HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANCTUARY ON THE GREEN - PDP190003 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 6 - STORMWATER-RELATED DOCUMENTS
Sanctuary on the Greens
Initial Floodplain Report
Prepared for:
Solitaire Homes
7991 Shaffer Parkway, Suite 200
Littleton, CO 80127
Prepared by:
7000 South Yosemite Street, Suite 120
Centennial, CO 80112
303.221.0802
(Job No. 21-002_Sanctuary)
March 24, 2021
ICON
7000 S. Yosemite Street, Suite 120, Centennial, CO 80112
303.221.0802 | www.iconeng.com
Planning | Design | Management
March 24, 2021
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Initial Floodplain Report for Sanctuary on the Greens Development
Dear City Staff:
ICON Engineering, Inc. (ICON) is pleased to submit this Initial Floodplain Report for your
review. This report has been prepared in accordance with the City’s Floodplain Modeling
Report Submittal Guidelines (v 1.1) and addresses the floodplain impacts associated with the
proposed Sanctuary on the Greens Development project.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please email Brian at bledoux@iconeng.com.
Sincerely,
ICON Engineering, Inc.
Brian LeDoux, P.E., CFM Craig Jacobson, P.E., CFM
Project Manager Principal
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report_Cover.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1. Purpose ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Site Description ....................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Participants.................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Special Considerations ............................................................................................ 1
2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Flooding Source and History ................................................................................... 5
2.2 Previous Studies ..................................................................................................... 5
3.0 STUDY LIMITS ............................................................................................................... 6
4.0 MAPPING ....................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................ 7
5.1 Flood Discharges and Modeled Recurrence Intervals .............................................. 7
5.2 Revised Hydrologic Analysis ................................................................................... 7
6.0 HYDRAULICS ................................................................................................................ 7
6.1 Methods and Approach ........................................................................................... 7
6.2 Hydraulic Model Description .................................................................................... 9
7.0. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ........................................................................................ 14
7.1 Hydrologic Analysis ............................................................................................... 14
7.2 Hydraulic Analysis ................................................................................................. 14
8.0. REGULATION COMPLIANCE ..................................................................................... 16
8.1 NFIP Regulations .................................................................................................. 16
8.2 City Code .............................................................................................................. 16
9.0. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 16
TABLES
Table 6.1: Water Surface Elevation Comparisons - Southern Flowpath ........................ 11
Table 6.2: Water Surface Elevation Comparisons - Central Flowpath ........................... 12
Table 6.3: Water Surface Elevation Comparisons – PHS Split Flowpath ...................... 13
FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. 3
Figure 1.2: Vicinity Map with Effective / Pre-Project Floodplain ....................................... 4
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report_Cover.doc
APPENDICES
A – Letter of Map Revision Application Forms (MT-2)
B – ESA Compliance
C – Notifications
D – Project Design Information
E – Proposed Project Hydraulic Data
F – Comparison and Agreement Tables
G – Digital Data
H – Correspondence
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 1
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Purpose
This report and backup documentation are intended to describe the proposed changes
to the Sanctuary on the Greens development site and support the request for
Preliminary Development Review approval for the proposed floodplain changes from the
City of Fort Collins (City) for floodplain revisions along the West Vine Basin channels,
including the Southern and Central flowpaths upstream of North Taft Hill Road.
Proposed changes include grading to accommodate site development as well as two
drainage channels to route flows through the site. These channels are conceptually
similar to those proposed with the 2003 Selected Plan for the West Vine Basin as well as
current updates presented by the 2020 Alternatives Analysis.
This Initial Floodplain Report provides revised floodplain limits and applicable tie-ins for
both the Current Effective and the proposed post-project conditions along the Central
and Southern flowpaths. The Current Effective City Floodplain Map and the DRAFT
West Vine City Floodplain Map are included in Appendix E.
1.2 Site Description
The Sanctuary on the Greens development area is located just west of North Taft Hill
Road and just north of Laporte Avenue and includes approximately 43 acres of property.
The project site is located in the northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 7 North,
Range 69 West within the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The site generally slopes from
south to north, with no major drainageway channels. Much of the project area is
impacted by the current effective and draft City of Fort Collins’ West Vine Basin
floodplain boundaries. There is no federally designated (FEMA) floodplain on the site.
The property spans the New Mercer Canal and is just upstream of the Larimer County
Canal No. 2. A vicinity map is illustrated in Figure 1.1. The draft West Vine Basin
floodplains are included in Figure 1.2 and described further below. This site is proposed
for development into a mixed-use residential neighborhood composed of single family
homes, duplexes, condominium flats, row homes, roadways and all associated utilities.
1.3 Project Participants
This Initial Floodplain Report has been prepared by ICON Engineering Inc. on behalf of
Solitaire Homes and Northern Engineering.
1.4 Special Considerations
The updated regulatory floodplain for this area of the West Vine Basin is in draft form
and has not yet been officially adopted by the City of Fort Collins. However, the City
considers the draft floodplain as the best available information and is requiring that the
development show no adverse impact relative to these flooding conditions. Currently a
flooding master plan is in progress for the West Vine Basin. Ultimately, this master plan
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 2
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
proposes an open channel through this site to convey stormwater. These proposed
conditions are similar to those proposed with the site development. However, as
discussed with the City, the Sanctuary on the Greens development currently also utilizes
significant portions of these proposed channels for required stormwater detention. Once
basin-wide improvements are completed, the detention volume for the proposed site can
be shifted to the proposed Forney regional detention pond with the channels then limited
to only storm water conveyance.
LAPORTE AVEN SUNSET STCHERRY STIRISH DRN TAFT HILL RDN IMPALA DRWEBB AVESUNRISE LNPENNSYLVANIA STTARRAGON LN
BELLWETHER LN
S IMPALA DRSTEPHENS STBASIL LNS TAFT HILL RDBRIARWOOD RDCORIANDER LNN BRIARWOOD RDFigure 1.1: Vicinity Map 200
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Sanctuary on the Greens Development Property
Proposed Site Layout
New
M
e
r
c
e
r
C
a
n
a
l
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
Larimer C
o
u
n
t
y
Canal No.
