5,roe; .r MID L J J 3 4 1 PN4 )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 128 of l Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) 311.014 Sorrento Subdivision DP X11 - Galloway Street - inlet 2C 4 .hilt" t rc.. FS-r7NT I, ,, :.m6e..:ssr�w.aa� fxalc,. vr. t.r.r.i .I - -v 6M.Y'SMELT Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue celiac Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) 'Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion ;ACK _ SBACK ABACK = HCUR8 = TCROWN = nSTREET = TMAx = dMA)c = j1 `Blow 9.0 0.020 0.013 4.75 18.0 1.17 0.023 0.098 0.000 0.016 Minor Storm ft Mt irhes ft ft Mt ftift Mt Major Storm 18.0 18.0 4.75 6.57 i Minor Storm Major Storm SUMP SUMP ft inches cfs INLET IN A SUM OR SAG LOCATION 11 Lo (C) If Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Desiinn Information Mout) Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a' from above) Number of Unit inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Fiowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0 90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0 70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.15 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 080) Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Angle of Throat (see USOCM Figure ST -5) Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2 3-3 7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 •0 70) COOT Type R Curb Opening Low Head Peirfonraance Riacluction 1Calculated) Depth for Grate M€e wktth Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opentna Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Total Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) WARNING: inlet .C.a acity less than Q Peak for Minor and Major Storms Type = aoci, _ No = Ponding Depth = (G)= W., = = Cr (G) = Co (G) _ Cc, (G) = L,(C)= H.,.e,t = H!r:ast = Theta =- Wt., G(C) = (C) = C, (C) dG,uta dGu•6 RF c,.,d,nat;x = RFart: _ RF MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening 4.25 > : 1 4.8 5.9 MINOR MAJOR N/A • N/A N/A N/A NIA NIA .. N/A `. MINOR 15.00 6.00 6.00 63.40 1.17 0.20 3.60 MAJOR 0.20 .6'71.111.111 MINOR MAJOR NIA _ WA 0.28 0.38 0.45 0.56 0 70 0.78 NIA NIA MINOR MAJOR inches inches f Override Depths feet feet eet inches inches degrees feet ft ft i_ q W .y.r )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 129 of l Lc (0 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Stern) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maxiirntwn Aglowable Row Depth and Spread) 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision DP i2 - Galloway Street - inlet 23 ft It, Its Gutter Geometry lEnter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Sae Slope Behind Curb. (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning's Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) <reight of Curb at Gutter Flow Line pis'tance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width -Street Transverse Slope Gutter Crass Slope ltypicalty 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ftift) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor & Major Storm Check boxes are hot applicable in SUMP conditions MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth, Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Critetrien TACK SBACK "7: nBACK TCROWN W V S Ste= So - n$TREET = TMAX drrnx 9..0 it 0.020 Mt 0.0`i3 4.75 18 0 J 1 1 0.023 0.098 0.000 0.016 inches ft ft ftift ftift Minor Storm Major Storm 18.0 18.0 4.75 €.57 Minor Storm Major Storm Qana.d _1 SUMPL ft inches SUMP lcfs INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION 0 el -Curb ti• Version 4.05 Released March 2017 / n Design information (Input) Type of Inlet Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a° from above) Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values a.15.0.90) Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 2 15 - 3.60) Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.60 - 0.80) Curb Opening Information } ength of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat. in Inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST -5) Skis Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 010) Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2 3.3.7) Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0 60 - 0.70) COOT Type R Curb Opening Low Head Performance [Reduction lCalcula~ted) Depth for Grate Midwidth Depth for Curb Opening Wear Equation Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Grated Islet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Wrtet. Total inlet Interception Capacity (assumes clogged condition) WARNING: Inlet Capacity less than Q Peak for Major Storm Type skeet - No= Ponding Depth = Li L (G) = Cr (G) c (G) Co(G)_ LAC) _ rc'Cen Raxnar Theta te- C,(C)= G (C) = (C) dc,.te dewy - RfcritporgiUL.i'1 �. RF;;la RFG: alt = MINOR MAJOR COOT Type R Curb Opening `125 i . -9 MINOR i 1-"! , NIA —. NIA., NI/A NiA NIA MINOR MAJOR 10.00 6.00 6.00 63A0 m—. . r a- ./ 020 0.20 3.60 ® 0.67 ®-- masourtera MINOR N/A a", "ICJ 0.85 NIA MAJOR 0 38 0.55 93 I:'. \Sr ri MIN._-IR OR { inches inches Override Depths feet feet feet Inches inches degrees feet 4,84 £ 8.26 cis 7 89 :-- ^I- I , 3 )3 ppS1 )uteblank 7/3/2( Page 130 of 1 Version 4.05 Released March 2017 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Minor & Major Storm) Based on Re uiated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow De th and S read �� 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision D P j1 C R Inlet 53 Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) Manning`s Roughness Behind Curb (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown Gutter Width Street Transverse Slope Gutter Cross Slope (typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Manning's Roughness for Street Section (typically between 0.012 and 0.020) Max. Allowable Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter FIowline for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) TBACK = BACK = ABACK HCURB = TCROWN = W= Sx Sw So = nSTREET MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity its based on Spread Criterion MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity its based on Spread Criterion Qa3b, Minor storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'inlet Management' Major storm max. allowable capacity GOOD - greater than the design flow given on sheet 'inlet Management' nfi`'0 0.013 6.00 26.0. V In 2. t:ti 0.023 0.083 0.014 0.010 Minor Storm ft ft/ft inches ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft/ft Mayor Storm 14.0 14.0 6.0 12.0 Minor Storm Major Storm 9.55 ft inches check = yes INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Lo t Version 4.05 Released March 2017 Design Information (Input) Type of Inlet CDOT Tw,e R Curb Ooenina Local Depression (additional to continuous gutter depression 'a') Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W. Gutter Width) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0 5) Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) Street Hydraulics; OK - Q < Allowable Street Capacity' Total Inlet Interception Capacity Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow Mow bypassing inlet) Capture Percentage = Qa/1Qt Type aLOCAL No= �_ Wo Cf-G CiC= MINOR MAJOR MINOR MAJOR ft ft -'''J CR _ . trate:{ .,.:'h-•-4• r�•+ _ n et 2 690s8 4 13 PM;I )ut:blank 7/3/2( Pale 131 of l APPENDIX H Historic Hydrologic Calculation nit: blank 7/3/2( DEVELOPED COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS 911-014 A. Morse February 2, 2018 Surface Characteristics: Percent Impervious Runoff Coefficients Storm Frequency (year) 2 6 10 100 Residential: Single -Family (0.25 acres or less) 45 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.67 Streets: Paved 100 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89 Gravel 40 0.30 0.36 0.43 0.65 Drives and Walks 90 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.85 Roofs 90 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.85 Lawns, Sandy Soil 2 0.01 0.05 0.15 0.49 Lawns, Clayey Soil 2 0.01 0.05 0.15 0.49 Notes, 1) Percentage impervious taken train the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Distract, Volume I, Chapter 6, Table 6-3 (March 2017). 2) Runoff Coefficients are taken from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Chapter 6, table 6 5, Soil Group C, (March 201/ Update) Basin ID Basin Area (s.f.) Basin Area (ac) Area of Asphalt lac) Area of Concrete (ac) Area of Roofs (ac) Area of Gravel (ac) Area of Lawns and Landscaping (ac) Composite % Imperv. 2 -year Composite Runoff Coefficient 5 -year Composite Runoff Coefficient 10 -year Composite Runoff Coefficient 100 -year Composite Runoff Coefficient H 1 4007170 91.99 1.790 0.000 0.000 0.680 89.52 4.2% 0.03 0.07 0.17 0.50 H2 3082936 70.77 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.030 66.74 4.2% 0.03 0.07 0.17 0.50 UQ CD tv DEVELOPED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS Overland Flow. Time of Concentration: Project: 911-014 Calculations By: A. Morse Date: February 2, 2018 per Equation 6-5, USOCM, Volume 1, January 2017. .395 (1.1 — C5 WE 7 , S y Gutter/Swale Flow. Time of Concentration: T, = L / 60V T„ = T, + Tt (Equation R0-2) Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20-S" Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15•S`' NOTE First design point time of concentration, "Check Tc" column, Design Point Balm Overland Flow Gutter Flow Swale Flow is Length >500 7 C5 Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Ti (min) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Velocity, V (ft/s) T` (min) Length, L (ft) Slope, S (%) Velocity, V (mss) T` (min) TO (min) Check Tn (min) Final Tn (min) H1 H1 No 0.10 400 1.70% 30.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 2110 1.50% 1.84 19.1 49.9 N/A 49.9 H2 H2 No 0.10 400 1.30% 33.6 0 0.00% N/A N/A 2235 1.10% 1.57 23.7 57.3 N/A 57.3 b Oa CD W O DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS Rational Method Equation: Project: 911-014 Calculations By: A. Morse Date: February 2, 2018 Stormwater Standards (Town of Mead Storm Drainage Criteria) Q = C 1 (C X 1 X A) Rainfall Intensity: Rainfall Intensity taken from Loveland Design Point Basin(s) Area, A (acres) T` (min) Cx C10 C1® Intensity, i2 (in/hr) Intensity, i10 (in/hr) Intensity, it® (in/hr) Flow, Q2 (cfs) Flow, Q10 (cfs) Flow, Q100 (cfs) H1 H1 91.99 49.9 0.03 0.17 0.50 1.09 1.79 2.87 2.8 27.4 131.6 H2 H2 70.77 57.3 0.03 0.17 0.50 0.93 1.52 2.44 1.8 17.8 86.3 Page 136 of 1 911-014_Final SWMM.rpt EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.011) NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff YES RDII NO Snowmelt NO Groundwater NO Flow Routing YES Ponding Allowed ND Water Quality NO Infiltration Method NORTON Flow Routing Method KINWAVE Starting Date 11/21/2012 00:00:00 Ending Date 11/22/2012 06:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days 0.0 Report Time Step 00:15:00 Wet Time Step 00:05:00 Dry Time Step 01:00:00 Routing Time Step 30.00 sec ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches ************************** Total Precipitation 41.826 Evaporation Loss 0.000 Infiltration Loss 21.245 Surface Runoff 20.239 Final Storage 0.449 Continuity Error (%) -0.255 ************************** Flow Routing Continuity ************************** 3.214 0.000 1.632 1.555 0.034 Volume Volume acre-feet l0^6 gal Dry Weather Inflow 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow 20.239 6.595 Groundwater Inflow 0.000 0.008 RDII Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Outflow 20.235 6.594 Flooding Loss 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume 0.000 0.800 Final Stored Volume 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) 0.020 ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. Page 1 nit:blank 7/3/2( Page 137 of 1 911-014_Final SWY1.rpt Routing Time Step Summary Minimum Time Step 30.00 sec Average Time Step 30.00 sec Maximum Time Step 30.00 sec Percent in Steady State 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 1.00 Percent Not Converging 0.00 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** Subcatchment Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS SM-1 SM-2 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** 3.21 0.00 0.00 1.53 1.66 4.10 217.88 0.516 3.21 0.00 0.00 1.78 1.41 2.50 132.81 0.439 Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet Outfall-24-inchPipe OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 96.89 0 00:00 0.00 Pond -1 STORAGE 1.65 3.25 105.42 0 02:58 3.25 Pond -2 STORAGE 0.85 3.03 112.73 0 02:23 3.02 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******«************ Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent Outfall-24-inchPipe OUTFALL 0.00 15.87 0 02:58 0 6.59 0.000 Pond -1 STORAGE 217.88 225.00 0 00:35 4.1 6.59 0.012 Pond -2 STORAGE 132.81 132.81 0 00:35 2.5 2.5 0.022 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. Page 2 )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 138 of l 911-014_Final SWMM.rpt #***##*##**#####*##### Storage Volume Summary Storage Unit Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS Pond -1 Pond -2 Outfall Loading Summary #*#******************** 179.754 1 0 0 499.376 2 0 02:58 15.87 43.812 0 0 0 243.843 1 0 02:23 11.00 Outfall Node Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal Outfall-24-inchPipe 98.56 8.28 15.87 6.593 System ****************#### Link Flow Summary 98.56 8.28 15.87 6.593 Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ IFlowl Occurrence IVeloci Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth Out_1 DUMMY 15.87 0 02:58 Out_2 DUMMY 11.00 0 02:23 ******########*###*###### Conduit Surcharge Summary No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Fri Mar 02 11:19:22 2018 Analysis ended on: Fri Mar 02 11:19:22 2018 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Page 3 )ut:blank 7/3/2( 911-014 Sorrento Subdivision Storage Volume Summary Storage Unit Average Volume 1000 ft3 Average Percent Full Evap Percent Loss Exfil Percent Loss Maximum Volume 1000 ft3 Maximum Percent Full Day of Maximum Volume Hour of Maximum Volume Maximum Outflow CFS Pond -1 179.754 1 0 0 499.376 2 0 02:58 15.87 Pond -2 43.812 0 0 0 243.843 1 0 02:23 11.00 'age 1 SWMM 5.1 ----- Node Pond -1 Volume (ft3) 500000.0 4.50000.0 400000.0 350000.0 300000.0 Co °' 250000/0 O 200000.0 - 150000.0 100000.0 50000.0 0.0 0 15 20 Elapsed Time (hours) 25 30 s Page 1 SWMM 5.1 Link Out__1 Flow (CFS) 16.0 14 0 12.0 100 8:0 4A) 2.0 0.0 Page 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 Elapsed Time (hours) SWMM 5.1 O Node Pond -2 Volume (1t3) 250000: 0 200000.0 150000:0 100000.0 50000,0 0.0 0 10 15 20 Elapsed Time (hours) 25 30 Page 1 t�J SWMM 5.1 Page 143 of l — Link Out 2 Flow (CFS) 0 5 10 25 30 Page 1 15 20 Elapsed lime (hours) SWMM 5.1 35 )ut:blank 7/3/2( Th • Normal Flow Analysis Trapezoidal Channel Project: Channel ID: N c C:kArt.6^£i d e. e -9 t o rr tdiMM& oo - 911-014 Swale S1- 1 T zi Z2 1 Design Information (Input) Channel Invert Slope Mann ing's n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard. Height Design Water Depth So - n= D= L1 - Z2 = F= Y 0.0123 0.030 10.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.60 ft/ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft ft Normal Flow Condtiori (Calculated) Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity Flow Area Top Width Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area `=specific Force Fr= V= T= P= R= D= Es= Yo= Fs= 156.68 0.98 5.97 26.24 22.80 23.19 1.13 1.15 2.15 0.69 2.95 ofs fps sci f t ft ft ft ft ft ft kip 91 1-014 Swale 1-1.xls, Basics Critical Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal Channel Project: Channel ID: Basin A.2 152.1-cfs - 100- r B Design Information Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge Input) S= Z1 = Z2 Q_ 0.00 4.00 4.00 152.10 ft ft/ft ft/ft cfs Critical Flow Condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth Critical Flow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical Wetted Perimeter Critical Hydraulic Radius Critical (min) Specific Energy Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Critical (min) Specific Force A= T- D= V a -- Fr P= R= Esc = Yoe = Fsc = 2.45 24.11 19.64 1,23 6.31 1.04 20.24 1.19 3.07 0.41 2.48 ft sq ft ft ft fps ft ft ft ft kip 3/1/2018, 3:59 PM PD U4 N Ln I) Normal Flow Analysis tt Trapezoidal Channe Critical Flow Analysis: r Trapezoidal Channel Prof ect: Channel ID: SorrentosubdM o 4 B Design Information (Input) Channel Invert Slope Manning's n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard Height Design Water Depth So= n- Z1 Z2 re Ft 4J o €.00 67 (_03 7.9 4.00 4M0 1.00 1.50 ftff t ft ftfft ftlft ft ft Normal Flow Condtion Calculated) Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity Flow Area Top Width Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Specific Force Fr= V= A D Es �. Yo = Fs 156.15 0.73 3 4.53 t 29.0 1.