2
Sanctuary on the Greens
City of Fort Collins
Sanctuary on the Greens
Central FP Reach 6
Central FP Reach 5
Southern FP Reach 2
Southern FP Reach 3
Central FP CherrySunrise
Southern FP PHS Split
Southern FP Reach 4
LAPORTE AVEN SUNSET STCHERRY ST IRISH DRN TAFT HILL RDN IMPALA DRWEBB AVESUNRISE LNPENNSYLVANIA STTARRAGON LN
BELLWETHER LN
S IMPALA DRSTEPHENS STBASIL LNS TAFT HILL RDBRIARWOOD RDCORIANDER LNN BRIARWOOD RDFigure 1.2: Vicinity Map with Effective / Pre-Project Floodplain 200
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Sanctuary on the Greens Development Property
Proposed Site Layout
Floodplain Centerline
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Floodway
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin 100-Year Floodplain
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Shallow Flooding
New
M
e
r
c
e
r
C
a
n
a
l
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
Larimer C
o
u
n
t
y
Canal No.
2
Sanctuary on the Greens
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 5
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Flooding Source and History
As noted above, the proposed development does not fall within a FEMA regulated
floodplain. However, part of the site is located within the City regulated West Vine Basin
floodplain and floodway, which is the flooding source for this analysis. The West Vine
Basin, located in northwest Fort Collins, extends east from Horsetooth Reservoir to the
Cache La Poudre River and south from West Vine Drive to Mulberry Street and Lapo rte
Avenue. The total area of the basin is approxima tely 2,252 acres, with the eastern half of
the basin largely developed as residential, including several schools. The western half of
the basin, west of Overland Trail, includes open space, Colorado State Forest nurseries,
and the Colorado State University Foothills Campus. In general, the basin drains from
west to east along five flowpaths that are not well defined as development and
agricultural practices have changed these historical paths. The project area is impacted
by both the Southern and Central flowpaths.
The West Vine Basin has had a history of flooding problems over the years. Problems
have included damage to homes and property, roadway overtopping and spills from the
canal systems. Based on reports from residents, there have been major flooding events
at the following years/locations:
• 1990, 1992, 1994-Irish Drive
• 1997-Sunset, Hollywood, North Hollywood, Webb Avenue, Hillcrest, West Vine
• 1999-North Hollywood
These events and issues led to a series of stormwater improvements provided by both
the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County to mitigate localized flooding. While these
improvements have decreased flood damages in portions of the basin, concerns remain
and the City is currently in the process of selecting alternatives for future drainage
improvements within the basin. ICON Engineering is in the process of preparing the
West Vine Basin Stormwater Master Plan Alternatives Report, and the subsequent
Selected Plan Report, which will provide data to support the City in their decision-making
process.
2.2 Previous Studies
Floodplain mapping shown on the City of Fort Collins “FC Maps” website is considered
Current Effective; however, a study is currently underway and will revise floodplain
mapping through the project site significantly. Because of this the City of Fo rt Collins has
discussed with the project developer that if they choose to move forward, they must
utilize draft study information at their own risk as this study undergoes adoption. A draft
HEC-RAS model and workmap are the basis for the Pre-Project conditions modeling
used for this project. Per the City of Fort Collins, this draft floodplain information is to be
treated as the Current Effective conditions.
The 2003 study by URS Corporation, “West Vine Basin Selected Plan”, developed
alternatives and provided a selected plan for regional improvements. This study
conceived the idea of a regional channel that would intercept and safely conve y flood
flow in the West Vine Basin. The concept of a main interception channel extending from
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 6
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
Taft Hill Road east and north in the direction of an outfall within the Cache La Poudre
River was seen as an effective way of mitigating flood risk for multiple properties that
had historically experienced flooding.
In 2013, Anderson Consulting produced an “Alternative Evaluation for the West Vine
Basin Outfall Channel”. This was built upon the concept of the regional West Vine Basin
outfall channel conceived in the 2003 URS study. The Anderson study looked into
potential improvements associated with this proposed outfall channel for the West Vine
Basin that was still shown extending from Taft Hill Rd. to a final outfall location at the
Cache La Poudre River. The study evaluated both channel improvements as well as
roadway crossings.
In 2020 ICON Engineering prepared the “Draft – Stormwater Master Plan, Alternatives
Report”, for the West Vine Basin. Similar to past planning efforts, suggested alternatives
considered regional conveyance and channel improvements as a means to mitigating
flood risk and improving hydrologic connectivity within the watershed. Recommended
alternatives included conveyance channels to the west and north of the Sanctuary site,
crossings with the existing irrigation canals, regional detention east of Taft Hill Road, and
connection to the existing outfall channel to the Cache La Poudre River. Proposed
grades and concepts from this study were integrated into the current design for the
Sanctuary channel system.
The current floodplain modeling report acknowledges both the 2003 URS study and the
2013 Anderson study, as well as current planning efforts with the 2020 ICON
Alternatives Report. The regional West Vine Basin outfall channels will be partially
constructed with this project and will be compatible with future improvements to further
improve stormwater within the West Vine Basin.
3.0 STUDY LIMITS
The Sanctuary on the Greens study limits are Laporte Avenue on the south and Taft Hill
Road / Larimer County Canal No. 2 on the east. The project spans both the Southern
Flowpath (including the PHS Split) and the Central Flowpath reaches. Figure E.1
illustrates the study limits.
4.0 MAPPING
The Sanctuary on the Greens project site is located just west of the North Taft Hill Road
crossing of the West Vine Basin Floodplain, Central Flowpath and Southern Flowpath as
shown in Figure E.1. Modeling cross-sections have been adjusted as necessary to
reflect the proposed flowpath modifications that will occur with the development project.
Post-Project conditions model cross sections are based on the regional LiDAR
topography used for the draft City floodplain analysis as well as proposed grading of the
development site. All elevations reference the NAVD-88 vertical datum. Horizontal
projection of all data is set to
NAD_1983_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_Feet. All background imagery
used in this report is from 2018 and was provided by the City of Fort Collins.
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 7
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
5.0 HYDROLOGY
5.1 Flood Discharges and Modeled Recurrence Intervals
The draft Baseline Hydraulics Report prepared by ICON Engineering in 2020 is used as
the basis for Pre-Project hydrology and hydraulic modeling. 100-year discharges within
the project reach are included in Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
5.2 Revised Hydrologic Analysis
Hydrology has not been revised as part of the Sanctuary on the Greens project. All
flowpaths follow the original alignments through the site and canal systems without
modification. As shown by the site plans, a hydraulic control will be placed in the vicinity
of the future roadway crossing west of the New Mercer Ditch. Any openings in this
hydraulic control will be limited to local drainage only to keep the entire 100-year
discharge within the Southern PHS Split Flowpath without modification. See section
7.2.5 for additional information.
6.0 HYDRAULICS
6.1 Methods and Approach
The draft Baseline Hydraulic information, as discussed above, was developed using
HEC-RAS Version 5.0.7. This model serves as the baseline for all floodplain hydraulics
for the proposed development site. The flow condition of the proposed model reach is
steady flow, and the flow regime of the proposed model reach is subcritical. Model
versions were not changed.
6.1.1 Hydraulic Cross-Sections
Effective cross sections were taken without modification from the draft Baseline
Hydraulics study. Proposed grading of the site and associated channels are reflected in
revised cross sections in the proposed Post-Project Conditions model. The hydraulic
cross sections utilized in this study are illustrated in the Appendix E workmaps. Cross
section stationing data is included in Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
For the Southern Flowpath, the effective cross section orientations were not revised for
the proposed project except for at cross section 11302, where the section was re-aligned
on the left overbank to better reflect flow traveling perpendicular through the revised
grading. No centerline changes were made and stationing of sections was not revised.
Cross section information and 100-Year water surface elevations are included in Table
6.1.
For the Central Flowpath, the effective cross sections were revised more significantly to
reflect the proposed project. Several sections were deleted or added, along with
realignment to better reflect flow conditions. The centerline was also revised to reflect
the proposed changes, including revised cross section stationing. Additionally, the North
Taft Hill Road culvert was removed and modeled with an inline weir section. This was
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 8
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
done to better model the hydraulics of the proposed roadway crossing. A discharge
reduction was completed at the North Taft Hill Road to account for the existing and
proposed culverts under the roadway. Cross section information and 100-Year water
surface elevations are included in Table 6.2.
For the PHS Split Flowpath, the effective cross sections were revised with several
deleted sections and several additions, along with re-aligned sections to better reflect
flow conditions. The centerline was similarly revised to reflect the proposed changes,
and the cross section stationing was modified. Cross section information and 100-Year
water surface elevations are included in Table 6.3.
6.1.2 Roughness Coefficients
Manning’s n-values in the Post-Project Conditions model for both channel and overbank
areas range from 0.032 to 0.060, based on anticipated land cover and conditions of the
development project. The draft Baseline Hydraulics model utilized Manning’s n-values in
the channel and overbank areas ranging from 0.040 to 0.060, as the existing site
consists of unmaintained areas with land cover ranging from high natural grasses to
shrubs and trees. The proposed condition model reflects maintained landscaped areas
with grasses and small shrubs.
6.1.3 Structures
As noted above, the North Taft Hill Road culvert on the Central Flowpath was removed
and modeled with an inline weir section. This was done to better model the hydraulics of
the proposed roadway crossing. A discharge reduction of 133 cfs was completed at the
North Taft Hill Road (cross sections 372 and 404) to account for the existing (24-inch
CMP with 36 cfs capacity per the Baseline Hydraulics model) and proposed culverts
(double 36-inch RCPs with > 97cfs capacity) under the roadway. General capacity
calculations for the proposed 36-inch RCP culverts is included in Appendix E. All other
hydraulic structures remain as they exist in the Pre-Project conditions.
Contraction and expansion coefficients remain unchanged from the Pre-Project
conditions and draft Baseline Hydraulics modeling.
As noted previously, the Sanctuary site proposes to incorporate detention into the
western and northern drainageway channels until such time as detention is available
downstream through a regional facility. For the post-project floodplain modeling, the
required detention volume within Ponds #2, 3, and 4 was blocked from the available
area of conveyance at all respective cross sections. For Pond #2, the blocked
obstruction was set to an elevation of 5060.90 to reflect a detention volume of 3.65 ac-ft.
For Pond #3, the blocked obstruction was set to an elevation of 5053.52 to reflect a
detention volume of 4.11 ac-ft. For Pond #4, the blocked obstruction was set to an
elevation of 5059.50 to reflect a detention volume of 0.35 ac-ft.
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 9
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
6.1.4 Boundary Conditions
Boundary conditions are unchanged from the Pre-Project conditions and draft Baseline
Hydraulics modeling.
6.1.5 Floodway Mapping
There are no NFIP regulated floodways in the revision reach, however this area is part of
the West Vine Basin floodplain and floodway as regulated by the City. The project will
result in minor revisions to the floodway limits based on the site revisions. Pre- and
Post-Project floodway delineations are provided on the workmaps in Appendix E.
6.2 Hydraulic Model Description
6.2.1 Duplicative Effective (DE) Model
The effective West Vine Basin hydraulic model was obtained from the draft Baseline
Hydraulics Report prepared by ICON Engineering. The hydraulic model was run without
modification in HEC-RAS (v5.0.7) to create the Duplicate Effective (DE) model. The
Duplicate Effective model matched the Current Effective model at all cross sections.
Duplicate Effective information is included in Tables. 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
6.2.2 Corrected Effective (CE) Model
The DE model was revised at cross section 11722 along the Southern Flowpath to better
reflect the effective flow limits for the New Mercer Canal spill location, creating the
Corrected Effective (CE) model. This change in ineffective flow increased the water
surface elevation at cross section 11722 by 0.73 feet. This change also resulted in
several minor (+/- 0.01 ft) changes throughout the other project reaches. Corrected
Effective information is included in Tables. 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
6.2.3 Existing Condition (EX-COND) Model
With the draft West Vine Basin floodplain being current and regional LiDAR determined
to be of a higher resolution than the existing site survey, no additional changes were
made to develop an Existing Conditions (EC) hydraulic model. The EC or Pre-Project
model is a duplicate of the Corrected Effective model. Pre-Project information is
included in Tables. 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. Pre-Project floodplain information is illustrated on
the workmaps included in Appendix E.