`I 1 19 fi ry: cfs fps sq. ft ft ft ft ft It it k i p Project: Chanel ID.: Basin 2. a 100-yr Design Information (Input) Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge 1= Z2= Q- 4;0 4.00 15210 ft ftlft ft/ft cfs Critical How Condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth Critical Flow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical Wetted Perimeter Critical Hydraulic Radius Critical (miry) Specific Energy Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Critical (miry) Specific Force Y - A= T Dom.. I zr- Fr Pt Esc Yo:; Fsc 1.39 25,80 2t -,1r i97 1 93 0 56 ft sq ft ft ft fps ft ft ft ft kip 91 1 014 Swale 2L2.xls, Basics 3/112018, 3:59 PM Normal Flow Analysis. ® Trapezoidal Channel Project: Channel ID: 1-014 Critical Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal Channel SwaleS-37-$3 SS B Zb Design Information (Input) Channel Invert Slope Manning"s n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard Height Design Water Depth So n= Z1 Z2 F- 0.01 0; 30 0100 10.00 10.00 0.50 0:40 ft/ft ft ftift ftift ft ft Normal Flow Condtion (Cal culated Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity Flow Area Top Width Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Specific Force Fr= A T= Pr Es Yo W Fs". 2,74 4 0,67 1 (0 0)C -.04 0,45 0,13 0,1 0.02 cis fps sib ft ft ft ft ft ft ft kip 911a014_Sw le 3_3.xIs, Basics Project: Channel ID: 2960cf - 100 I 10111,.....1.1.ao .. Z1 Ye B Design information (Input) Bottom Width B = 0.00 ft Left Side Slope Z1 = 10 00 fl ft Right Side Slope Z2 = 10.00 ftift Design Discharge CI = 2.60 cfs Critical Flow Condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth iI = 0,33 ft Critical Flow Area A = 1.09 sq; ft Critical Top Width T M 6,60 ft Critical Hydraulic Depth D 017 ft Critical Flow Velocity V = 2.39 fps Froude Number Fr = it 04 Critical Wetted Perimeter P = 6.63 ft Critical Hydraulics Radius R = 0i6 ft Critical (min) Specific Energy Esc = 0,42 ft Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Yoc = 0.05 ft Critical (min) Specific Force Fsc = 0.02 kip 3/1/2018, 4:42 PM Normal Flow Analysis e Trapezoidal Channel Proj ect: Channel ID: :9.11:4)14 Swale...9444 Critical Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal Channel Design Information (input) Channel invert Slope Manning's n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard Height Design Water Depth (5 w F Y 0-,0 30 .9:O0 10.00 5.00 0.90 tL85 ft/ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft ft Normal Flow Condtion (Calculated} Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity Flow Area Top Width Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Spectric Force '- Fr V= A= T- P 1 Fs = 21.85 0/8 3.07 7:12 1 4 . 88 0 48 0G 1,00 ofs fps ft ft ft ft ft ft ft kip 91 1=014 Swale 4-4.xls, Basics Project: Channel ID: F V Design Information (Input) Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge C- Z1 - Z2- 0.00 500. 20.35 ft ft/ft ftlft cfs Critical Flow Condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth Critical Flow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical \Netted Perimeter Critical Hydraulic Radius Critical (min) Specific; Energy Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Critical (min) Specific Force A= i Fr tt f ms Esc Yoe t sc 013-- 5.46_ 12.95 o,73 1.01 13.0 0 42 0 0.22 ft sgft ft ft fps ft ft ft ft kip 3/1/2018, 4:43 PM cIQ a OO Normal Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal Channel Project: Channel ID: '.nil •4r %sate. •V 91°_01 Critical Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal Channel Swale 55-S5 Design Information (Input) Channel Invert Slope Manning's n in g's n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard Height Design Water Depth So = n= S= L1 Z2 = F= 0.0050 0.0:30 2.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 1.15 ftlft ft ft/ft ftlft ft ft. Normal Flow Condtion (Calculated) Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity f -It w Area l• op W iclth Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Specific Force Q Fr= V= A= P a = Es = Yo = Fs - 39,57 0:57 2.55 1,5.53 25.00 25.11 0.62 0.62 1.25 0.41 0.59 cfs fps sq ft ft ft ft ft ft ft kip Project: Channel ID: 3613-cfs - 100-yr Design Information Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge Input) B_ Z1 - Z2 = Q= 2.00 10.00 10.00 3613 ft it/ft ftrft cfs Critical Flow Condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth Critical Flow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical Wetted Perimeter Critical Hydraulic Radius Critical (min) Specific Energy Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Critical (min) Specific Force Y- A=7 - T = D V= Fr a Esc = Yoc= Fsc 0:67 9.31 19.40 0.48 3.95 IMO 19.49 0,48 1,11 0.20 0.40 :r sci ft ft ft fps ft ft ft ft kip 911-014 Swale 5a5.xls, Basics 3/1/2018, 5:01 PM Normal Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal Channel Project: Channel ID: r�. 911-014 Critical' Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal. Channel tot I, wale $6 -S6 ,4, F Z1 e JT% Ye 3 Z 1 Design Information (Input) Channel Invert Slope Mann ing's n Bottom Width t_titt Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard Height Design Water Depth So= B= Z1 - Z2 = F- Y= 0.0057 0.03 2.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 1.30 ft/ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft ft Normal Flow Condtion (Calculated) Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity Flow Area Top Width Netted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Specific Force Fr V= A= T- F D- Es = Yo= Fs = 57.07 0,62 2.93 19.50 28.00 28.13 0.69 0.70 1.43 0.46 0:88 cis fps scq ft ft ft ft ft ft ft kip 91 1 014 Swale 6 6.xls, Basics Project: Channel ID: 57M8-cfs 100-yr Design Information (Input). Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge B= Z1 _ Z2 = = 2.00 10.01) 10.00 57.08 ft ft/ft ft/ft cfs Critical Flow Condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth Critical Flow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical Wetted Perimeter Critical Hydraulic Radius Critical (min) Specific Energy Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Critical (min) Specific Force Y= A= T= D= Fr P= Rm Esc = Yoe = Fsc = 1.06 13.24 23.10 0,57 4.31 too 23.21 0.57 1.34 0:23 0.67 ft sq ft ft ft f iJs ft ft ft ft kip 3/1/2018, 5:03 PM U4 C C Normal Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal Channel Project Channel ID: Critical Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal Channel 911-014 Swale S7 Design information (Input) Channel Invert Slope Manning's n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard Height Design Water Depth So = n= 0= L1 = L2 F` Y= 0:0050 ....0.t0.30: . 1 3.0 - .op 4,01. 1.00 ZOO ft/ft t ft ft/ft ft/ft ft ft Normal Flow Condtion (Calculated) Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity F I eW Area . Top Width Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius —Iyrc;ir'eirDepth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Specific Force Fr= v A= P_ D= Es = Yo = Fs= 186.71 .65 445. 79,00 23.49 0,87. 3.8,9 cfs fps sgft ft ft ft ft ft ft kip 91 1,O14_Swale 7-7.xls, Basics Project:, Channel ID: 1.810t2.2-cfs 1:QO,yr. 13 Design Information (Input) Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge 0. 0 4,00 4.00 _186.22 ft fUft ftft cfs Critical Flow Condition (Cal_culated) Critical Flow Depth Critical F l ow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical Wetted Perimeter Critical Hydraulic Radius Critical (min) Specific Energy Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Critical (mien) Specific Force A- T= D= _ Fr P _ Esc = Yoc = Fsc 2.66 28.1 1:33 6,55 1:00 .1.98 1,9 3.3 0.44 �N".15 ft sgft ft ft fps ft ft ht ft kip 3/1/2018, 5:11 PM (5Q (0 Lon Pat Normal Flow Analysis ® Trapezoidal Channel Project: Channel ID: a "ti da"tea 91 -014 orr trf . Subdivision Critical Flow Analysis Trapezoidal Channel Swale8ASS Desictin information (Input) Channel Invert Slope Mannin`s n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right ght Side Slope F reeboard Height Design Water Depth So= n= 71 Z2 F- Y .00 0.030 210 067 0.63 ftlft ft ft/ft f I t/1 E ft ft Normal How Condtion (Calculated) Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity Flow Area Trap Width Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Specific Force Fr= V A= �_ P= R= D- Es= Yo= Fs= 18cO i 0.66 2420 8.i21 24;0.5 24 t9 :71 .19 cfs fps sq ft ft ft ft ft it ft kip Project Channel ID: Basin 17.82-cfs 100- r Design Information (Input) Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge S= 74 - Z2 2.00 -.0 17382 ft ft/ft ft/ft cfs Critical Flow condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth Critical Flow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical Wetted Perimeter Critical Hydraulic Radius Critical (min) Specific Energy Centroid on the Critical Flaw Area Critical (min) Specific Force T = �= Fr I� R Esc Yoe Fsc 6.00 22.00 2.97 1.00 03 27 0,64 0t 014s ft sq ft ft ft fps ft ft ft ft kip 91 1-014 Swale & 8.xls, Basics 3/2/2018c 8:10 AM Normal Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal Channel Critical Flow Analyst - Trapezoidal Channel Project: Channel ID: Sorranto Subdivision are Lu 1. r�. B ItA Z2 i Design Information (Input). Channel Invert Slope Manning's n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard Height Design Water Depth So _ n= E 71 = Z2_ F= = 0.01 2 2..00 • 4.00 5.00 1:10 ft/ft ft ft/ft ftif t ft ft Normal Flow Condtion (Calculated) Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity Flow Area Top Width Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Specific Force Fr= P Dw Es= o Fs 3117 0.90 4,08 1 1.9 0 12.14 03 0,4 1.36 ,4 i 145 cfs 'fps sci fl: ft ft ft ft ft ft kip 91 1-t)14_Swale 9-9.xls, Basics Project: Channel ID: Basin E2 31.11-cfs- 100-yr Information (Inputb Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge S= 1= Z2 Z00. 4.00 5,: 0 3111 ft ft/ft ft/ft cfs Critical Flow Condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth Critical Flow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical Wetted Perimeter Critical Hydraulic Radius Critical (min) Specific Energy Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Critical (min) Specific Force 1.M4 ft Ae _ T- D _ Fr :it: P Esc ...,, Yoe . Fsc fj.5 sq ft ,36 ft f4 �.$' ft :4..48 fps f •01 11• ft -0.60 ft • 1:35 ft 0.26 ft 0.38. kip 3/212018, 8:50 AM aG CD CM O Normal Flow Analysis m Trapezoidal Channel Project: Channel ID: 11-014 S rrento -$;r4ibittivisiort Swabe Ou 1 F Ilr Design Information (Input). Channel Invert Slope Manning's n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard Height Design Water Depth So = Z1_ Z2 Fr 0.0116 0.030 2 00 4.00 4.00 1.00 LO ft/ft ft ft/ft ft/ft ft ft Normal Flow Condtion Calculated) Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity Flow Area Top Width Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Specific Force Fr = A- T4 R.. i Es Yo Fs =. • 6& 19 1.91 4492 1 _ O 0.88 -98 cis fps sq ft ft ft ft €t ft ft kip 91 1-014 Stale 1 QJ1 O.xIs, Basics Critical Flow Analysis s Trapezoidal Channel Project: Channel la: 66.92-cfs- 100 Design Information (Input) Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge W Z1 = 72W 2.0 4,0 4..00 66.92 ft ft/ft ftift ifs Critical Flow Condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth Critical Flow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical Wetted Perimeter Critical Hydraulic Radius Critical (min) Specific Energy Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Critical (min) Specific Force T= D= Fr P- Esc Yccr Fsc 1.54 12,57 1432 0.88 5.33 1.00 14/0 0.85 .9 f. 8' ft sq ft ft f1: fps ft ft ft ft kip 3/2/2018, 9:48 AM (IP tS CM C Normal How Analysis Trapezoidal Channel Proj ect: Channel ID: -tP S crier a 'Su ibr .Swate4i t Crr lFlowArn l is - Trapezoidal Channel Z1 nrsz ��.^-^�n. — nttma¢atiYC..w Waft, atMeRNIADIA eglir :FpIDGM��L'Ll� YCWYWtnWitnTR'K' Pi o Jyt SS a I Sd 91� Z2 Design Information (Input) Channel Invert Slope Manning's n ing's n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard Height Design Water Depth So - 0.0'1:- ftift n - €. B = 6:00 ft �1 5.00 ftft Z2 = 10.00 ftfft fM 1.gl ft 110 ft Normal Flow Condtion (Calculated) Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity Flow Area Top Width Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Specific Force Fr a V _1z R- l Es - Yo Fs 82.14 I 1 2 - cfs fps sq ft ft ft ft ft ft ft kip Project:: _ Channel ID:. Basin P- 2 70,64-cfs -100-yr tics E w n Z1 mb m nw..:nm.n..aay..... . B Design information (Input) Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge U- Zi - Z2 6,O. ft 5.00 ft/ft . ft/ft 7064 cfs Critical Flow Condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth Critical Flow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical Wetted Perimeter Cntical ti cal Hydraulic Radius Critical (rain) Specific Energy Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Critical (miry) Specific Force R= Esc Yoe Fsc 1137 15.01: 22.0 0.68 7.1 22.21 0. 68 1 411 0.30 ft sq ft ft ft fps ft ft f t. ft kip 91 1-014_Swale 11 =11.xts, Basics 3/2/2018, 10:05 AM )fUUIc1:111( Normal Flow Analysis -Trapezoidal Channel Project: Channel lb it 9114)14 Exi ' -i g Outf i(_ -wai k East C oad id Cann i F C S Z2 Design Information (Input) Channel Invert Slope Manning's n Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Freeboard Height Design Water Depth So = -0t0240 ft/ft 01)40 2.0 ft 1..4.80 ft/ft 1.-0 ft/ft _0 ft = alb ft Normal Flow Condtion Discharge Froude Number Flow Velocity Flow Area Top Width Wetted Perimeter Hydraulic Radius Hydraulic Depth Specific Energy Centroid of Flow Area Specific Force Calculated) 76443 cfs Fri _ V- Ate. Tr D= Es= Yu - (08 .&30f fps 1 sq ft 9.56 ft 1( 35 1,14 ft 1.27 ft 2,72 ft ft lip Critical Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal-_. Chan no Project: _ Channel ID t Discharge from Pond I Design Information (Input) Bottom Width Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Design Discharge 1= Z1= Z9 - 1.80 ft/ft 1.80 ft/f: 1&53 cfs Critical Flow Condition (Calculated) Critical Flow Depth Critical Flow Area Critical Top Width Critical Hydraulic Depth Critical Flow Velocity Froude Number Critical Wetted Perimeter Critical Hydraulic Radius Critical (min) Specific Energy Centroid on the Critical Flow Area Critical (min) Specific Force T« D= V = Fri F• - R OAS ft 158. sq ft 546 ft 0.66- ft 4.62 fps 1-.030 ft (XM 0 ;:6o. ft Esc = Yoc = Esc . ft. ��. ft kip 91 1-014 Exist Outfalf Swale ,UD=Channelty 1.04.xls, Basics 2/27/2018, 7:42 AM weir to Oil Page 158 of hilydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3DO by Autodesk, Inc.. Thursday, Mar 1 2018 911-014 - Spillway South Sidewalk WCR 32 (Station 12+05). 1 00 -year Overtops Roadkwi Rectangular Weir Crest Bottom Length (ft) Total Depth (t) Calculations Weir Coe . Cw Compute by: No. increments =Broad 120.00 2.60 vs Depth 0 Highlighted Depth (ft) (cfs) Area (sqft) 'loony ft/s) Top Widt ift) it4111)4 m Spillway South Sidewalk WCR 3.2 (StatIon 12+0 5):, IOOSye r 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 a 0.17 1 .87 20.40 .07 1 20.00 vertops Roadway 1.00 0 5 0.00 -0.50 )-ft) V\/ e i r )ut:blank s Length (ft) 7/3/2( weir Report Page 159 of 1 Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCA1 R Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc_ 911-014 - Spillway S, Sidewalk WCR 32 (33+60). Rectangular Weir Crest Bottom Length (ft) Total Depth (ft) Calculations We oeff. Cw Compute by, o. increments Broad 100.00 C vs Depth o Thursday, Mar '1 2013 i00yr Overtops Roadway (Q=152-cfs) Highlighted Depth (ft) (cfs) Area (sqft) Velocity (ids) Top Width (ft) = 0.70 152.27 70.00 =2.18 = 100.00 depth (fti la014 a Spillway S Sidewalk WCR 32 (33+50). 