6.2.4 Proposed or Post-Project Condition (PP-COND) Model
The Post-Project conditions hydraulic model includes revisions to reflect the proposed
project. This includes removal of some Pre-Project sections and additional sections
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 10
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
added. Post-Project information is included in Tables. 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. Post-Project
floodplain information is illustrated on the workmaps included in Appendix E.
For the Post-Project conditions along the PHS Split Flowpath, the resulting changes in
water surface elevation are minimal adjacent to the 1238 lateral weir structure. The non-
optimized Post-Project conditions weir indicates that 20 cfs would spill from the PHS
Split Flowpath to the Southern Flowpath. This represents a decrease of 4 cfs from the
effective model which spills 24 cfs from the PHS Split to the Southern Flowpath. Based
on this minor change in discharge, the weir was not re-optimized for the analysis and the
effective discharges continued to be used along these two reaches. It should be noted
that the reduction in spill flow ultimately helps to manage more floodplain flow on -site
and lessens offsite impacts.
Table 6.1: Water Surface Elevation Comparisons - West Vine Basin - Sanctuary Development - Southern Flowpath
ICON Engineering Inc.
Location Description Reach
Effective
Cross Section
Post-Project
Cross Section
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
Δ WSEL
vs. Pre-Project
North Taft Hill Road / downstream tie-in Southern FP - Reach 2 11111 11111 577 5057.31 577 5057.31 0.00 577 5057.31 0.0 577 5057.31 0.0 577 5057.31 0.0 0.0
Southern FP - Reach 2 11146 11146 577 5057.53 577 5057.53 0.00 577 5057.53 0.0 577 5057.53 0.0 577 5057.55 0.0 0.0
Southern FP - Reach 2 11200 11200 577 5057.53 577 5057.53 0.00 577 5057.53 0.0 577 5057.53 0.0 577 5057.57 0.0 0.0
Southern FP - Reach 2 11302 11302 577 5057.57 577 5057.57 0.00 577 5057.57 0.0 577 5057.57 0.0 577 5057.61 0.0 0.0
Southern FP - Reach 2 11405 11405 569 5057.61 569 5057.61 0.00 569 5057.61 0.0 569 5057.61 0.0 569 5057.64 0.0 0.0
Southern FP - Reach 2 11512 11512 569 5058.42 569 5058.42 0.00 569 5058.42 0.0 569 5058.42 0.0 569 5057.65 -0.8 -0.8
Southern FP - Reach 2 11646 11646 569 5059.85 569 5059.85 0.00 569 5059.85 0.0 569 5059.85 0.0 569 5058.97 -0.9 -0.9
Southern FP - Reach 2 11722 11722 569 5060.12 569 5060.12 0.00 569 5060.85 0.7 569 5060.85 0.7 569 5060.56 0.4 -0.3
downstream of New Mercer Canal Southern FP - Reach 2 11737 11737 569 5062.01 569 5062.01 0.00 569 5062.01 0.0 569 5062.01 0.0 569 5062.01 0.0 0.0
upstream of New Mercer Canal Southern FP - Reach 3 11977 11977 345 5062.89 345 5062.89 0.00 345 5062.89 0.0 345 5062.89 0.0 345 5062.89 0.0 0.0
upstream tie-in Southern FP - Reach 3 12209 12209 345 5063.03 345 5063.03 0.00 345 5063.03 0.0 345 5063.03 0.0 345 5063.03 0.0 0.0
5280.12 = Interpolated elevation
1 From effective 2020 West Vine Basin HEC-RAS Model (ICON Engineering Inc.)
2 (03) Effective model run in HEC-RAS 5.0.7
3 (04) Corrected Effective conditions - ineffective flow added to XS 11722 to reflect anticipated spill flow location
5 (08) Post-Project conditions (2021-03-11 revisions)
(08) Post-Project 5(04) Corrected Effective 3Effective Model 1 (03) Duplicate Effective Model 2 (05) Pre-Project 4
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Table_X_X_WSEL_Comparison.xlsx 2021-03-24
Table 6.2: Water Surface Elevation Comparisons - West Vine Basin - Sanctuary Development - Central Flowpath
ICON Engineering Inc.
Location Description Reach
Effective
Cross Section
Post-Project
Cross Section
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
Δ WSEL
vs. Pre-Project
upstream Larimer County Canal No. 2 /
downstream tie-in Central FP - Reach 5 242 243 333 5050.54 333 5050.54 0.00 333 5050.54 0.0 333 5050.54 0.0 333 5050.54 0.0 0.0
downstream North Taft Hill Road Central FP - Reach 5 270 275 333 5050.56 333 5050.56 0.00 333 5050.56 0.0 333 5050.56 0.0 333 5050.56 0.0 0.0
Central FP - Reach 5 --372 --5055.76 --5055.76 0.00 --5055.76 0.0 --5055.76 0.0 200 5055.65 -0.1 -0.1
upstream North Taft Hill Road Central FP - Reach 5 370 404 333 5055.76 333 5055.76 0.00 333 5055.76 0.0 333 5055.76 0.0 200 5055.65 -0.1 -0.1
downstream end Detention Pond 3 Central FP - Reach 5 437 --333 5055.76 333 5055.76 0.00 333 5055.76 0.0 333 5055.76 0.0 --5055.65 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - Reach 5 --488 --5055.76 --5055.76 0.00 --5055.76 0.0 --5055.76 0.0 333 5055.65 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - Reach 5 622 647 333 5055.76 333 5055.76 0.00 333 5055.76 0.0 333 5055.76 0.0 333 5055.68 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - Reach 5 925 946 333 5056.55 333 5056.55 0.00 333 5056.55 0.0 333 5056.55 0.0 333 5055.9 -0.7 -0.7
upstream end Detention Pond 3 Central FP - Reach 5 1189 1234 321 5059.42 321 5059.42 0.00 321 5059.42 0.0 321 5059.42 0.0 321 5056.16 -3.3 -3.3
Central FP - Reach 6 --1445 --5061.53 --5061.53 0.00 --5061.53 0.0 --5061.53 0.0 321 5056.3 -5.2 -5.2
downstream New Mercer Canal Central FP - Reach 5 1534 1602 321 5062.87 321 5062.87 0.00 321 5062.87 0.0 321 5062.87 0.0 321 5062.87 0.0 0.0
upstream New Mercer Canal Central FP - Reach 5 1645 1713 134 5063.07 134 5063.07 0.00 263 5063.08 0.0 263 5063.08 0.0 263 5063.09 0.0 0.0
Central FP - Reach 6 1707 1775 158 5063.07 158 5063.07 0.00 158 5063.07 0.0 158 5063.07 0.0 287 5063.07 0.0 0.0
downstream end Detention Pond 2 Central FP - Reach 6 --1796 --5063.06 --5063.06 0.00 --5063.06 0.0 --5063.06 0.0 287 5063.05 0.0 0.0
Central FP - Reach 6 --1807 --5063.05 --5063.05 0.00 --5063.06 0.0 --5063.06 0.0 287 5062.96 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - Reach 6 1758 --158 5063.04 158 5063.04 0.00 158 5063.05 0.0 158 5063.05 0.0 --5063.12 0.1 0.1
Central FP - Reach 6 --1854 --5063.04 --5063.04 0.00 --5063.05 0.0 --5063.05 0.0 287 5063.34 0.3 0.3
Central FP - Reach 6 1828 1896 171 5063.04 171 5063.04 0.00 171 5063.05 0.0 171 5063.05 0.0 287 5063.36 0.3 0.3
Central FP - Reach 6 1946 2014 171 5063.34 171 5063.34 0.00 171 5063.35 0.0 171 5063.35 0.0 287 5063.41 0.1 0.1
Central FP - Reach 6 2157 2225 234 5064.63 234 5064.63 0.00 234 5064.63 0.0 234 5064.63 0.0 287 5063.51 -1.1 -1.1
Central FP - Reach 6 2259 2328 285 5065.56 285 5065.56 0.00 285 5065.56 0.0 285 5065.56 0.0 287 5063.55 -2.0 -2.0
Central FP - Reach 6 2355 2423 287 5066.46 287 5066.46 0.00 287 5066.46 0.0 287 5066.46 0.0 287 5063.61 -2.9 -2.9
Central FP - Reach 6 2413 2490 287 5066.78 287 5066.78 0.00 287 5066.78 0.0 287 5066.78 0.0 287 5063.61 -3.2 -3.2
upstream end Detention Pond 2 / upstream tie-in Central FP - Reach 6 2439 2516 287 5066.42 287 5066.42 0.00 287 5066.42 0.0 287 5066.42 0.0 287 5066.42 0.0 0.0
5280.12 = Interpolated elevation
1 From effective 2020 West Vine Basin HEC-RAS Model (ICON Engineering Inc.)
2 (03) Effective model run in HEC-RAS 5.0.7
3 (04) Corrected Effective conditions - ineffective flow added to XS 11722 to reflect anticipated spill flow location
4 (05) Pre-Project conditions
5 (08) Post-Project conditions (2021-03-17 revisions)
(08) Post-Project 5Effective Model 1 (03) Duplicate Effective Model 2 (04) Corrected Effective 3 (05) Pre-Project 4
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Table_X_X_WSEL_Comparison.xlsx 2021-03-24
Table 6.3: Water Surface Elevation Comparisons - West Vine Basin - Sanctuary Development - PHS Split Flowpath
ICON Engineering Inc.
Location Description Reach
Effective
Cross Section
Post-Project
Cross Section
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
Δ WSEL
vs. Pre-Project
Upstream of New Mercer Canal / downstream tie-in Central FP - PHS - Split 60 113 242 5062.59 242 5062.59 0.00 242 5062.58 0.0 242 5062.58 0.0 242 5062.55 0.0 0.0
Detention Pond 4 Central FP - PHS - Split --184 --5062.68 --5062.68 0.00 --5062.67 0.0 --5062.67 0.0 242 5062.58 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - PHS - Split --330 --5062.86 --5062.86 0.00 --5062.87 0.0 --5062.87 0.0 242 5062.39 -0.5 -0.5
Central FP - PHS - Split 301 409 242 5062.89 242 5062.89 0.00 242 5062.90 0.0 242 5062.90 0.0 242 5063.38 0.5 0.5
Central FP - PHS - Split 557 521 231 5064.97 231 5064.97 0.00 231 5064.96 0.0 231 5064.96 0.0 231 5064.11 -0.9 -0.9
Central FP - PHS - Split --600 --5065.74 --5065.74 0.00 --5065.74 0.0 --5065.74 0.0 231 5064.55 -1.2 -1.2
Start of proposed channel Central FP - PHS - Split 693 707 231 5066.30 231 5066.30 0.00 231 5066.30 0.0 231 5066.30 0.0 231 5064.78 -1.5 -1.5
Central FP - PHS - Split --834 --5067.44 --5067.44 0.00 --5067.44 0.0 --5067.44 0.0 231 5066.99 -0.4 -0.4
Central FP - PHS - Split --869 --5067.75 --5067.75 0.00 --5067.75 0.0 --5067.75 0.0 231 5067.67 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - PHS - Split 922 940 231 5068.35 231 5068.35 0.00 231 5068.35 0.0 231 5068.35 0.0 231 5068.22 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - PHS - Split 1048 1066 244 5069.48 244 5069.48 0.00 244 5069.48 0.0 244 5069.48 0.0 244 5069.51 0.0 0.0
Central FP - PHS - Split 1221 1239 255 5070.98 255 5070.98 0.00 255 5070.98 0.0 255 5070.98 0.0 255 5070.96 0.0 0.0
Laporte Avenue Central FP - PHS - Split 1358 1376 212 5073.22 212 5073.22 0.00 212 5073.22 0.0 212 5073.22 0.0 212 5073.22 0.0 0.0
upstream tie-in Central FP - PHS - Split 1459 1477 212 5074.00 212 5074.00 0.00 212 5074.00 0.0 212 5074.00 0.0 212 5074 0.0 0.0
5280.12 = Interpolated elevation
1 From effective 2020 West Vine Basin HEC-RAS Model (ICON Engineering Inc.)
2 (03) Effective model run in HEC-RAS 5.0.7
3 (04) Corrected Effective conditions - ineffective flow added to XS 11722 to reflect anticipated spill flow location
4 (05) Pre-Project conditions
5 (08) Post-Project conditions (2021-03-11 revisions)
(08) Post-Project 6Effective Model 1 (03) Duplicate Effective Model 2 (04) Corrected Effective 3 (05) Pre-Project 4
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Table_X_X_WSEL_Comparison.xlsx 2021-03-24
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 14
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
7.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
7.1 Hydrologic Analysis
No revisions to the hydrologic analysis are proposed as part of the Sanctuary on the
Greens project.