1 OO yr Overtops Roadway (C=1&2-cfse 1.00 050 0.00 -0.50 :w:'vli.. u,._..:aKLr"i.?. i'•...iZ..r.. LwJ `a'r"gr� -'�.PRpI^g I ) e i $$k{k 8 F 7 I . ...mu.y.0.'bi.. 0 10 Weir 20 30 40 '.S. 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 oth (ft) 1.00 0 r. 50 0.00 -0.50 Length (ft) )ut:blank 7/;/2( Page 161 of 1 NORTHERN ENuu} CE k,NC `age .,. Storage, a ulatio Project Number: 91��'1]��j'-014�j Project Location: Then of Meac Calculations By: A. Morse Date: 3/2/2018 Pond No,: West Require""d ''' ume -Water Surface Elevation SE) Design Point P 1 Design Storm 100-yr Require Volume= 11.46 5008.01 ft. Design Storm WQCV Required Volume= 34674 5004.31.ft., Contour Elevation (Y. values) Contour Area Depth incremental Volume Total Volume Total Volume ry ;t2 #t.{ r y - ft� ft3 acre -fleet 5,002.17 �� f� 0.00 0 0 u. 5,002.20 2'1 0.03 0 0 0.00 5,002.40 536 0.20 44 44 0.00 5,002.60 1987 0.20 237 281 .0.01 5,002.80 4380 0.20 62 ► 902 0.02 5,003.00 7,604 0.20 1 183 2084 0.05 5,003.:20 11,763 0.20 1920 4004 0.09 5,003.40 16,96.2 0.20 2854 6858 0.16 5,003.60 .23,194 0.20 3995 10853 0.25 5,003.80 29A74 020 5249 16102 0.37 5,004.00 35,795 0.20 6510 22612 0.52 5,004.20 42503 020 7812 30425 0.70' 5,004.40 49,651 0.20 9197 39622 0.91 5,004.60 57,327 0.20 10678 50300 1.15 5,004.80 65,613 0.20 12272 62572 1.''4 5,005.00 74,010 0.20 13940 755.12 1.76 5,005.20 82,095 0.20 15588 92100 2.11 5,005.40 90,470 0.20 17232 10933.3 2.51 5,005.60 99,267 0.20 18948 128280 2.94 5,005.80 108,420 0.20 20741 149022 3.42 5,006.00 117,813 0.20 22594 171616 3.94 5,006.20 127;299 0.20 24481 196096 4.50 5,006.40 136,940 0.20 26392 222488 5.11 5,006.60 146,618 0.20 28322 250810 5.76 5,006.80 155.738 0.20 30201 281011 6.45 5,007.00 1164,319 0.20 31970 312 981 7.19 5,007.20 172,457 020 33641 I 346621 6 7.96 5,007.40 180,189 0.20 35226 381848 8.77 5,007.60 187,632 020 36743 418591 9.61 5,007.80 194.896 0.20 38212 456803 10.49 5,008.00 202;020 0.20 39650 496453 11.40 5,•008..20 208,804 0.20 41039 537492 12.34 5,008.40 215511 0.20 42387 579880 13.31 5,008.60 222189 0.20./ 43725 623604 14.32 5,008.80 228416 0.20 45014 668618 15.35 5,009.00 2 .3754 0,20 46170 714788 16.41 5,009.20- 238335 0.20 47161 761949 17.49 r ! 4u 9 5.00. 2C = 0.70 80 V 809994 18.59 5,009.60 246980 0.20 48909 858902 19.79 00 O �.iJJ;J.'•�l.1 5 7 T 2�1..-4j= _ 0.70_ ,' t' 68 -� 'rUP..'i 9 08670 ��.i�v% ..' 2} 86 i4.�.. 5010.00 255666 0.20 50636 959306 22.02 Storm 6 Inv out at 5002.17° iCCV calculated at 5004.31' 47- WQCV Degisn at 50O4.50' E 100 -year at 5008.01' E Emergency Spillway at 5010.00' _j-� '� Minimum back of Lot Elevation - 5010.00r r :,. �� • Ft{,r V 1r i )ut:hlank 7/3/2( Page 162 of 1 N _ NORTHERN ENGINEERING ./V , I I I VV Stage ,W Storage Calculation Project Number: 'JI .i ..::. ;- Project Location: Then of Mean! Calculations By: A. Morse Date: 312/2018 Pond No,: East Requited Votwne ..: - . . , : 'Water Surface ilevration (wsE) Design Point P-2 Design Storm 100-yr Require Volume= 5.60 5014.29 i1. Design Storm WQCV Required Volume= 57953 5012.72 ft. Contour Elevation (Y- values) Contour Area Depth Incremental Volume Total Volume Tonal Voiume 3 �� Rey ft. ft3 ft3 acre-feet 5,009/0 1 0.00 0 0 0 5,009.80 60 0..10 2 2 0.00 5,010.00 4"13 0.20 42 44 0.00 5.01020 -123.' 0.20 157 201 0..00 5,01,x_40 2557 0.20 370 572 0.01 5,010.60 4,413 0.20 688 1260 0.0, 3 5,010.80 6,813 0.20 1113 2372, 0.05. 5,011.00 9,775 020 1648 4021 0.09 5,011..20 13,322 0.20 2298 6319 0.15 5,011.40 , 17,48.2 0..20 3068 9387 0.22 5,011.60 22,260 0.20 3961 13348- 0.31 5,011.80 27,657 0..20 4977 18325 0..42 5,012.00 33;68'1 0.20 6118 24442 0.56 5,0'12.20 40,417 0.20 7392 31834 0..73 5,012.40 48,180 0.20 8839 40674 0:.93. 5,012.60 57,275 0.20 10522 51196, 1.18. 5.012.80 67.783 0.20 12479 63674 1.46 5,013.00 80.367 0.20 14782 78457 1.80 5,013.20 95,038 0.20 17503 95959 2.20 5,013.40 110,188 0.20 20483 116443 2.67 5,013.60 125,089 0.20 23488 139931 3.21 5,013.80- 1400.,237 0.20 26492 166423 182 5,014.00 155,.260 0.20 29507 195930 4.50 5,014.20 169,010 0..20 32384 228314 5.24 5,014.40 183,464 0.20 35201 263515 6..05 5,014.50 195,575 0.20 37859 301375 6.92 5,0 14.80 206,907 0.20 40203 341577 7.84 5,015.00 218,009 0.20 42444 384022 8.82 5,015.20 23'0,000 0.20 I 44751 428- 2 9.84 � 5,0.15.40 ^; 240.000 0.20 � P �; 4649 r.7 475, 22 10.92 n 5,015.60 250.000 0.20 48948 524669 12.04 5,0 15.80 259.;830 0.20 50929 575598 1191 r- Storm 1 Inv out at 5009.70 WQCV calculated at 5012/2' F- 'IVQCV Degisn at 5013_00' 4- 10O -year at 5014.29' 4.- Emergency Spillway at 5015 80' 4- Top of Pond Berm at 5015.80' •F, fa; 1 nut:blank •r 7/3/2( Pace 163 of ] APPENDIX M Water Quality Calculations n t:blank 7/3/2( Page 164 of 1 VV/ I GI RAJ .7 I I I-. WATER QUALITY CONTROL STRUCTURE PLATE POND 1 Project: Sorrento Subdivision By: A. Morse March 15, 2018 REQUIRED STORAGE & OUTLET WORKS: BASIN AREA (acres)= 91.070 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS PERCENT = 38.30 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS RATIO = 0.3830 <-- CALCULATED Drain Time (hrs) 40 <-- INPUT Drain Time Coefficient 1.0 <-- CALCULATED from Table 3-2 `a' WQCV (watershed inches) = 0.175 <-- CALCULATED from Equation 3-1 `a' WQCV (ac -ft) = 1.597 <-- CALCULATED from Equation 3-3 (Full Spectrum) WQ Depth (ft) = 2.330 <-- INPUT from stage -storage table AREA REQUIRED PER ROW, a (in2) = 3.422 <-- CALCULATED from WQCV Workbook (b) CIRCULAR PERFORATION SIZING: Spacing (in) 4 <-- INPUT dia (in) = 2 <-- CALCULATED number of rows = 7 <-- CALCULATED t (in) = 1/5 <-- INPUT from Table OS -2 "' number of columns = 1 <-- CALCULATED from WQ Depth and row spacing (a) Urban Drainage and Flood Control District USDCM Volume 3, Chapter 3 - Updated November 201C (b) Urban Drainiage and Flood Control District, WQCV Workbook Version 2.33, August 201 (c) Urban Drainage and Flood Control District USDCM Volume 3, Chapter 4 - Updated November 2010 )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 165 of l NORTHERN ti ENGINEERING OR/F1S RATING CURVE Pond 1 - Orifice Plate Project: Date: By: Orifice Plate Sorrento 911.014 03/15/201 A. Morse -C, 2qH Q 100-yr WSEL 5008.01 Outflovii Orifice Coefficient Gravity Constant 100 -year head O rifice Area O rifice Area Radius Diameter Q Cd 9 H Ac A0 d 15.9 cfs 0.65 32.2 ft/s"2 5.84 ft t26 ftA2 181.29 inA2 7.6 in 15.2 in Orifice Curve Stage (ft) H (ft) 0 (cfs) 5,002.17 0.00 0.00 I 5,002.20 0.03 1.14 5,0'02.40 0.23 3.15 5,002.60 0.43 4.31 5,002.80 0.63 5.21 5,003.00 0.83 5.98 5,003.20 1.103 6.66 5,003.40 1.23 728 5.,003..60 1.43 3 7.85 5,003.80 1.63 8.38 5,004.00 1.83 8.88 5,00420 2.03 I 9.36 5,004.40 2.23 9.81 I 5,004.60 243 10.24 I 5,004.80 2.63 10.'65 5,005.00 2.83 11.05 5,005.20 3.03 11.43 5,005.40 123 11.80 5,1005.60 3.43 12.16 I 5,005.80 3.63 12.51 5,006.00 3.83 1.2..85 5.006.23 4.03 13.18 1 5.006..40 4.23 13.51 5,006.60 4.43 1182 5,006.80 4683 14.13 5,007.00 4.83 14.43 5,007.20 5.03 14.73 5,007.40 5.23 15.02 5,007.60 5.43 15.30 5,007.80 5.63 15.58 5,008.00 5.83 15.86 15 2018 2:57 PM ntut:blank Step "Iles * _:• •_ r „71 J _ �. • a 3■ f ▪ ▪ — a. 7/312( Page 166 of 1 !Ltd Cl I I WATER QUALITY CONTROL STRUCTURE PLATE POND 2 Project: Sorrento Subdivision By: A. Morse March 15, 2018 REQUIRED STORAGE & OUTLET WORKS: BASIN AREA (acres)= 65.110 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS PERCENT = 28.50 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS RATIO = 0.2850 <-- CALCULATED Drain Time (hrs) 40 <-- INPUT Drain Time Coefficient 1.0 <-- CALCULATED from Table 3-2 WQCV (watershed inches) = 0.147 <-- CALCULATED from Equation 3-1 WQCV (ac -ft) = 0.955 <-- CALCULATED from Equation 3-3 (Full Spectrum) WQ Depth (ft) = 3.020 <-- INPUT from stage -storage table AREA REQUIRED PER ROW, a (in2) = 1.895 <-- CALCULATED from WQCV Workbook `b' CIRCULAR PERFORATION SIZING: Spacing (in) 4 <-- INPUT dia (in) = 1 5/9 <-- CALCULATED number of rows = 9 <-- CALCULATED t (in) = 1/5 <-- INPUT from Table OS -2 number of columns = 1 <-- CALCULATED from WQ Depth and row spacing (a) Urban Drainage and Flood Control District USDCM Volume 3, Chapter 3 - Updated November 20K (b) Urban Drainiage and Flood Control District, WQCV Workbook Version 2.33, August 201` (c) Urban Drainage and Flood Control District USDCM Volume 3, Chapter 4 - Updated November 2010 rat:blank 7/3/?N Page 167 of l NORTHERN ENGINEERING OR!F!C RATING CURVE Pond 2 , Orifice Plate Project: Date: By: Orifice Plate Sorrento 911-014 03115/201 A. Morse QCAO 2Q1-1 Q eadaakaatrailla C .H 100-yr WSEL.= 5014.29 Outflow Orifice Coefficient Gravity Constant 100 -year head Orifice Area Orifice Area Radius Diameter Q Cd g H A0 Ac r d 11.0 cfs 0..65 32.2 ft's"2 4.59 ft 0..98 ftA2 141.74 inA2 6.7 in 13.4 in Orifice Curve Stage (ft) H eft) 0 (cfs) 0.00 3 .00 5,009/0 5,009.90 0.20 2.30 5,010.10 0.40 315 5,010.30 0.60 3.98 5,010.50 0.80 4.59 5,010/0 1.00 513 5,010.90 1.20 5.62 5,011.10 1.40 6.08 5,011.30 1.60 6.49 5,011.50 1.8'0 6.89 5,011.70 2.00 7.26 5,'011..90 -2.20 7.62 i 5.,012.10 .240 7.95 5,012.30 2.60 828 5,012.50 2.80 8.59 5,012.70 3.00 8.89 5.,-012,.90 3..20 9.18 5,013.10 140 9.47 5,013.30 3.60 I 9.74 5,013.50 3.80 10.01 5,013.70 4.00 1017 5,013.90 4.20 10..52 5,014.10 4.40 10.77 5,014.30 4.60 11.01 3215'2018 3:06 PM )Llt:blank 7/3/2( APPENDIX N :9.s...ealN-..-.r---fi> .XLf34,R,.M .-... ...,J..-n,e,n.b Acv:N�,3,-.:^i''^,-?!^i^.ri,Tfl_n .-.,.9.7.. f .. ____ .. ".•..._s—.r,-J.•___.nn _ Page 169 of l EROSION CONTROL REPORT A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) will be included with the final construction drawings. It should be noted, however, that any such Erosion and Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of the BMPs depicted, and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during construction, or as required by the authorities having jurisdiction. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly maintained and followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living document, constantly adapting to site conditions and needs. The Contractor shall update the location of BMPs as they are installed, removed or modified in conjunction with construction activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented during construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices from the Volume 3, Chapter 7 — Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways and inlet protection at existing and proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor. Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on the Utility Plans. The Final Plans will contain a full-size Erosion Control sheet as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere to, the applicable requirements outlined in the Development Agreement for the development. Also, the Site Contractor for this project will be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division — Stormwater Program, prior to any earth disturbance activities. Prior to securing said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive StormWater Management Plan (SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance of construction BMPs. )ut:blank 7/3/2( )ut:blank 7/3/2( O 33PP J 5049_ so ef _ / / / / / ) r - 5028- ll % - -50J2 - _ - - - 5033- _ - - 5034 / / ( . / / �p19 J I I ® / / Ph / , , / / l I}{1,_ _boy —?Y q� / SOJp� SOJ / / 1J t — _ sots_ _ — \ `5037 1 J ,•� / / / / / �1� I �sb l - b1- _ — ` -� / / •, / / , ▪ / y32`r a �5°2d - — \ �' 32 -1 / / / / / / - ", �1 /' �`\ \ / / c / / 5°Z '' In 1-1 / So25 _ , ` - 5o 6peq ` I / / / �"� / , / / /5a22 o Nl• l� ` -5015_ \ H1 - -'\ \ Q ( "�/ // H2 v./ /,r 1,111‘, �I 5p p l �� ! \ \ 91 99 AC ` l',' / / 70 77 AC i yam! fj ( / ( / / / O YCC Ng � sots- �sa25� I I 1 / y° / I 6 U - III `�� _ 5074 \ \ `�l) Ail I I 1 I I II _ I l �;� 5022 so23 ` ,pyl `-3°Z? `\ \ \ —.2s \ 74 I I r / / 'Lo II 5021 _ _ _ \ tr. • \` ` - I I / ,4'11 / ''no Ian ilif / — - 5p \ 602 \ \ \ ( o / r / M1 /� '$ 5025— — ,?0\ `� M\ \ N 19` 1 �1, �\ \'®t 1 / l / , �, �� n1�� \ '¢'°, \ �` _ \ 5013 \ / / IMf-i' -- 5019— — — - - \ ` \ I % ( / / / '— - -A9'6- \ k \ 6221 ` \ \ \ I 1 8 / ho / \ \ 1 1� "� I ( / 5o�n ,1 — -J016 _ " \ \ \ I / / \ \ I I (li ) — -5017 -- 4t? \ ` I I I 1 ¢ 15p 6 � , \ \ \ \ \ ` \ \ I I I I 1 I 1 5 17 21\„, — —sole ----1 \--1, s°'s \ \ \ \ ® } I I I I ll r1'N='so, 2:._ s°j6 6°,d \\\ \\\\b I I i I Il / / f°1� v \\ '� I I I / I �f `cols \ ... \ '30,2 \ \ \\\ \ Y' I I 1 I I I / �/ a 6°'"` \ 501 , . \ \ \ \ \ � I I I / d I I P _6p7/� \ \\ \ \22 r I I I I f // ` O. ,,,,,o(,' \ ill ----/‘ x°76 \ \ \ \ ��=\ 1 I I \� o - _ 6°,,. `50,1 \ -- ‘\\I''''5-13."&;1"1""4:1511\11 - - 4 1I COUNTY ROAD 32 50 r s° +1` - ' / - -5041- -- � 3°0�i / /' YY _ ✓ _ 5040- -----— —.F / f / .5Vf o — --;06-7: � — 3 5oJs — — --So3e— .� /--- ‘••-----=f_ f r —5038- So3e— - - - :////' - S • � ,� 5037- - - 5037- - //^0� --503 - 50}4 - -5035- _ 5035 / / _5034 _ ▪ - - _. / / / 5,019 7 NORTH 300 300 Feel (IN FEET) -I r J, dmil - 0S.1 9 . 7 N0' ENt J o•..astuau of au 461• ii N a C CS 0 tits MIS 1..1 I ' )NGMON I QUADRANGLE. 2016 I DATUM NAVD 88j I I ft 0 I SO 1P -gissaii,r a SOS SEIM t efts ft!► WCR -OS1 I I 1 lair- sitte,sk Pin �� goeit.: oiliesty s ►� i Lig: _ � n ei__W u_ i a#$1_ I tsel�_J Ifll111111111Iiittwi �� II 0-1 *El rinImo ih, al `� �, �iiiii�II �► All 1at "sun'',u j? I as Ire. Iiii i.��IM ► `'Aleillwiliti!Ilitail airm-mtilimallairlosibLEst al...re sit Im { i am �+� rs 11,11.1110;11/I11 Oh WWI NIMI ea IRE 1 is,„ io lee p nrc:_. . . nit, vi a ain 17 -6:atzirs I lei ii* ' 7i1T5±PTt! Inc irstill is It. NORTH 500 0 500 1000 t _ ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 500 ft. 150CFset 1 FF ITE DRAINA E EXHIBI "'d CD La C `-h adessi's* 4 1 NOTES 1. OFFSITI (USGS 7 ►►,Q►.►J E1 O $04111011111 0141104011 /flail. V N O It 180 1,5 rt I u u' I-i�- l` I"— BLarK 1 I I - I il�r Z's= -r! 1 7.-i--i-471 f' `I- I-�AIJVUS STREET JIL J'1 it.! � �F"rr ---- 3LOCK[� itz:"1 T c-1Ah NA STRE- ET Tom".' i .I 111 I' }I welesso _yLOCn 1 ` � 1 �s -- DEXTER STPECT T---- _3EI BV- I STREE▪ T vao ,41 .� i -777 t PINCW•ODS STREET_ s r Ink_ one --- OWNER Boa I EUGENE BUL5lEY BLOCK 6 -AYRSHISTREET HOLSTEIN STREET —t I I i w I _ _x ` g i I v l SENEPOL STREET -E a ( - _ =- 1- T J1 I' �IJ I __ W .. �I 4, g ' -- ICO )Z BLOCK 25 CC _ 1 I,, 2 II . H 12 10 r rar ss-R4 _4r BLOCK 29 sa�t1 NER ,11£1192 F30µ5 LTD BLOCK 23- BLOCK 20 IO2.sR FUFB NC902IYIAY 0.11099.0140 palPBS MOOIFI-31109 TO MA1K PER r94.Iw0 PUN IM IGIADl 4P 0£51711 BLOCK21 / (7 YNEN \PAK 6 EUGENE BUCKLEY 44,0455E9 45455 OOESRLIEASE 10OGP,. 3120211 w :-5) 100Ya0SF 5014,2215IOeo02 5.2.21,11,1? 5015p0 111 I Dry FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OWNER 1Ehh)FER 6 TYLER BD ENKE 0 MIEN MARK 9 JICf1UELYN EACH) 4EROF'(CY 059021 0 C +015149 DRAINAGE 5UMmART TABLE DESIGN BASIN pats I4 01 DIEN POINT P I4 Ill G2 ,100 11+01 Mu (CJ VII 411 la St 40' 2110 111 19 1,1 w b OI3 050 al xI 1 052 463 14 1 1 3 xi 2113 0+ 051 19 5D Pa 01 XI 4 0 542 GM 11 5 5 12.4 2 B2 4,. 411 a l 112 Tv 1 l 0I ,154 044 080 121 1 84 I. 4 0245 012 11.7 125 el B a 111 0 CA Of 12 I 4l ry 0 1 410 IDS r L /1.1 aln 4 111 E I12 200 C 12 23 0 0 422 141 x) III I 0 10,04 4111 0 5 I 00 15/ 91 DI 041425 00 1 9 42 112 0 I 03 42^ 4 u> [ I 01 1 I 0 ;W 49 1e 1 I 018 Usx 412 .. 2.01 01,0 Li 12 i+1 4)1 051 241 4 2 C) L 41 011 OW 142 5$ Pi r. 14 4 5 44 wI o 4) 9 0 45 1 1 0+c 545 II 141 114 Lc lb 111 0 49 220 I.1 2 0 I, n I 04? 444 4 2 111 1 + 6 81 41 413 lot 4 14 fY I 414 011 42 10 rn 10 r1 +r 17 405 14+ 3) fe r 305 431 OA 191 111 Ila fl a 044 409 110 IP III 4+ it 5 3 I 55 451 9 rl 01 -, x) Fb rt. I Si 097 Ms 1 U P II 591 Cl 420 11 40 11 1 1e 11 41) 010 111 /9 14 I III 00 134 41 I1a II 3141 ux rx 1 + 4 5 s9 M b N x1 4 OM 404 I 2 ill alh 111 1 1 .x 1 + ly 4+01 11 a 10K 4 n5 192 N 3 pi 1 452 Ill U.S a IP RI RN 0 PE 1 0 01 0 4 POI 944 2,0 u/ 1.1 91 1 I QM 019 Ise 07 5 9> F2 081 401 449 13 05 ,A 51014111 Ind . AR KPYIIIAP LEGEND FROPDYD STORK PIER PRow® 11021 PROPOSED CONTOU0 £115100 401019 I 81201050,7 34 PROPOSED MO 0111131 PROPER', 6PISAar 041247 PONT IRA 001011 51045040 00500 403. 1mld .I. a 5104554[ 00310 201AO1NT jA 6.121 001 B E PROPOSED *6020 SC1104 TYPICAL SWALE SECTION 2.r YN. 2.R PTI�t IA 7�p m — .-..1K (n CIO SWALE SUMMARY TABLE IITI '.1.,P'10 15[9505500 f�f. DN D 1010. DJ4 ?MN TY epee 54 52 11 1,04 100 263 306 100 4 2-2 100 141 2'C 3T0 120 3-1 050 0,44 050 200 20 10 10 44 040 0,85 125 293 20 10 5 54 100 1 15 215 .0 2 0 10 10 60 100 102 230 440 20 10 10 22 1,00 2.00 300 320 130 4 4 BA 002 0,61 130 425 20 00 25 9.0 190 110 210 445 20 2 5 1410 100 Ira 240 410 20 4 4 1111 100 1 I 210 1750 60 5 10 PROJECT BENCHMARKS Pr0511 0409,85324 NGS Benchmark 132rr E1ee4005 -4502 16 000110 10015 5086 r00059.1.1 Siff Elr OUm 52199Z IN.