7.2 Hydraulic Analysis
7.2.1 Summary of Water Surface Elevations
100-Year water surface elevation information for the Duplicate Effective, Corrected
Effective, Pre-Project, and Post-Project conditions are included in Tables. 6.1, 6.2, and
6.3. 100-Year floodplain limits are illustrated in the floodplain workmaps included in
Appendix E.
The Duplicate Effective model results match exactly to the Effective Conditions model
from the draft 2020 Baseline Hydraulics Report.
The Corrected Effective model includes a single +0.73 foot increase at cross section
11722 (Southern FP, Reach 3) as a result of revising the ineffective flow boundary at tha
cross section to better represent New Mercer Canal overtopping. In additional to the
changes at cross section 11722, several other cross sections experienced a minor (+/-
0.01 ft) change in water surface elevation as a result of the model changes.
The Pre-Project conditions model is a direct duplicate of the Corrected Effective model,
and therefore there are no changes in water surface elevation between the two models.
The Post-Project conditions model includes both increases and decreases in water
surface elevation compared to the Pre-Project conditions. These changes are
summarized below:
Southern Flowpath
Increases are limited to 0.04’ outside of the Sanctuary on the Greens property.
These increases occur upstream of North Taft Hill Road and are within the City’s
regulatory tolerance.
Central Flowpath
Increases along the Central Flowpath are less than 0.04’ or are fully contained
within Sanctuary on the Greens property limits. The maximum water surface
increase is 0.32’, and occurs within the proposed Detention Pond #2 area.
PHS Split Flowpath
Increases along the PHS Split Flowpath are less than 0.04’ or are fully contained
within Sanctuary on the Greens property. The maximum water surface increase
is 0.48’. This occurs within the proposed Detention Pond #4 site.
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 15
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
7.2.2 Downstream and Upstream Tie-In
Figure E.1 in Appendix E illustrates the downstream and upstream tie-in locations of
the hydraulic model. All vertical elevations and horizontal top widths match the duplicate
effective conditions.
The changes to the Central Flowpath do have a minor impact on the CherrySunrise
reach of the Central Flowpath upstream of the confluence. The DE and Pre-Project
elevation of the CherrySunrise cross section 1728 is 5062.93. The Post-Project
elevation at the same section (now 1796 due to centerline changes), is 5062.96. This
0.03 ft change is elevation is within the City’s regulatory tolerance and does not impact
existing structures, however the impact is within Larimer County. Final design for the
project will work to address this increase to lessen or eliminate this increase.
7.2.3 Floodway Modeling
Floodway encroachments were completed in reaches with an effective floodway
delineation. Resulting surcharges were kept at a maximum of 0.50 ft for both the
change in water surface elevation and the change in energy grade elevation. Applicable
floodway delineations are illustrated in Figures E.3 though E.14 in Appendix E.
Additional floodway data is provided in Appendix E.
7.2.4 Impacts
There are no adverse impacts to existing or proposed structures, or adjacent private
property as a result of the Sanctuary on the Greens proposed project. Additional rainfall
runoff created by the change in impervious surfaces within the project area will be
detained on-site until such time as regional detention improvements downstream are
fully constructed.
7.2.5 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project includes grading to formalize both detention areas and
conveyance channels throughout the project site. The proposed channels generally
match the conceptual master planned alternatives, including regional conveyance
channels through the site. However, in the interim condition, the Southern Flowpath
PHS split reach will continue to flow east and rejoin the Southern Flowpath. The
proposed culvert between Ponds #2 and #4 will be blocked until such time that the
regional channel is completed allowing for the full Southern Flowpath (including the PHS
Split Flow) to flow north and confluence with the Central Flowpath upstream of the New
Mercer Canal. Once a regional channel and associated regional detention facility are
completed, the detention blockage can be removed, and the regional channel will have
capacity for master planned discharges.
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report 16
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report.doc
8.0 REGULATION COMPLIANCE
8.1 NFIP Regulations
There are no FEMA regulatory floodplains or associated NFIP regulations associated
with the Sanctuary on the Green development.
8.2 City Code
All provisions within Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code shall be adhered to by
following the floodplain design as proposed. The design presented in this report and
associated modelling for Sanctuary on the Green complies with the ongoing City of Fort
Collins Stormwater Master Plan for the West Vine Basin.
9.0 REFERENCES
1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, 2018.
2. West Vine Selected Plan Report, URS Corporation, 2003.
3. Alternative Evaluation for the West Vine Basin Outfall Channel, Anderson
Consulting, 2013.
4. West Vine Basin, Baseline Hydraulics Report, ICON Engineering, Inc., 2020
5. West Vine Basin Stormwater Master Plan – Alternatives Report (draft), ICON
Engineering Inc., 2020.
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report_Appendix_Covers.doc
Appendix A:
Letter of Map Revision Application Forms (MT-2)
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report_Appendix_Covers.doc
Appendix B:
ESA Compliance
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report_Appendix_Covers.doc
Appendix C:
Notifications
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report_Appendix_Covers.doc
Appendix D:
Project Design Information
STREET B(57' PUBLIC ROW)NORTH TAFT ROAD (ROW VARIES)2.0 1.0
.5
2.0.5
2.0
1.0
1.0
.5
.5
.5
2.0
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSUTSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSUSDSDTSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYND
DDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
SD SD SD
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
NYLOPLAST
DO NOT POLLUTE DRAINS TO WATERWAYS
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDTSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU EEEEEEEEEE
EEEE
EEE
EE
EE
EEE
SBSBSB
SB
SBSB SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SBSB
SBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
E
E
EE
EEEEE
EEE EEE
EEEEEEEEE
EEE
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
TSALPOLYNDDDONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYSU
XOHU OHU OHU
OHU OHU
OHU OHU OHU
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SSSS SS SS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
SS
SS
SSOHUOHUOHUOHU
GGXGFOFOFOOHU OHU OHU OHUXXX
TTTGGGFOFOFOCTVCTVCTVEEEWWWTE
W W
CTVCTVFO FO
G GFOFO FO
FOCTVFOFOCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVFOFOFOFOW W W W
EEEE E EEEEG G G G
X XE FOFOFOTTTTTTG G G
G G GWWW
FO
FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOE E GGWFOGT T T TT
CTVTTOHUXOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUG
EEEFO FO
WEFOCTVCTVCTV
E E
GGG G G
G G GFOFOCTVCTVCTVCTVCTV
FO
FO FOEOHUOHUWGGECTVCTVCTVCTVCTV WWWWCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVFOFOFOFOFOGGGGGGGGWFOFOCTVEEEETTTTTOHUOHUOHUOHUCTVEGGGGGGGWGGGGWWGGFOCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVGGGGFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOWWWWWWWXXCTVCTVCTVCTVOHUOHUOHUGGGGXXXXXXXXXXXTTTTTTOHUOHUXXXOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUX
X
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
ST STSTST ST SSSSSSST
ST
ST
ST
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
X
XX XX XX X XXXX X X
XXX
STSTMH
V.P.VAULTELEC
V.P.
T
VAULTF.O.
ELEC
ELEC
ELEC
BRKRE
CABLECABLETT
CELEC
CABLE FE
SCABLE
B M
T
TELE
D
CABLE
TELE
TELE
F.O.
F.O.
S
VAULTF.O.
S
W
F.O.
GAS
HY DM
WCS
M
M
S
M
M
S
S
EELEC
C
MH
D
MMMMM
W
VAULTELEC T MCSH2OMM
S
CS
HY D
VAULTELEC
W
D
CS
W
WCSF E
SW
M
M
T
W
V.P.V.P.V.P.V.P.V.P.
C
VAULTF.O.
T VAULTELEC M
HY D
GAS
M
V.P.VAULTELECT
MC
CS
C
VAULTELEC
GAS
M
M
W
M CT VAULTELEC
C
W
MMMMMMMM
VAULTELEC
H2O
W
CS
CABLE
ELEC
W
S
W
G
SHYD
VAULTCABLE
CABLE
TRAFFICVAULT
VAULTELEC
VAULTELEC ELEC
TELECABLE
CABLE
TELE TELE
VAULTCABLE
F.O.
W
TELE
VAULTELEC
ELEC
VAULTELEC
VAULTELEC
CONTROLIRRW F.O.
TELEMTELEMTELE
VAULTELEC
TELEM VAULTTELE
VAULTCABLE
VAULTCABLE
VAULTF.O.
GAS
TELE
CONTROLIRRCONTROLIRR
CONTROLIRR
HY DM
VAULTELEC T SVAULTELEC
CONTROLIRR CONTROLIRR CONTROLIRRCONTROLIRR
TELE
TELE
CONTROLIRR CONTROLIRR
F.O.
VAULTELECVAULTF.O.TELEVAULTCABLE
GAS
CONTROLIRR
CONTROLIRR
CONTROLIRR
WH2O
G
CSW
CSW CSW
CS
H2O
TGAS
F.O.
S
M
CS
HY D
VAULTF.O.
VAULTELEC
VAULTCABLEVAULTCABLECABLE
MH
D
MH
D
M
TESTSTA
CT
T
VAULTELEC
V.P.
T M M
VAULTELEC
VAULTELEC
CONTROLIRRCONTROLIRR
VAULTELECT S
VAULTF.O.
VAULTF.O.
VAULTCABLE
S
MH
MHW
G
ELECELECELEC
ELEC
CS
CS
TT
TVAULTELEC
W M
S
F.O.
VAULTF.O.
ELEC
CONTROLIRR
V.P.
V.P.V.P.
V.P.
M
E
CS
MW
F.O.
D
D
VAULTELECVAULTCABLE
ELECVAULTELEC
D
MW
MW
ELEC
TFES C
T
M
FE
SMW
VAULTELEC
T S
T SVAULTELEC
VAULTELEC
T SVAULTELEC
T SVAULTELEC
GAS
S
VAULTELEC
D
S
VAULTELECVAULTCABLEC
VAULTELEC
VAULTELEC
W
CVAULTCABLEVAULTELEC
S
S
S
S
S
S
TELE
T
TH
TH
X
XXXWWVAULTELEC
N IMPALA DRIVEIRISH DRIVEWEBB AVENUEOWNER
KIRK WILSON
W CHERRY STREET
OWNER
KIRK & DEBRA WILSON
320 N SUNSET STREET
OWNER
KIRK WILSON
310 N SUNSET STREET
OWNER
FRANK ERNSET
242 N SUNSET STREET
OWNER
KIRI SAFTLER
230 N SUNSET STREET
OWNER
POUDRE R-1
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2444 LAPORTE AVE OWNER
POUDRE R-1
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2444 LAPORTE AVE
OWNER
FORREST SCHRUPP
2318 LAPORTE AVE
OWNER
CALVARY BAPTIST TEMPLE
2420 LAPORTE AVENUE
OWNERRICHARD & DIXIELOYD2316 LAPORTEAVENUEOWNERSYDNE ARCHAMBAULT2314 LAPORTE AVENUEOWNERCURTIS LYONSLAPORTE AVENUEOWNERALEX OZOLS2224 LAPORTE AVENUEOWNERDANNY ROGERS2214 LAPORTE AVENUEOWNERROBERT JONES2218 LAPORTE AVENUEOWNER
PATRICK ST.