° 1608E 980.1' Know CaaIIE4 Claw 4blo1025 . . o o.1(—i.su ;,11.04 TO*Y OG MEAD 00.010200 00192050 APPROVAL $-_SM iY Tw Z 2 ce LA. a 2 le 10(N— - c)C La A' as SORRENTO SUBDIVISION OSNER MALEY LNi) COMPANY Lt C 1 is OWNER HALT V LAM) CCWANY ILO Sill: OA r .fit IAAn till,: so a O Page 1 of Architecture Structural Geotechnical ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP Materials Testing Forensic Civil/Planning PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE SOIL INVESTIGATION Sorrento Estates Annex - Phase 1 & 2 Part of the NW 1/4, Section 21, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M. Mead, Colorado PREPARED FOR: Horizon View Homes, LLC 555 Middle Creek Pkwy, Ste 380 Colorado Springs, CO 80921 JOB NO. 161472 January 5, 2018 Cordially, RMG — Rocky Mountain Group Lauren McIver, EIT Thomas M. Cope, P.E. Geotechnical Staff Engineer Sr. Geotechnical Project Manager Southern Office. Colorado Springy!.:, (. O15001;5 Central Orrice: I11gIcvJ d,(.t)RiiI I 7 04 Northern Office: Deans, (_ K0ti20 0-a) 310 1071 Nlonuutent: 710.4S5.2I45 VVoudland Park: 710.(57 007"7 Erbil/Kurdistan Iraq: 1)751) 102 90 44 )ut:blank tl 15 \d .1'lll!;-i' 11;? Int rti. nit nl 6/27/2( Page 2 of TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE 3 Project Location 3 Project Description 3 Scope of Work 3 Existing Site Conditions 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4 Subsurface Investigation 4 Laboratory Testing 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 Soil and Bedrock Profile 4 Groundwater 5 CONCLUSIONS 5 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND EARTHWORK 6 Site Preparation 6 Excavations 6 Structural Fill 6 Utility Construction 7 FOUNDATION OPTIONS 7 Anticipated Foundation Systems 7 Groundwater Conditions 7 Open Excavation Observations 8 INTERIOR FLOOR SYSTEMS 8 Interior Floor Slabs 8 Interior Partitions 8 Foundation Wall Backfill 9 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 9 SURFACE DRAINAGE 9 CONCRETE 10 CLOSING 10 FIGURES Site Vicinity Map 1 Test Boring Location Plan 2 Test Boring Logs 3-9 Explanation of the Test Boring Logs 10 Summary of Laboratory Test Results 11 Soil Classification Data and Atterberg Limits Test Results 12-13 Swell/Consolidation Test Results 14-20 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 3 of PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE Project Location The project lies in part of the northwest quarter of Section 21, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the sixth P.M. in Weld County, Colorado. The site is generally located to the southwest of the Town of Mead, Colorado. The proposed residential development is located south of Weld County Road 32 and east of Weld County Road 5. The approximate location of the site is shown in the Site Vicinity Map on Figure 1. Project Description The proposed Sorrento Estates is to consist of the development of a parcel of vacant, undeveloped property for residential use. The proposed development will consist of the construction of 454 single family homes. The proposed subdivision has been further divided into five phases. This preliminary investigation was conducted for the lots located within Phase 1 and 2. Scope of Work RMG was retained to assess the soil conditions and develop preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations to support the residential land development for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed Sorrento Estates Subdivision. Our scope of services consisted of a field investigation, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and report preparation. This report presents preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed development. The report presents recommendations for the treatment of subsurface conditions and preliminary design of foundations. This report does not constitute final construction recommendations for the proposed development. A lot specific subsurface soil investigation should be performed at each proposed building prior to construction. The following is excluded fluli the scope of this report including but not limited to geologic, natural and environmental hazards such as landslides, unstable slopes, seismicity, snow avalanches, water flooding, corrosive soils, erosion, radon, wild fire protection, hazardous waste and natural resources. Existing Site Conditions At the time of our field exploration the land was undeveloped and overlot grading had not occured. No utilities had been installed within the proposed development. An above ground powerline and underground fiber optic lines are installed adjacent to the eastern side of WCR 5. A review of aerial photographs and observations of site surface conditions indicate little to no development or activity has occurred at the site. Historic aerial photographs indicate the site was previously used for agriculture. At the time of our field exploration, the site was an agricultural field which was recently plowed and tilled. Roadways have not been installed. D AU: _ CI NAP. Inh ?Mrs IA IA'7') )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 4 of Topography of the site generally slopes gently down from the north to the south. Vegetation generally consisted of the remnants of the plowed field. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING The information included in this preliminary report has been compiled from field reconnaissance, maps of the site, exploratory soil borings and soil laboratory testing. Geophysical investigations were not considered necessary for characterization of the site geology. Monitoring programs, which typically include instrumentation and/or observations for changes in groundwater, surface water flows, slope stability, subsidence, and similar conditions, are not known to exist and were not considered applicable for the scope of this report. Subsurface Investigation The subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling 13 exploratory test borings, distributed throughout Phase 1 and Phase 2. The approximate locations of the test borings are presented in the Test Boring Location Plan on Figure 2. The test borings were advanced with a power -driven, continuous -flight auger drill rig to depths of about 40 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Auger refusal was encountered in 3 of the test borings. Samples were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D-3550 utilizing a 21/2 -inch OD modified California sampler or in general accordance with ASTM D- 1586 utilizing a 2 -inch OD split -barrel sampler. The Test Boring Logs are presented in Figures 3 and 9. An Explanation of Test Boring Logs is presented in Figure 10. Laboratory Testing The moisture content for the recovered samples was obtained in the laboratory. Grain -size analysis, Atterberg Limits, and swell/consolidation tests were performed on selected samples for purposes of classification and to develop pertinent engineering properties. A Summary of Laboratory Test Results is presented in Figure 11. Soil Classification and Atterberg Test Results are presented in Figures 12 and 13. Swell/Consolidation Test Results are presented in Figure 14 through 20. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil and Bedrock Profile The subsurface materials encountered in the test borings were classified using the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS). The surface materials in all test borings consisted of approximately 6 inches of clayey topsoil underlain by medium stiff to stiff sandy lean clay. The sandy lean clay is underlain by hard to very hard siltstone. The siltstone was encountered in all test borings and was as shallow as 3 feet below existing grade. Additional descriptions and the interpreted distribution (approximate depths) of the subsurface materials are presented. on the Test Boring Logs. The classifications shown on the logs are DAIt )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 5 of based upon the engineer's classification of the samples at the depths indicated. Stratification lines shown on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and the actual transitions may be gradual and vary with location. Groundwater At the time of drilling, groundwater was encountered in all test borings at approximate depths ranging between 7 and 28 feet below existing grade. Following the completion of drilling, static groundwater was observed in all 13 test borings at approximate depths ranging between 5 and 12 feet below existing grade. Variations in groundwater and subsurface moisture conditions may occur due to variations in rainfall and other factors not readily apparent at this time. Development of the property and adjacent properties may also affect groundwater levels. The groundwater appears to be a perched condition which means the groundwater is more greatly impacted by surface water and can be controlled more easily. CONCLUSIONS The following discussion is based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings and on the project characteristics previously described. If conditions are different from those described in this report or the project characteristics change, RMG should be retained to review our recommendations and adjust them, if necessary. The results of this investigation indicate that the site is suitable for the proposed project provided the preliminary recommendations presented herein are implemented. As previously discussed, the site is underlain primarily by an upper lean clay material and siltstone. The sandy lean clay samples tested exhibited swells less than 0.4% when wetted against a surcharge pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot. The siltstone samples tested exhibited swells less than 1% when wetted against a surcharge pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot. However, one sample B7 at 39' swelled approximately 1.7% when wetted against a surcharge pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot. RMG was not provided proposed final grading plans to determine the potential cuts and fills anticipated on site. Depending on the final grades the perched groundwater on site may limit construction of basement foundations. The perched groundwater may be lowered with the installation of an underdrain designed and constructed with the sanitary sewer collection system. Furthermore, the underdrain should be designed to capture perched groundwater flows from the up gradient area north of the site. Preliminary recommendations based on the field investigation and laboratory testing, are presented below. It must be understood that these recommendations should be verified with a final subsurface soils investigation once over lot grading has occurred. UAA(: G I?AA/. L.1. \I,. I/. 1477 nut:blank 6/27/2( Page 6 of SITE DEVELOPMENT AND EARTHWORK Site Preparation Prior to construction the ground surface in proposed structure and improvement areas should be stripped of existing vegetation, debris, topsoil, undocumented fill, soft, loose, or disturbed native soils, and other deleterious material. Soil with organic materials generated during clearing operations should be removed from the project site for disposal or placed in areas that will not be supporting structures including sidewalks and streets. Soft, loose, or yielding subgrade should be removed to a depth that exposes firm subgrade and replaced with structural fill. In areas to receive structural fill, the exposed subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted per the recommendations set forth in the Structural Fill section of this report. Excavations The on -site surface and near surface soils may generally be excavated with heavy-duty earthmoving or excavation equipment in good operating condition. During wet weather, earthen berms, swales, or other methods should be used where necessary to route water away from excavations. Water that accumulates in excavations should be promptly pumped out or otherwise removed and the area allowed to dry before resuming construction. Structural Fill Areas to receive compacted granular structural fill should have topsoil, organic material, or debris removed. The upper 6 inches of the exposed surface soils should be scarified and moisture conditioned to facilitate compaction (usually within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content) and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor test (ASTM D-698). Structural fill placed on slopes should be benched into the slope. Maximum bench heights should not exceed 4 feet, and bench widths should be wide enough to accommodate compaction equipment. Structural fill shall consist of non -expansive material. It should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned to facilitate compaction (usually within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content) and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor test, ASTM D-698. The materials should be compacted by mechanical means. Materials used for structural fill should be approved by RMG prior to use. Structural fill should not be placed on frozen subgrade or allowed to freeze during moisture conditioning and placement. To verify the condition of the compacted soils, density tests should be performed during placement. The first density tests should be conducted when 24 inches of fill have been placed. D AA!: DnnU.• AA..n..r-tin nut:blank D AA(: /nl. NI,. IAI 17, 6/27/2( Page 7 of Utility Construction The contractor should provide adequate mechanical compaction in the utility trench backfills. The contractor should take particular care in the lower portions of excavations and around manholes, valve risers and other vertical pipeline elements where settlements are commonly observed. Our experience indicates that significant settlement of backfill can occur in utility trenches, particularly when trenches are deep, when backfill materials are placed in thick lifts with insufficient compaction, and when water can access and infiltrate the trench backfill materials. Consideration should be given to use of "flowable fill," (e.g. a controlled low strength mix (CLSM), or a similar material) in lieu of compacted soil backfill in areas with low tolerances for surface settlements, in deep excavations, and areas with difficult access. Soils in utility excavations may encounter "Type A" and "Type B" soil according to OSHA regulations. Trench backfill should be compacted to City and/or County specifications and it is recommended that a representative of RMG provide full-time observation and compaction testing. Granular pipe bedding materials can function as conduits for re -distribution of natural and applied waters in the subsurface. Development of site grading plans should consider the subsurface transfer of water in utility trenches and the pipe bedding in areas where the utility service trenches enter structures. Cut-off walls in utility trenches or other water -stopping measures may be implemented to reduce the rates and volumes of water transmitted along utility alignments toward structures, where wetting of the underlying soils increases the potential for soil movements, material degradation, or structural distress. FOUNDATION OPTIONS Anticipated Foundation Systems The native on -site clay soils and siltstone are suitable for direct bearing of shallow foundations. A maximum allowable bearing pressure of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 psf with no minimum dead load pressure may be used for design purposes. Foundation components must be below all organic material and should extend 30 inches or more below the lowest exterior finished grade for frost protection. The foundation design should be prepared by a qualified Colorado Registered Professional Engineer using the recommendations presented in this report. This foundation system should be designed to span a minimum of 10 feet under the design loads. If deep cuts (10' or more) are anticipated for final grading, you may need to provide a 2 feet over -excavation and replace with granular structural fill material or up to 4 feet over - excavation with on -site moisture conditioned soils. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered relatively shallow that may impact basement construction. We recommend a minimum three foot (3') separation of the foundation system and slab D4(I A!: L.1, Th. I Al I -r' )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 8 of from groundwater. If the supporting soils for the foundation and slab are soft due to the effects of the groundwater or you cfioose to build within the recommended three feet (3') of the groundwater, we recommend a minimum two foot (2') layer of washed aggregate or crushed concrete with less than 5% fines be used to support the house foundation system. RMG was not provided with estimated cuts and fills for the overlot grading. A perched groundwater condition is likely to occur in the area once development is established and surface irrigation systems are operating due to the bedrock encountered. This type of groundwater is more easily controlled with sewer underdrains and potentially a perimeter drain around the subdivision. A subsurface perimeter drain is recommended around portions of the structure which will have habitable or storage space located below the finished ground surface. This includes crawlspace areas but not the walkout trench, if applicable. A subsurface perimeter drain is designed to intercept some types of subsurface moisture and not others. Therefore, the drain could operate properly and not mitigate all moisture problems relating to foundation performance or moisture intrusion into the basement area. Open Excavation Observations During construction, foundation excavations should be observed by RMG prior to placing structural fill, forms or concrete to verify the foundation bearing conditions for each structure. INTERIOR FLOOR SYSTEMS Interior Floor Slabs Vertical slab movement on the order of 1 to 2 inches is possible for foundations bearing on the soils encountered. In some cases, vertical movement may exceed this range. If movement and associated damage to floors and finishes cannot be tolerated, a structural floor system should be used. Floor slabs should be separated from structural components to allow for vertical movement. Control and construction joints should be placed in accordance with the latest guidelines and standards published by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and applicable local Building Code requirements. Recommendations for exterior concrete slabs, such as patios, driveways, and sidewalks, are not included in this report. Interior Partitions Interior non-bearing partitions and attached furnishings (e.g., cabinets, shower stalls, etc.) on concrete slabs should be constructed with a void so that they do not transmit floor slab movement to the roof or overlying floor. A void of at least 1-1/2 inches is recommended DA ft: D.v L.• AAnn..tni.. /:...,... DAA(: InI. Afn I(.IA7'/ rut:blank 6/27/2( Page 9 of beneath non-bearing partitions. The void may require reconstruction over the life of the structure to re-establish the void due to vertical slab movement. Foundation Wall Backfill Backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned to facilitate compaction (usually within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content) and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor test, ASTM D-698 on exterior sides of walls in landscaped areas. In areas where backfill supports pavement and concrete flatwork, the materials should be moisture conditioned ± 3 percent of optimum moisture content compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Fill placed on slopes should be benched into the slope. Maximum bench heights should not exceed 4 feet, and bench widths should be wide enough to accommodate compaction equipment. The backfill should not be placed on frozen subgrade or allowed to freeze during moisture conditioning and placement. Backfill should be compacted by mechanical means, and foundation walls should be braced during backfilling and compaction. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. For the on -site clay soil and siltstone bedrock, we recommend an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 to 55 pcf be used for design. The lateral pressure applies to level, drained backfill conditions. These values assume the backfill will not become saturated during the life of the structure, therefore positive surface drainage must be maintained. It is also assumed that compaction within approximately 5 feet of the walls will be accomplished with relatively light compaction equipment. Equivalent Fluid Pressures for sloping/undrained conditions should be determined on an individual basis. SURFACE DRAINAGE The ground surface should be sloped from the building with a minimum gradient of 10 percent for the first 10 feet. This is equivalent to 12 inches of fall across this 10 -foot zone. If a 10 -foot zone is not possible on the upslope side of the structure, then a well-defined swale should be created a minimum 5 feet from the foundation and sloped parallel with the wall with a minimum slope of 2 percent to intercept the surface water and transport it around and away from the structure. Roof drains should extend across backfill zones and landscaped areas to a region that is graded to direct flow away from the structure. Homeowners should maintain the surface grading and drainage recommended in this report to help prevent water from being directed toward and/or ponding near the foundations. Landscaping should be selected to reduce irrigation requirements. Plants used close to foundation walls should be limited to those with low moisture requirements and irrigated grass should not be located within 5 feet of the foundation. To help control weed growth, geotextiles should be used lut:blank DRAG 1,h M,. i6in1) 6/27/2( Page 10 of below landscaped areas adjacent to foundations. Impervious plastic membranes are not recommended. Irrigation devices should not be placed within 5 feet of the foundation. Irrigation should be limited to the amount sufficient to maintain vegetation. Application of more water will increase the likelihood of slab and foundation movements. The recommendations listed in this report are intended to address normal surface drainage conditions, assuming the presence of groundcover (established vegetation, paved surfaces, and/or structures) throughout the regions upslope from this structure. However, groundcover may not be present due to a variety of factors (ongoing construction/development, wildfires, etc.). During periods when groundcover is not present in the "upslope" regions, higher than normal surface drainage conditions may occur, resulting in perched water tables, excess runoff, flash floods, etc. In these cases, the surface drainage recommendations presented herein (even if properly maintained) may not mitigate all groundwater problems or moisture intrusion into the structure. We recommend that the site plan be prepared with consideration of increased runoff during periods when groundcover is not present on the upslope areas. CONCRETE Type I/II cement is recommended for concrete in contact with the subsurface materials. Calcium chloride should be used with caution for soils with high sulfate contents. The concrete should not be placed on frozen ground. If placed during periods of cold temperatures, the concrete should be kept from freezing. This may require covering the concrete with insulated blankets and heating. Concrete work should be completed in accordance with the latest applicable guidelines and standards published by ACI. CLOSING This report has been prepared for the exclusive purpose of providing geotechnical engineering information and recommendations for development described in this report. RMG should be retained to review the final construction documents prior to construction to verify our findings, conclusions and recommendations have been appropriately implemented. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by Horizon View Homes, LLC for application as an aid in the design and construction of the proposed development in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. The analyses and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data obtained from test borings, site observations and the information presented in referenced reports. The nature and extent of variations may not become evident until construction. If variations then become evident, RMG should be retained to review the recommendations presented in this report considering the varied condition, and either verify or modify them in writing. Our professional services were performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by geotechnical engineers practicing in this or similar localities. DTAr: D ..0 AAn.rntnie. r:.v..in )ut:blank in TAr: Ind. Ain II.I All 6/27/2( Page 11 of RMG does not warrant the work of regulatory agencies or other third parties supplying information which may have been used during the preparation of this report. No warranty, express or implied is made by the preparation of this report. Third parties reviewing this report should draw their own conclusions regarding site conditions and specific construction techniques to be used on this project. The scope of services for this project does not include, either specifically or by implication, environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. Development of recommendations for the mitigation of environmentally related conditions, including but not limited to biological or toxicological issues, are beyond the scope of this report. If the Client desires investigation into the potential for such contamination or conditions, other studies should be undertaken. If we can be of further assistance in discussing the contents of this report or analysis of the proposed development, from a geotechnical engineering point -of -view, please feel free to contact us. P #:Tf:. D.,,•L., #k...mtn:n l:,..,..n Dkkr. LJ+ AL. IAI i'7 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 12 of FIGURES )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 1-3 of �J Verrni1ban P4 p 21st An at sip Rocky Mountain Fuel 3 ,14•An. I •:a 't4iA,q 4 i•R en Park ISM A. w hemettaie Van Ave III. AS MO it Ant I 4t.igt ENP42 • ,. 1l 44 V! Ai 7 City at La -nylon, Roosevelt Park F Urattan Yga Ate An* Longmont •»:� Ken Pratt Blvd .,6 $ r1 z�� k1 (Th a a la 1a•v r i •.r 're r ito 01 gip sts E Ken Pratt %tr` u r CLIENT : HORIZON VIEW HOMES. 1710 JET STREAM, SUITE 100 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO. 80921 ,•-4 n7) ... 32 S 11 r twr„r shit '3..t s &,v a OCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP I60s Sit tIPEE_ I EVANS, CO 80620 PHONE: 3710) 330—i07 (97 )ut:blank 6/27/2( CLIENT : HORIZON VIEW HOMES, LLC 1710 JET STREAM, SUITE 100 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO. 80921 Page 14 of OCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP 160' 3:h SIREE1 EVANS, CO 80620 PHONE: (970) 330-107! De (970) 33O -I252 nut:blank 6 27'2( Page 15 of TEST BORING: B01 DATE DRILLED: DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL SAMPLES I BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT % TEST BORING: B02 DATE DRILLED: DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL SAMPLES I BLOWS PER FT. I WATER CONTENT °) 12/12/17 12/12/17 Top Of Boring Elev: 987.80 Ft. Top Of Boring Elev: 989.74 Ft. GROUNDWATER @ 6.5 ' GROUNDWATER @ 5.0 ' 12/14/17 12/14/17 CLAY, silty sandy light brown to brown, stiff, moist CLAY, silty sandy light brown to brown, stiff, moist 5 / 18 12.6 5 Q % 6 28A 4 46 16.2 A 47 15.1 sILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, fine grained, medium hard to 10 x X X X x. x x x SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, fine grained, medium hard to 10 --X x X x x X X x alM A — hard, moist to wet _ x x x x x x hard, moist to wet _ x x x x x x -x x x x -x x x x - x x x x - x x x x x x x x _ 15 x x x x X X 50/8 14.1 - 15 - x x x x x x 50/9 15.i — - x x x x - x x x x - _ x x x x x x x x - _ x x x x x x x x x x - x x - 20 X x x x 50/8 20.2 20 -x x x x 50/8 15.1 x x x x -x x x x -x x x x _ x x x x x x _ x x x x x x /^ JJ / X X X x 28.1 25 x x X X A 50/6 17.7 - X X _ X x X X x X X x x x - x x x x x x _ 30 x x X X x x A 50/5 17.0 X X - X X x x -x x x x _x x x x x x _ 35 x x x x x x A 50/4 18.0 - x x x x _ x x x x x x - x x x x - x x 4 40 x x 50/7 12.7 l Archtecd6al 64wud Forms., ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP 2910 Auxin Buffs Palms/ 8 Caora ,X$ - CO 800,6 (]19)508-0800 SOUTHERN COLORADO, COWER METRO. NORTHERN COLORADO GeoNdinical MINIM Teeing CAN. Planning TEST BORING LOGS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 3 DATE 1/5/18 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 16 of TEST BORING: B03 DATE DRILLED: DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL SAMPLES I BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT % TEST BORING: B04 DATE DRILLED: DEPTH (Fr) SYMBOL SAMPLES I BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT Wil 12/12/17 12/12/17 Top Of Boring Elev: 990.34 Ft. Top Of Boring Elev: 983.45 Ft. GROUNDWATER © 7.0' GROUNDWATER @ 12.0' 12/14/17 12/14/17 CLAY, silty light brownsandy to brown, stiff, moist f a Y, silty sandy light t brown to brown, stiff, moist 5 8 5 12 16.: SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, X X X x X X -S' fine grained, medium hard to hard, moist to wet 10 x x x x x x x x , 50/6 15.5 10 /)A 31 14. - _ X x X X x x x x SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, fine grained, medium hard to .hard, moist to wet - x X x x x x x X 15.' ". 15 X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x , 50/5 16.1 - _ 'x x 20 x x x X x x A 50/4 18.1 _ _ X X x x X X X X - X X X X 25 X X x x x x x x 50/5 14.1 AN - X X _ X x x x x x x x x x x x 30 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x , 50/11 12.7 - _ - X X 35 x x x x x x 50/7 14.2 X X X X X X - X X X X - X X X X _ X X X x X X 50/5 14.6 4 40 Asdrw Smelting Fotensks ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP C010(8410 Sim= ICanorate COW 2919 Ausen Butts Patlwa/ Cdoraib Spostu CO 89919 CIS{ 548-0600 C TEST BORING LOGS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 4 DATE 1/5/18 3 nut:blank 6/27/2( Page 17 of TEST BORING: B05 DATE DRILLED: DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL SAMPLES I BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT % TEST BORING: B06 DATE DRILLED: DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL SAMPLES I BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT °/1 12/12/17 12/12/17 Top Of Boring Elev: 983.14 Ft Top Of Boring Elev: 984.81 Ft GROUNDWATER @ 12.0' GROUNDWATER at 8.5' 12/14/17 12/14/17 CLAY, silty sandy light brown to brown, stiff, moist j5 CLAY, silty sandy fight brown to brown, stiff, moist 7 10 21.3 SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, 5 x x, x x 50 15.: fine grained, medium hard to hard, moist to wet - _ X X x x X x x x // - -x x x x x x SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, fine grained, medium hard to 10 x x x x x x 38 167 10 x x x x x x 50/6 14.1 - hard, moist to wet x x x x _ - - X x x x x x x x - - X x x x x x x x x x 15 — x x xX X 50/7 13 8 15 x x X X 50/6 13. _ -x - X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x_x -x _ X X -x x x x x x x x x x x x _ 20 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 50/10 13.3 20 x X x x x x x x x x x x x x 4 50/9 14.' - - - _ _ x x x x x x - - x x x x x x x x 25 x x x x x x x x Ai 50/6 13.0 25 x x x x x x x x 4 50/6 16.E _ _ _ x x x x x x _ x x x x x x - x x x x - x x x x x x 30 x x x x x x x x x x 50/5 16.3 _ 30 x X X X x x x x x x 50/6 12.; - - -x _ x x x x x x x x x x - _x x x x x x x x x 35 X x x x x x x x x x x x 50/3 18.2 35 x X x x x x x x x x x x x x 50/6 12.7 - - _ _ x x x _x x x -x x _ x x - x x x A 40 x x 50/4 16.0 40 x x 50/4 12A ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP Archtlectoral Structural Feressicti (ARCHITECTS MG NGINEERS Catbad0 Stab. (COMM. Cffell 2910 Min BM%Parkway C6ora10 S) M8. CO 80918 ()191518-0000 NOR HESS) CQORADO Geoloctercs Memos Tway CMI. Palvtq TEST BORING LOGS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 5 DATE 1/5/18 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 18 of TEST BORING: B07 DATE DRILLED: 12/13/17 Top Of Boring Elev: 978.94 Ft. GROUNDWATER @ 11.0 ' 12/14/17 DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL r SAMPLES BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT % TEST BORING: B08 DATE DRILLED: 12/13/17 Top Of Boring Elev: 975.43 Ft. GROUNDWATER @ 9.5 ' 12/14/17 DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL SAMPLES I BLOWS PER FT. IWATER CONTENT 91 CLAY, silty sandy light brown to brown, stiff, moist CLAY, silty sandy light brown to brown, stiff, moist SILTSTONE x x x mottled olive, tan and orange, _ 5 x x 4 50 12.7 5 10 12., fine grained, medium hard toxx hard, moist to wet - x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 x x A 50/9 15.0 10� % 15 16: _ - X X x x x xx x x x x x x SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, fine grained, medium hard to hard, moist to wet _ x 'x` x x X X x x x x x x xx 15 xx x x x x 50/7 14.2 15 x x x x A 50/8 12.≤ - _ x x x x x x x x x x - x x x x x x x x x x - x x x x - x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 50/7 13.9 20 x x 20 x x X x x x x x x x x x 5019 13.1 A 4 _ _ - x x x x - x x x x - x x x x - x x x x _ x x _ x x 25 x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x 50/7 12.7 25 x x x x x x x x xx 4 50/7 12.E 13., - - _ - / 30 x x x x 50/6 11.9 -x x x x x x x x x x X X - X x x x 35 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 50/5 12.9 - -x x x x x x _ 40 x x x x I4 50/6 11.6 ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP COMOO x , /Caoxais OAYai 2910 ht&Xi tAkdk Pao;r Cttraa? 9)54 - gan g 0600 DRAM DENVER METRO NOR TEST BORING LOGS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 6 DATE 1/5/18 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 19 of TEST BORING: B09 DATE DRILLED: DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL SAMPLES I BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT % TEST BORING: B10 DATE DRILLED: DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL SAMPLES BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT °/y/ 12/13/17 12/14/17 Top Of Boring Elev: 981.24 Ft. Top Of Boring Elev: 971.67 Ft. GROUNDWATER © 8.5' GROUNDWATER © 10.0' 12/14/17 12/15/17 CLAY, silty sandy light brown to brown, stiff, moist f %f � CLAY, silty sandy light brown to brown, stiff, moist 5 50/9 5.5 5 11 11: / // �x x % SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, fine grained, medium hard toX 10 - X x x x X 50/7 13.3 1 32 8.7 SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, Q x x x x , hard, moist to wet x x x x fine grained, medium hard to - x x x x x x hard, moist to wet _ X X X X X X ' X X - x x 1 x x X X . X X X x X X 15 X x x x x X : 50/6 14.9 15 x x x x x 50/5 13. -x X X : X X - X X : _ X X X X X X - X X i - X X X X X X _ x x X X - x x x x _ x x x x 20 x x x x x x x x 50/6 12.6 20 _ x x x x x x x x x x 50/6 14.i - _� - _X X X x - x X x x X X x x - X X _ X X X X X X 25 x x x x x x 50 22.6 25 x x x X X 4 50/6 14.f -x X X x x x x _ X X x x x x - X x X X X X X X - x x - x X X X X X x x 30 x x X x 50/8 14.0 30 x x x X X X 50/6 14.1 - - - x X X x x x x x - - x x x x x x X X _ x x - x x _ X x x x x x x x x 15.1 35 X X x x X X x x x x x x 50/6 13.t A x x x x �x x x x x x x x -x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 40 _ - x x x x x x x x X X 19.; /� / Stmeforal FerenSits ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP A RCHITECTS ENGINEERS Cmaag was reamrra OM* 2910 hadn RWN Parkway Colorado Sgnge, CO 809,8 i719) S48 -g800 SOUTHERN COLORADO DENVER "cm. NORTHER!/ COLO Geoprotocar wore* *®.,g CO.' Radom TEST BORING LOGS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 7 DATE 1/5/18 3 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 20 of TEST BORING: B11 DATE DRILLED: DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL SAMPLES I BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT % TEST BORING: B12 DATE DRILLED: DEPTH (Fr) SYMBOL SAMPLES BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT %! 12/14/17 12/13/17 Top Of Boring Elev: 972.79 Ft. Top Of Boring Elev: 970.70 Ft. GROUNDWATER @ 11.0 ' GROUNDWATER @ 10.0 ' 12/15/17 12/14/17 CLAY, silty sandy light brown to brown, stiff, moist CLAY, silty sandy light brown to brown, stiff, moist 5 10 16.2 5 16 10.1 10 15 j % 6 50/9 21.5 16.0 10 j 11 50/9 13.1 13.: 15 _ j SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, fine grained, medium hard to hard, moist to wet _ - x x x x x x x x x x x x x SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, fine grained, medium hard to hard, moist to wet xx xx x x x x x x x x x x A _ -x -x - x x x x x x x -x _ _ x x x x X x x x x 20 x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 50/9 13.6 20 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x A 50/8 12.1 - _ - _ _ - 25 x x x x 50/6 13.6 25 x xx X X x x " 50/7 13.1 - -x _ x x x x x x x x x x x x x _x - - x x x x X x x x x x x x x 30 x x x x A 50/5 15.9 30 x x x x A 50/7 12 - x x x _x x x x x x x -x - x x x x x // - _ x. x x x x x x _ x x x x x x x x 24.; x x x x x x x X x x A 50/5 14.4x x x x x x x X x x x - -x _ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 40 x x 50/4 13.7 x X AtChleCtural Forerw+n ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP 2910 ',akin 91093 Parkas, Ctluaeo *NW CO 80918 f119) SCBOB00 SOUTHERN COLORADO. DENVER METRO. NORTHERN COLORADO Gealelnical Mother resting Car. Planning TEST BORING LOGS JOB No. 161472 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 21 of TEST BORING: B13 DATE DRILLED: 12/13/17 Top Of Boring Elev: 973.91 Ft. GROUNDWATER ( 9.5' 12/14/17 DEPTH (FT) SYMBOL SAMPLES LL 1 BLOWS PER FT. WATER CONTENT % CLAY, silty sandy light brown to brown, stiff, moist 5 17 50/11 50/9 50/7 50/6 50/5 50/6 11.1 11.4 13.4 13.7 12.8 14.2 18.1 18.4 Pr 10V SILTSTONE mottled olive, tan and orange, fine grained, medium hard to hard, moist to wet 15 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x � � - - - 20 sr - _x _, -'x 25 _ - 30 - -x _ _ 35 -x _ - - 40 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP Cmna11 Spew. CO 80919 (119)`+1&0900 COLORADO. DENVER METRO MORT COLORADO Geolechntal wiener TARN DMA Awning TEST BORING LOGS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 9 DATE 1/5/18 nut:blank 612712( Page 22 of XX SOILS DESCRIPTION LOW PLASTICITY CLAY SILTSTONE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL LABORATORY TESTS PRESENTED HEREIN WERE PERFORMED BY: RMG - ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP 1601 37TH ST. EVANS, COLORADO Elevations are based on the Northwest Corner of Section 21, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. The monument was located in a monument box in the intersection of WCR 5 and WCR 32 SYMBOLS AND NOTES STANDARD PENETRATION TEST - MADE BY DRIVING A SPLIT -BARREL SAMPLER INTO THE SOIL BY DROPPING A 140 LB. HAMMER 30", IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM XX D-1586. NUMBER INDICATES NUMBER OF HAMMER BLOWS PER FOOT (UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED). UNDISTURBED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE - MADE BY DRIVING A RING -LINED SAMPLER INTO THE SOIL BY DROPPING A 140 LB. HAMMER 30", IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-3550. NUMBER INDICATES NUMBER OF HAMMER BLOWS PER FOOT (UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED). FREE WATER TABLE DEPTH AT WHICH BORING CAVED HBULK DISTURBED BULK SAMPLE 4.5 Archilectual Structural Farensics AUG AUGER "CUTTINGS" WATER CONTENT (%) ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP RMG ENGINEERS Gtlaa09 S9Mm FCa➢vate 011556! MO ALMA Blurs Pskery Cdesatlo Songs. CO 80918 (119):4&0808 9IXlR)ERN COLORADO. DENVER METRO. AORTI E a CAW Materials T®pg CNN. %m g -Y- EXPLANATION OF TEST BORING LOGS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 10 DATE 1/5/18 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 23 of Test Boring No. Depth Content Water (%) Density (pcf) Uquid Limit Plasticity Index Retaip No.4 Sieve Passi/ng No. 200 Sieve % Swell/ Collapse Load (psfl B01 4.0 12.6 106.1 B01 9.0 16.2 115.0 0.4 1000 B01 14.0 14.1 116.3 B01 19.0 20.2 107.5 B01 24.0 17.7 111.3 B01 29.0 17.0 114.5 B01 34.0 18.0 107.3 801 39.0 12.7 114.1 B02 4.0 28.4 95.0 38 26 0.3 66.5 - 0.1 1000 802 9.0 15.1 117.8 B02 14.0 15.2 119.4 B02 19.0 15.1 118.1 B02 23.0 28.1 B03 9.0 15.5 111.0 B03 14.0 16.1 103.0 B03 19.0 18.1 108.2 B03 24.0 14.1 117.2 803 29.0 12.7 114.8 46 30 0.1 73.0 1.1 1000 B03 34.0 14.2 119.8 B03 39.0 14.6 120.8 B04 4.0 16.3 106.7 804 9.0 14.3 116.8 32 11 37.5 0.0 1000 B04 13.0 15.7 B05 4.0 21.3 103.1 39 22 74.2 0.0 1000 B05 9.0 16.7 112.5 805 14.0 13.8 120.1 B05 19.0 13.3 121.0 B05 24.0 13.0 113.1 805 29.0 16.3 101.7 B05 34.0 18.2 B05 39.0 16.0 106.4 B06 4.0 15.3 116.1 0.0 1000 B06 9.0 14.9 101.8 B06 14.0 13.7 102.6 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP ARCHITE4 RMG ENGINEERS Ccer.loSomas: Im at. ClOat zr10 Austin e`ms Parkway cof..eo Spxvgs. co 80918 (T19)54b-99W SOUTls£RN COLORADO. °EWER METRO. MOIFTNERN COLORADO Mlsteb Terry CM. Awning SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 11 PAGE 1 OF 3 DATE 1/5/18 nut:blank 6/27/2( Page 24 of Test Boring No. Depth r Content Density (pctj Limid Plasticity i Retained p40.4 sieve passing No. 200 sieve Cpi (pat)Swell/ Load B06 19.0 14.1 114.1 B06 24.0 16.9 115.1 B06 29.0 12.2 116.0 B06 34.0 12.7 111.0 B06 39.0 12.4 105.8 B07 4.0 12.7 119.2 B07 9.0 15.0 113.3 B07 14.0 14.2 115.3 B07 19.0 13.9 103.5 B07 24.0 12.7 115.5 607 29.0 11.9 101.3 B07 34.0 12.9 108.8 B07 39.0 11.6 113.3 1.7 1000 608 4.0 12.4 99.5 B08 9.0 16.1 111.6 35 24 0.0 64.9 0.2 1000 B08 14.0 12.9 111.5 B08 19.0 13.8 118.1 B08 24.0 12.6 108.1 B08 26.0 13.1 B09 4.0 5.5 117.9 609 9.0 13.3 109.8 B09 14.0 14.9 108.7 B09 19.0 12.6 109.1 0.4 1000 B09 24.0 22.6 108.3 B09 29.0 14.0 119.6 B09 33.0 15.1 B10 4.0 11.1 99.7 B10 9.0 8.7 117.3 B10 14.0 13.3 121.9 B10 19.0 14.2 118.8 B10 24.0 14.6 116.1 B10 29.0 14.1 B10 34.0 13.0 111.7 0.3 1000 B10 39.0 19.2 I ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP Cauraao sow: rCaraNe 0610.1 2958 AWRin Bluffs CmA..ay Colorado Soong. CO 809,8 (10) 5518-0888 YER MCI COLORADO caaaaxM un�aws rman9 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 11 PAGE 2 OF 3 DATE 1/5/18 nut:blank 6/27/2( Page 25 of Test Boring No. Depth Content (%) Density ( ) Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Retained No.4 Sieve Pass No. ypp g�1eve %Swell/ Collapse Load (psf) B11 4.0 16.2 108.5 0.1 1000 B11 9.0 21.5 103.7 30 14 0.0 50.2 0.0 1000 B11 14.0 16.0 112.2 B11 19.0 13.6 108.1 B11 24.0 13.6 102.0 B11 29.0 15.9 103.5 B11 34.0 14.4 115.1 B11 39.0 13.7 110.8 B12 4.0 10.8 98.8 B12 9.0 13.6 108.2 B12 14.0 13.3 119.4 0.3 1000 B12 19.0 12.8 119.1 B12 24.0 13.0 114.6 B12 29.0 12.7 118.0 B12 32.0 24.3 B13 4.0 11.1 105.1 B13 9.0 11.4 121.2 B13 14.0 13.4 120.0 B13 19.0 13.7 110.4 B13 24.0 12.8 118.2 42 25 0.0 67.8 0.9 1000 B13 29.0 14.2 118.3 B13 34.0 18.1 113.4 B13 39.0 18.4 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP Arthiedural SMAerai Fcrenues ARCHITECTS RMG ENGINEERS atisolataleasilramateSgal 2010141MM ins Parks, Cm.* Spings, CO 809,9 0191519-0900 COLORADO. DENVER METRO. NORTHERN COLORADO Grawhrstal WM.!. rasing CMS SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 11 PAGE 3 OF 3 DATE 1/5/18 nut:blank 6/27/2( Page 26 of 100 90 1-80 CD L70 °°60 O X50 a z40 w ce30 w a 20 10 0 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 3 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 4 10 20 40 100 200 HYDROMETER 100 10 1 0 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse I medium I fine Test Boring Depth (ft) Classification LL PL PI • B02 4.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 38 12 26 X B03 29.0 LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL) 46 16 30 A B04 9.0 CLAYEY SAND(SC) 32 21 11 B05 4.0 LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL) 39 17 22 O B08 9.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 35 11 24 Test Boring Depth (ft) %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • B02 4.0 0.3 33.2 66.5 m B03 29.0 0.1 26.8 73.0 A B04 9.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 * B05 4.0 0.0 25.8 74.2 0 B08 9.0 0.0 35.1 64.9 Perhdeclural SWUCILital Ferefenta ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP GSM fCOMM A10 AWN Slat, Parkway Cabaao Spy,. CO 120918 (719)5M-0600 SOUTHERN COLORADO. DENVER MEMO. NORTHERN COLORADO Gmemnmi MalonCM. MAN V SOIL CLASSIFICATION DATA JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 12 DATE 1/5/18 nut:blank 6/27/2( Page 27 of 100 90 1-80 O 70 r m 60 c 50 a i-40 w ce30 w 0 20 10 0 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 3 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 4 10 20 40 100 200 HYDROMETER r 100 10 1 0 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine coarse I medium I fine Test Boring Depth (ft) Classification LL PL PI • B11 9.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 30 16 14 m B13 24.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 42 17 25 Test Boring Depth (ft) • B11 9.0 %Gravel 0.0 %Sand 49.8 %Silt I %Clay 50.2 m B13 24.0 0.0 32.2 67.8 J AVdiNdvg Foramcs ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP ARCHITEC. RMG ENGINEERS gStEM/9 SOON. 2910 Austin Muffs Parkway comae, ham. CO 80918 (T19)5{8-0800 THERM COLORADO DENVER METRO. NORTHERN COLORADO CmaudamM Team CM. Plenty SOIL CLASSIFICATION DATA JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 13 DATE 1/5/18 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 28 of z O z COMPRESSION % EX COMPRESSION % EXPANSION 8 6 4 2 -2 -4 -4 -6 -8 100 8 6 4 2 t__000 - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Siltstone NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: 801 I§ 9 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 113.6 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 15.9% PERCENT SWELUCOMPRESSION: 0.4 10,000 -2 -4 -6 -8 100 APPLIED F0SSSURE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: lean clay NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: 802 4 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 96.3 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 28.1% PERCENT SWELL/COMPRESSION: - 0.1 10,000 > Structufal FAAau ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP 2910 ARM eun Palmy Cdosao Sp gs, CO 90919 (719)549.0900 9OUTRERN COLORADO. DENVER METRO. NORTNERN COLORADO Geolethntal PArdenar IRAN R C VA ATAN V SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 14 DATE 1/5/18 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 29 of COMPRESSION % EXPANSION COMPRESSION % EXPANSION 8 6 4 2 0�-- -2 -4 -6 -8 100 8 6 4 2 00 APPLE:.D F'R�EO URE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Slttstone NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WAER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: B03629 29 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 114.3 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 16.4% PERCENT SW ELUCOMPRESSION: 1.1 10,000 -2 -4 -6 -8 • _ -0 100 APPLIED F R0ESSURE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: lean day NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WAVER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: B04 9 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 11&5 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 13.9% PERCENT SWELUCOMPRESSION: 0.0 10,000 A ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP ARCHITEL. I b RMG ENGINEERS iCaramae COATI 8 Ctlengio SM8-CO BW18 an) 548-0600 ORMOO. DENVER METRO. NORTHERN COLORADO PANINials Tes CNC Marling SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 15 DATE 1/5/18 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 30 of COMPRESSION % EXPANSION z O U) z COMPRESSION % EX 8 6 4 2 -2 -4 -6 -8 100 8 6 4 2 APPLIE1100 D SSURE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: lean clay NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: 805 © 4 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 102.1 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 21.8% PERCENT SWEWCOMPRESSION: 0.0 10,000 0►- -2 -4 -6 -8 100 APPLIED I-•KESS RE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: lean clay NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: B08 @ 4 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 118.3 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 13.9% PERCENT SWEWCOMPRESSION: 0.0 10,000 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP ARCHITECTS RMG ENGINEERS Carmelo Swam (Corporate 29,0 Att,t 01000 PSAsq CrtloeSE* peyn. CO 00918 (719)S18-9800 CQCRAM, DENVER METRO. HORTtiflY/ COLORADO Mast! Tema GM( Marring V SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 16 DATE 1/5/18 lut:blank 6/27/2( Page 31 of COMPRESSION % EXPANSION COMPRESSION % EXPANSION 8 6 4 2 Oi- - 2 -4 - 6 - 8 100 8 6 4 2 APPLEDIF 1ESSSOURE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Slttstone NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: B07 @ 39 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 118.6 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 11.3% PERCENT SWEWCOMPRESSION: 1.7 10,000 00-• _ -2 -4 -6 -8 100 APPLIED F SSSOURE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Siltstone NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: BOB @ 9 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 113.6 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 15.7% PERCENT SWEWCOMPRESSION: 0.2 10,000 Aldsb Baal S Fne e s ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP r __�wo.RSax __Deno 2910 MAIN Huffs Parkwy CtivYb So ge. CO 80919 (719)608-0800 SOUTHERN COLORADO, DENVER METRO. NORTHERN COLORADO CHolechwol MCavil t p Nang SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 17 DATE 1/5/18 nut:blank 6/27/2( Page 32 of z O U) z COMPRESSION % EX COMPRESSION % EXPANSION 8 6 4 2 -2 -4 -6 -8 100 8 6 4 2 APPLIED FIR0 SSSURE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Slltstone NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: B09 @ 19 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 109.0 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 1&6% PERCENT SW FI I /COMPRESSION: 0.4 10,000 00-- -2 -4 -6 -8 100 APPLIED PretSSURE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Slltstone NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: B10 @ 34 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 114.4 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 13.0% PERCENT SWELL/COMPRESSION: 0.3 10,000 h?aeotifM Sftertazi rasmfs ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP 2919 haM EN" Pftevy Ctlaffi Sprg,, CO 9®18 (71 ft S48-OB00 SOUTHERN COLORADO. DENVER I.ETRO, NORTNEFN COLORADO IAelanse Tracy c,.. Planning SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 18 DATE 1/5/18 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 33 of COMPRESSION % EXPANSION COMPRESSION % EXPANSION 8 6 4 2 -2 - 4 -6 - 8 100 8 6 4 2 00 APPLIED P $SURE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: lean day NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: 811 @ 4 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 109.1 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 16.7% PERCENT SWELL/COMPRESSION: 0.1 10,000 -2 -4 -6 -8 _ 100 APPUEDrntSSURE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: lean day NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WAFER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: 811 @ 9 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 105.9 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 20.2% PERCENT SWELL/COMPRESSION: 0.0 10,000 forms. ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP 2910 Ausan BM, Parkway Crier,e, Spvkm, CO 809,8 (719) 548-0600 %CU,RERN COLORADO. DENVER METRO. NOR,l1ERN COLORADO .0148184881 haled. MM. Cam. Penning JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 19 DATE 1/5/18 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 34 of z O z COMPRESSION % EX COMPRESSION % EXPANSION 8 6 4 2 - 2 -4 - 6 -8 100 8 6 4 2 1 000 APPUED FIRESSURE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Slltstone NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: B12 @ 14 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 119.2 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 13.9% PERCENT SWELUCOMPRESSION: 0.3 10,000 0S-- -2 -4 -6 - 8 100 APPLIED I�R0EO URE - PSF PROJECT: Sorrento Estates Mead, Colorado SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Siltstone NOTE: SAMPLE WAS INUNDATED WITH WATER AT 1000 PSF SAMPLE LOCATION: B13 @ 24 FT NATURAL DRY UNIT WEIGHT: 117.4 PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 12.5% PERCENT SWELUCOMPRESSION: 0.9 Arcllilectural SInnural Forms. ROCKY MOUNTAIN GROUP ARCHITECTS RMC ENGINEERS JCanzr.. POW 29102.1ln 012121P220202 Ctivam Spgs. CO 80918 (719)528-0600 2012114ERN COLORADO, DENVER BETRD. NCR1HFRN COLOMDO Geolecnncal Mc0 Team CAI. Rrrwg V SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 10,000 JOB No. 161472 FIGURE No. 20 DATE 1/5/18 mut:blank 612712( Page 1 c Development Review Comments PROJECT: SORRENTO EST. PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT ft SUBMITTAL REVIEWER: Chris Kennedy, Planning Director DATE: May 7, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: JVA Review Comments, LTWD Review Comments/detail exhibit, Weld County address code Instructions: Please address staff comments and submit revised plan sets and documents in hard -copy (5 sets) and electronic (flash -drive, CDROM) format. It appears as though a number of items associated with the Final Plat will take more time to address, whereas the Preliminary Plat is generally complete. As a result, staff suggests proceeding with public hearings for the preliminary plat independently of the fmal plat documents. See comments for more information. Please respond to comments within the body of each individual review memo. The deadlines for submittal/resubmittal occur every other Monday prior to development review committee (DRC) meetings. The next deadlines are May 21, June 4 and June 18, 2018. Please contact utilities and other outside referral agencies directly with questions. NOTE: Land Use Code can be found in its entirety here: https://library. munic ode. comic o/me ad/codes/munic ipal code?nodeId=CD CH 16LAUSCO Preliminary Plat 1. The following comment initially made August 11, 2017, does not appear to have been fully satisfied: The Pursuant to Sec. 16-3-50(19), please show the following setback radii relative to oil and gas wells and production/storage facilities: a. 75' from roadways b. 150' from lot lines c. 200' from habitable structures d. 350' from places of assembly *Please show at least the full 150' and 200' setback radii. Page 1 of 4 )ut:biank 7/3/2( Page 2 e 2. The following comment initially made August 11, 2017, is still pending: Staff recommends platting the 150' oil and gas setbacks into separate outlots/tracts, so additional portions of Tract K can be counted towards open space requirements. 3. Please label all pocket parks on plat; Tract F is not labeled as a pocket park on sheet 2 or on sheet 8 of the plat. 4. Staff is preparing a public hearing schedule, to be forwarded along as soon as possible. Final Plat 1. Please provide address plat in compliance with attached Weld County address code. 2. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) will need to be executed prior to approval of the final plat. Mead has a new Town Attorney, who is reviewing the boilerplate SIA prior to providing it to the applicant. Staff will forward the standard agreement along for review as soon as possible. Planned Unit Development (PUD) 1. The following comment does not appear to have been satisfied with Final Plat submittal materials: Section 16-3-30 requires that a PUD describe "how the proposed development... is an improvement over what would be required under otherwise applicable standards." Typically, in exchange for additional density, PUD developments provide open space and park amenities (playground equipment, etc.) above and beyond what is required in the underlying zoning code. At this time, the preliminary plat is in substantial compliance with Section 16-3-30 of the LUC. However, ultimate compliance will be determined once information related to park design and amenities (playground equipment, gazebos, picnic tables, etc.) is available in the final plat submittal. At that time, a clearer statement on the PUD sheet to this effect will be required. Landscape Plan 1. NOTE: The Town recently adopted revisions to the Land Use Code that change the amount of required park and open space acreage from .08 acres per unit to a flat 20 percent of the site for PUD developments, with half of acreage dedicated to drainage facilities counted towards parks and open space requirements. It is not clear exactly how/if such revisions benefit this project. 2. Please provide an "overall" map for the landscape plan that is roughly the same scale as the one provided on sheet 2 of the plat. Also, please provide the quarter -mile walking radius and the requested oil and gas setback radii. 3. The following comment does not appear to have been satisfied with Final Plat submittal materials: Please confirm on the plan that the design meets the standards outlined in Section 16-2-150(c)(1) regarding landscaping with the ROW and common open space. Staff can continue to work towards addressing this issue during final plat review and submittal. Page 2 of 4 >ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 3 c Town Attorney's Office Marcus McAskin, marcus@mcm-legal.com Pending. Engineering Kenneth Clifford, JVA Engineering, kclifford@jvajva.com See attached. External Referral Agencies Please see most recent comments from external referral agencies. You may have received some of these comments already. Given the ongoing transition between attorneys, staff is attempting to ensure that all comments have been provided. Please follow-up with these agencies as needed. St. Vrain Sanitation District Elizabeth Csotty, Project Assistant Direct: 303-682-4694 Elizabeth@stsan.com No objections. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Brian Flockhart I Right -of -Way Agent Direct 970-622-2270 I Cell 970-685-2806 Northern Water has a pipeline easement running through the northwestern half of the project. Attached is the Easement Deed with Benson's and the Hobbs. Northern would prefer to meet with the developer to ensure the Easement Deed is considered in the property development plan. United Power Marisa Dale, RWAI Engineering & Rates ROW O 303.637.1387 I C 720.334.5282 Thank you for inviting United Power, Inc. to review and comment on the Sorrento Estates prelim plat referral. Typical utility easements required for electric installation are: • 8'- l0' wide along the rear of lots and across tracts between lots, and along perimeter of lots • 5' wide along one side of lot closest to streetlight locations and alongside of tracts abutting lots Page 3 of 4 nut:blank 7/3/2( Page 4 e • Most importantly is that utility easements be continuous with no gaps within tracts from lots in order to provide reliable service to future residents. • Need an easement along the side of lot 1 block 9. Also, I'd like to ask if there is a utility easement along Street P abutting the sides of Lot 28 Block 1 and Lot 1 Block 7. • Need 10'x10' pocket easements within tracts abutting lots for above ground equipment or if an additional 10' utility easement ran along the tracts abutting rear of lots, this would easily allow for the bigger size equipment to be set. Developer/owner must contact United Power, Inc. and submit an application for installation of service. Additional utility easements may be necessary depending on electric design for above ground equipment requiring pocket easements outside of residential lots. We look forward to safely and efficiently providing reliable electric power and outstanding service to future Sorrento residents. Longs Peak Water District Gary Allen, General Manager 303-618-7971 gary@lpwd.org This property will be served domestic water by Little Thompson Water District. Longs Peak will not have any input on the actual development. We do, however have an easement along the southern border of the property. This will need to be discussed as the development moves forward. I will contact our attorneys and see what direction they would like us to go. The easement was recorded on 8/23/07. Record number 3499206 Little Thompson Water District Amber Kaufman, District Engineer akauffman@LTWD.org 1. No objections to preliminary plat. 2. See attached comments re: final plat. Page 4of4 )ut:blank 7/3/2( Page 1 0 Directory Bill Samyd, President Larry Brandt Steven Brandenburg Paul Bukowski Ed Martens Little Thompson Water District April 17, 2018 District Manager: Michael T. Cook 835 E HIghway 56 Berthoud, CO 80513 P: 970-532-2096 F:970-532-3734 www.LTWD.org Chris Kennedy Director of Planning Town of Mead 441 Third Street Mead, CO 80542 ckennedy@townofinead.org Dear Mr. Kennedy: This letter is in response to the Request for Comments and Recommendations on the Final Plat and Construction Drawings for Sorrento received by our office on March 29, 2018. The submittal included final utility plans, grading, soils report, landscape plans and a fmal plat. The property was given a commitment letter dated May 31, 2017 which included 451 urban residential services. The property is located near the southeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 32 (WCR 32) also known as Adams Avenue and WCR 7 and is more generally described as follows: PORTION OF THE NW '/4, SEC. 21, T3N, R68W -- WELD COUNTY, CO Parcel 120721000001 Little Thompson Water District owns and operates a 12 -inch water line along the south side of WCR 32 that extends east of I-25 to the western side of Great Western railroad tracks. The line continues on the north side of WCR 32 as a 6 -inch line running west to WCR 5. We have reviewed the final plat and associated final utility and landscape drawings provided and have the following comments: 1. Please show the NCWCD waterline in the profile view for the LTWD waterlines. 2. The existing waterline easement along the southern property line is for Longs Peak Water District. Please discuss the need and/or use of this easement and modify as necessary. We would not allow the installation of a waterline in their exclusive easement. The easement should either be vacated and replatted for our use or a separate easement should be dedicated for Little Thompson Water District use. 3. Please note the waterline material should be ductile iron pipe or C900 DR 14 PVC. 4. Do the parks, tracts, and medians require taps for irrigation? These will require raw water dedication and tap fees. A separate commitment letter should be submitted for the irrigation taps which includes the required peak flow and annual usage. If you need assistance in quantifying the annual usage, please contact me. nut:blank 6/27/2( Page 2 c 5. Please evaluate the need for groundwater barriers based on groundwater information provided in the soils report. 6. Please provide a water quality sampling station near the storm sewer "Storm Line 7" near the intersection of Bonsmara Street and Pinewoods Street. LTWD will provide the detail. 7. Please provide telemetry, power, and equipment for sewer metering at Manhole SSMHAO. This will require coordination with LTWD and St. Vrain Sanitation District as well. 8. Please plant trees to provide a minimum 10 -foot separation from the waterlines (reference the existing 12 -inch line along WCR 32). 9. Please see redlines for connection concerns and minor corrections. If you have questions, please contact me. Regards, der, Amber Kauffman, PE District Engineer cc: Gary West, Samson Law Firm, PC, via email to gary@samsonlongmontlaw.com )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 3 c • ( KUPFERLE MODEL --- . ECLIPSE #88-SS-PED ATTACH PEDESTAL BASE - TO CONCRETE PAD USING 3/8'ANCH0R BELTS r 3/4' CURB STOP CORP. STOP 3/4' TAPERED THREAD WET TAP SADDLE 2' ENCLOSURE ne-aleak 2.3' PEDESTAL 1 Little Thompson Water District ITEM ITEM / DESCRIPTION NOTES_ 1 88 FRONT DOOR CCOVER A) r 2 88REAR DEUt0COVER B) 3 88 BASE 2 PIECES 4 1/2' S.S. WATERWAY _ 5 BLOW OFT 6 1/4' S.S. TUBING 4 7 SAPLING BIBB 8 LOCKING HOLE 9 VALVE BOX BY OTHERS 10 3/4' S,S, NIPPLE BY OTHERS MINI 45 DEPTH �- 3/4' CTS HDPE (TYP.) XPANSION JOINT SAMPLE STATION DETAIL N. .s. 60'X30'X4' THICK CONCRETE PAD 4' THICK DATE: 10/31/2107 )ut:blank 6/27/2( Page 1 0 Development Review Comments PROJECT: SORRENTO ESTATES - PRELIMINARY PLAT 2" SUBMITTAL REVIEWER: Chris Kennedy, Planning Director DATE: February 26, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: NONE Instructions: Please address staff comments and submit revised plan sets and documents in hard -copy (5 sets) and electronic (flash -drive, CDROM) format. Please include combined preliminary/final plat documents in next submittal. Construction documents may also be included in next submittal if ready. Please respond to comments within the body of each individual review memo. The deadlines for submittal/resubmittal occur every other Tuesday prior to development review committee (DRC) meetings. The next deadlines are March 13, March 27 and April 10, 2018. Please contact utilities and other outside referral agencies directly with questions. NOTE: Land Use Code can be found in its entirety here: https://library.municode.com/co/mead/codes/municipal code?nodeId=CD CH16LAUSCO Preliminary Plat/General 1. Staff is happy to accommodate the applicant's desire to pursue review and approval of the final plat concurrently with the remainder of the preliminary plat. Please see attached checklist for final plat submittal. 2. Despite indications in response document, the following comment initially made August 11, 2017, does not appear to have been satisfied: The segments of Streets D and G that intersect with CR 5 appear to be shown as 68' ROW on the preliminary plat, whereas they are shown as 54' ROW on the landscape plan. Please address/clarify. *The landscape plan still appears to show 54' ROW. RESPONSE: Per an email from Chris Kennedy on 3.9.18, the plans were re -reviewed and found to have a ROW consistent with the plat and PlCP's_ No changes are necessary. Page 1 of 4 nut:blank 7/3/2( Page 2 e 3. Despite indications in response document, the following comment initially made August 11, 2017, does not appear to have been fully satisfied: The Pursuant to Sec. 16-3-50(19), please show the following setback radii relative to oil and gas wells and production/storage facilities: a. 75' from roadways b. 150' from lot lines c. 200' from habitable structures d. 350' from places of assembly *Please show at least the full 150' and 250' setback radii. RESPONSE: Oil and Gas parcel accommodates required setbacks from lots. 4. Despite indications in response document, the following comment initially made August 11, 2017, does not appear to have been fully satisfied: Staff recommends platting the 150' oil and gas setbacks into separate outlots, so portions of Tract C can potentially be counted towards open space requirements, if needed. *Even more open space can be separated from Tract K if the 150' setback radius is applied as suggested, potentially eliminating the need for cash -in -lieu payment. RESPONSE: A revised boundary for the oil and gas parcel is being looked at by TBG and the Town in order to reduce the fee -in -lieu. Any revisions to the boundary will be updated with the next submittal. 5. Please distinguish between park and pocket parks in land use table and on plat. RESPONSE: Labels have been added to the plat and utility plans to distinguish pocket park from neighborhood park. Planned Unit Development (PUD) 1. Section 16-3-30 requires that a PUD describe "how the proposed development...is an improvement over what would be required under otherwise applicable standards." Typically, in exchange for additional density, PUD developments provide open space and park amenities (playground equipment, etc.) above and beyond what is required in the underlying zoning code. At this time, the preliminary plat is in substantial compliance with Section 16-3-30 of the LUC. However, ultimate compliance will be determined once information related to park design and amenities (playground equipment, gazebos, picnic tables, etc.) is available in the final plat submittal. At that time, a clearer statement on the PUD sheet to this effect will be required. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Parks and Open Space Requirements (Sec. 16-2-120) 1. Please distinguish between park and pocket parks in land use table and on plat. Page 2 of 4 nit:blank 7/3/2( Page 3 e RESPONSE: Labels have been added to the plat and utility plans to distinguish pocket park from neighborhood park. 2. For perspective, please provide an "overall" map (similar to sheet 2 in prelim plat doc) showing the provided quarter -mile walking analysis locations and the requested oil and gas setback radii. RESPONSE: This map has been added as a key map (called Overall Site) to Sheet 1. 3. In "Landscape Statistics" table on sheet 1 of 13, please show calculation for open space dedication (.08 acres X 446 units = 35.68 acres); RESPONSE: Added. 4. Please reflect any changes made as a result of comment #4 under the "preliminary plat/general" section above in the "landscape statistics" table; RESPONSE: A revised boundary for the oil and gas parcel is being looked at by TBG and the Town in order to reduce the fee -in -lieu. Any revisions to the boundary and the landscape statistics will be updated with the next submittal. 5. Applicant response to comment #9 under "Parks and Open Space" section indicates that cash-in-leu will be paid. Staff and applicant will address this issue through final plat process. Please add note near "landscape statistics" table to this effect. RESPONSE: Added. Landscape Plan 1. Please confirm on the plan that the design meets the standards outlined in Section 16-2- 150(c)(1) regarding landscaping with the ROW and common open space. Staff can continue to work towards addressing this issue during final plat review and submittal. RESPONSE: 2. Despite indications in response document, the following comment initially made August 11, 2017, does not appear to have been satisfied: The segments of Streets D and G that intersect with CR 5 appear to be shown as 54' ROW on the landscape plan, whereas they are shown as 68' ROW on the preliminary plat. *The landscape plan still appears to show 54' ROW. RESPONSE: Per an email from Chris Kennedy on 3.9.18, the plans were re -reviewed and found to have a ROW consistent with the plat and PICP's. No changes are necessary. External Referral Agencies Page 3 of 4 nut:blank 7/3/2( Page 4 0 Staff has provided the following agencies with access to the Sorrento Preliminary Plat Second Submittal. Any additional comments from these agencies should be received within the next two weeks. Please follow-up with these agencies as needed. RESPONSE: No comments have been received from the agencies listed below. St. Vrain Sanitation District Elizabeth Csotty, Project Assistant Direct: 303-682-4694 Elizabeth@stsan_com Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Brian Flockhart I Right -of -Way Agent Direct 970-622-2270 I Cell 970-685-2806 United Power Marisa Dale, RWAI Engineering & Rates ROW O 303.637.1387 I C 720.334.5282 Longs Peak Water District Gary Allen, General Manager 303-618-7971 gary(alpwd.org Little Thompson Water District Amber Kaufman, District Engineer akauffinan@LTWD.org Page 4 of 4 )ut:blank 7/3/2( Kimberly Dewey From: Sent: To: Subject: Erika, I agree with your notes below. Kenneth J. Clifford <kclifford@jvajva.com> Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:27 AM Erika Rasmussen; Christopher Kennedy RE: Sorrento - 1st Final Review Comments • I think the 5' and 8' sidewalks are appropriate, and we should hold firm. • We do not want any chase drains, and you are correct, there are only two shown in the plan set, and these should be inlets. • I am willing to grandfather in the 20' radius and street profile grades. • I am surprised they did not bring up the minor storm event criteria, since the new standards changed it from the 2 -year event to the 5 -year event. We can discuss Thursday, or I am available sooner if you would like to call. Thanks, Ken KENNETH J. CLIFFORD, P.E. I Project Manager JVA, Incorporated 1319 Spruce Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Direct: 303.565.4973 I Mobile: 303.579.5146 I Phone: 303.444.1951 www.jvajva.com Boulder I Fort Collins I Winter Park I Glenwood Springs I Denver From: Erika Rasmussen [mailto:ERasmussen@townofmead.org] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 6:27 PM To: Christopher Kennedy <CKennedy@townofmead.org>; Kenneth J. Clifford <kclifford@jvajva.com> Subject: RE: Sorrento - 1st Final Review Comments Let's discuss this on Thursday at ERC. I've asked Helen to join us. My general comments are below in red. From: Christopher Kennedy Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:18 PM To: Erika Rasmussen <ERasmussen@townofmead.org>; Kenneth J. Clifford <kcliffordPivaiva.com> Subject: RE: Sorrento - 1st Final Review Comments The proposed changes sound a bit more substantive than what we anticipated? I think we should chat about this as soon as we can. From: Stephanie Thomas<stephanie@northernengineering.com> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 12:04 PM To: Christopher Kennedy <CKennedv@townofmead.org> Cc: Kenneth J. Clifford <kcliffordPivaiva.com>; kristin@tbgroup.us; Amber Morse<amberPnorthernengineering.com>; 1 'Jeff Mark' <imark@landhuisco.com>; Blake Carlson <blake@carlsonld.com> Subject: Sorrento - 1st Final Review Comments Chris We need a bit of direction in terms of some of the comments from JVA. We understand that the Town of Mead has adopted new street standards in March 2018. These standards are significantly different from the previous Mead Standards. While I appreciate these more up-to-date and more prescriptive standards, they are significantly different than the previous standards that we designed to. JVA had the following comments that referenced the new standards: 1. PIP plans shall meet all criteria from the Town of Mead Design Standards and Construction Specifications that were adopted in March 2018. Agree 2. Replace all street and storm details with the current Town of Mead Details from the new design standards and construction specifications. Agree 3. All local street sidewalks shall be 5' wide, and all minor arterial sidewalks shall be 8' wide. Agree — however the arterial cross sections on the previously routed utility plans (JVA comments dated Feb 15, 2018) show otherwise. I'd like to hold fast to the 5' residential (5' was shown on the utility set, reduced back to 4' on the CD's) — maybe we can bend on the 8' to what is shown on the utility plans, which is a mix of 6' and 8'. BTW, Helen is supportive of making them stick to 5' and 8'. I've invited her to join us on Thursday. 4. Sidewalk chase drain culverts are not permitted. Curb inlets shall be installed. Agree — where are these proposed? I found only 2 locations. 5. Minimum local street curb return radius shall be 20'. Need to discuss — this conflicts with the previously routed preliminary plat and will require a redesign effort. Perhaps we can limit the locations where this applies to specific intersections? 6. Minimum street centerline street grade shall be 0.75%. As we discussed previously — we are probably willing to bend on this one. Let's looks at specifically how much effort this will require. These comments drastically change our design from what was previous completed in the preliminary design to meet the standards at the time. Is the final design of Sorrento going to be held to these new standards or is it going to be grand - fathered in based on the old standards? Thank you! Stephanie Thomas, PE Project Engineer NORTHERN ENGINEERING 301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100 I Fort Collins, CO 80521 D: 970.568.5412 O: 970.221.4158 www.northernenoineerino.com 2 Kimberly Dewey From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kenneth J. Clifford <kclifford@jvajva.com> Friday, April 20, 2018 4:23 PM 'Jeff Mark'; Stephanie Thomas; Christopher Kennedy kristin@tbgroup.us; Blake Carlson RE: Sorrento - Irrigation Bridge Widening Jeff, My comments are due to Town staff on Thursday next week, and we will be discussing at the DRC meeting. Thanks, Ken KENNETH J. CLIFFORD, P.E. I Project Manager JVA, Incorporated 1319 Spruce Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Direct: 303.565.4973 I Mobile: 303.579.5146 I Phone: 303.444.1951 www.jvajva.com Boulder I Fort Collins I Winter Park I Glenwood Springs I Denver From: Jeff Mark [mailto:JMark@landhuisco.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 9:09 AM To: Stephanie Thomas <stephanie@northernengineering.com>; Chris Kennedy (CKennedy@townofmead.org) <CKennedy@townofmead.org>; Kenneth J. Clifford <kclifford@jvajva.com> Cc: kristin@tbgroup.us; Blake Carlson <blake@carlsonld.com> Subject: RE: Sorrento - Irrigation Bridge Widening Do we have a response on this? Chris, are we on track for public meetings next month? We would like to get development going ASAP pending the below which is a huge cost. I believe what Stephanie proposed is fair given we are going to be paving a massive amount of roadway that is off -site to our development. Jeff Mark President The Landhuis Company 212 N. Wahsatch Ave., Suite 301 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Office: (719) 635-3200 Cell: (303) 210-7747 Fax: (719) 635-3244 imark@landhuisco.com From: Stephanie Thomas [mailto:stephanie@northernengineering.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 2:25 PM To: Chris Kennedy (CKennedy@townofinead.org) <CKennedy@townofinead.org>; Kenneth J. Clifford <kclifford@ivaiva.com> Cc: kristin@tbgroup.us; Jeff Mark <JMark@Iandhuisco.com>; Blake Carlson <blake@carlsonld.com> Subject: Sorrento - Irrigation Bridge Widening 1 Chris and Ken I am writing in response to the request to widen the existing bridge on WCR 32 over the irrigation ditch. As you both know this bridge is fairly narrow at 20' wide. In Ken's roadway improvements letter, Ken mentioned that widening this bridge would be a requirement of the Sorrento Subdivision. He suggested replacing the bridge to allow for clearance. Adequate clearance would imply that the bridge would need to be at least 28' wide to allow for 2-24' lanes with 2' clearance on each side. Ken's letter mentioned that these off -site improvements would be subject to reimbursements of 50% from future developer (Schell) and 50% from the Town. I've attached a few photos from a site visit to assess the bridge. As you can see this bridge seems to be a monolithic concrete structure in fairly good condition. Additionally, there seems to be multiple dry utilities and a large gas line spanning the ditch. Some of these utilities are attached to the bridge. After reviewing the existing bridge and request to widen the bridge for clearance, I am not sure whether the current plan makes sense. Based on the Mead Transportation Plan WCR 32/Adams is a minor arterial. The minor arterial section has a full width of roadway of 56' with additional 6'walks. If the walks were attached, the ultimate section would be about 70' wide (assuming a 7' sidewalk to account for curb width). If we remove the center turn lane, the width would be 52' wide. If the bike lanes were to merge with the travel lanes, the width would be about 42' wide. It seems that widening the bridge to 28' in the interim would not only require a full demolition of the bridge, but it would also require some major utility relocations. Then, if the roadway was ever built to the 42'/52'/70' section, the bridge would need to be widened again, these utilities would need to be relocated again, and potentially ROW would need to be dedicated. It seems to me that there are two options that would make more sense than building an interim bridge: 1. First Option - Leave the bridge alone and sign it as a narrow bridge. Then, at the time of future development of the Schell parcel, the bridge would get widened to the ultimate 42'/52'/70' section. 2. Second Option - Build the bridge to the 42'/52'/70' ultimate section. Due to the much higher cost of construction, there would need to be substantially more reimbursement from the Town upfront. Then the Town can be reimbursed from the Schell developer at a future date. Also, due to the complexity of the bridge widening, we suggest that the engineering fees be subject to reimbursement as well. Lastly, our conversation with the neighbors indicate that the property owner north of WCR 32/Adams is planning to develop. I believe they were referring to the Schell property, please correct me if I'm wrong. If this is true, the bridge would be right adjacent to the Schell property. I don't know the timing of this development, but maybe it is worthwhile to wait on the bridge widening. Then you only have to deal with one developer and only have to improve the bridge once. Thank you! Stephanie Thomas, PE Project Engineer NORTHERN ENGINEERING 301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100 I Fort Collins, CO 80521 D: 970.568.5412 O: 970.221.4158 www.northernenaineerinq.com 2 Hello