CLAIR
2216 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
KURT VATTANO
PENNSYLVANIA STREETOWNER
WILLIAM GREYBAR
413 N TAFT HILL ROAD
OWNER
ANDREA GABEL
420 N IMPALA DR.
OWNER
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAPORTE AVENUE
LAPORTE AVENUE N TAFT HILL ROADN TAFT HILL ROADLAPORTE AVENUE
S IMPALA DRIVEBRIARWOOD ROADOWNER
FAITH REALTY
OWNER
MIRANDA SPINDEL
330 N TAFT HILL ROAD
OWNER
LAPORT OUTREACH
MINISTRIES INC.
220 N TAFT HILL ROAD
OWNER
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
OWNER
7-ELEVEN
200 N TAFT HILL ROAD
OWNER
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
OWNER
POUDRE R-1
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2444 LAPORTE AVE
OWNER
POUDRE R-1
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2444 LAPORTE AVE ACCESS DRIVEN
E
W
M
E
R
C
E
R
D
I
T
C
H
NEW MERCER
D
ITCH
NEW MERC
E
R
D
I
T
C
H
GREEN ACRES
SUBDIVISION
GREEN ACRES
SUBDIVISION
BELLWETHER FARM
SUBDIVISION
CONNECT TO
EXISTING
WATERLINE
STREET A
STREET ASTREET C
STREET BSTORM LINE 2
STORM LINE 1
STORM LINE 3
STORM LINE 7
STORM LINE 9
STORM LINE 8
STORM LINE 10
STORM LINE 13
STORM LINE 11
PROPOSED STORM
TECH CHAMBERS
PROPOSED STORM
TECH CHAMBERS
PROPOSED STORM
TECH CHAMBERS
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
BLOCK 3
BLOCK 4
BLOCK 5
BLOCK 6BLOCK 6
STORM LINE 6
STORM LINE 12
STORM LINE 11
DETENTION
POND 3
DETENTION
POND 2
DETENTION
POND 1
DETENTION
POND 4
DETENTION
POND 5
RAIN GARDEN D5
RAIN
GARDEN D3
RAIN
GARDEN B2
RAIN
GARDEN D3
RAIN
GARDEN C5
RAIN
GARDEN C6
RAIN
GARDEN D4
PROPOSED STORM
TECH CHAMBERS STREET CLARIMER COUNTYCANAL NO. 2STORM LINE 14
B M
KEYMAP
LAPORTE AVE.TAFT HILL RD.SheetSANCTUARY ON THE GREENSThese drawings areinstruments of serviceprovided by NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.and are not to be used forany type of constructionunless signed and sealed bya Professional Engineer inthe employ of NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREVIEW SETENGINEERNGIEHTRONRNFORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631970.221.4158northernengineering.comof 30
NORTH
C3.00OVERALL GRADING PLAN12
DateCity Engineer
Date
Date
Date
Date
Stormwater Utility
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Date
Water & Wastewater Utility
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
Environmental Planner
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet0120120
120
240 360
C3.03 C3.04 C3.05
C3.01 C3.02
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
LEGEND:
1.EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES AS
SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO
THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF
SUCH INFORMATION. EXISTING UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES MAY NOT BE
STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE)
PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY EXACT UTILITY LOCATIONS.
2.ALL WATER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, LATEST EDITION.
3.MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN
ALL SANITARY SEWER & WATER MAINS & SERVICES.
4.ALL WATER FITTINGS AND VALVES ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND
ARE NOT TO SCALE.
5.ROTATE ALL SANITARY MANHOLE LIDS TO LIE OUTSIDE OF THE WHEEL PATH.
6.DRY UTILITY CONDUIT TO BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO
STREET CONSTRUCTION.
7.NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE
FLOODWAY, WHETHER TEMPORARY (DURING CONSTRUCTION) OR PERMANENT.
LANDSCAPING SHALL ALSO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NO RISE IN THE
FLOODWAY.
8.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND NO RISE CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO
PERFORMING ANY WORK WITHIN THE FLOODWAY (I.E., CURB CUT REMOVAL,
LANDSCAPING).
9.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK
WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
10.THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A
NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR
ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. THIS WILL HELP
PRESERVE THE INTENTION BEHIND THE BUFFER ZONES AND THE NATURAL
FEATURES INTO THE FUTURE.
NOTES:
EXISTING DECID. TREE
EXISTING CONIF. TREE
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING STUMP
STEXISTING STORM SEWER LINE
EXISTING CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
4:1BANK SLOPE
PROPOSED ASPHALT CROSS SLOPE
CONCENTRATED FLOW DIRECTION
PROPOSED SWALE FLOWLINE
PROPOSED OUTFALL CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN WITH INLET
PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR
79.45PROPOSED FINISH GROUND ELEVATION
(79.45)EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
PROPOSED INFLOW CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
2.0%
4950
100-YR FLOODWAY
100-YR FLOODPLAIN
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
NYLOPLAST
DO NOT POLLUTE DRAINS TO WATERWAYS SDSDSDSDSDTSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
SD
SD
TSALPOLYN
D
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
TSALPOLYN
D
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
OHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXST ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
XXX X X X X X X X X
CABLE FE
SCABLE
CABLE
TELE
S
N IMPALA DRIVEOWNERIRISH DRIVEOWNER
LAURA LARSON
320 N IMPALA DR.
OWNER
SETH MCEWAN
324 N IMPALA DR.
OWNER
MARGOT
STREFFENHAGEN
400 N IMPALA DR.
OWNER
VERNON
BONDURANT
404 N IMPALA DR.
OWNER
PLEASANT VALLEY
PROPERTIES LLC
408 N IMPALA DR.
OWNER
ANTHONY NEYLON
412 N IMPALA DR.
OWNER
MARY & PAUL
WEIXELMAN
416 N IMPALA DR.
OWNER
ANDREA GABEL
420 N IMPALA DR.
OWNER
WEST VINE BUNGALOWS
HOMEOWNERS
N
E
W
M
E
R
C
E
R
D
I
T
C
H
24'
29'
8' U.E.
26'
5' U.E.
EXISTING 12"
SANITARY SEWER
16' EOC-EOC
EXISTING WETLANDS
EASEMENT
EXCLUSION
(TYP.)
DETENTION
POND 3
8' SIDEWALK
6' SIDEWALK
6' SIDEWALK6' SIDEWALK5' S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
6' SIDEWALK
OUTLET 10B
INV. OUT=5054.03 (E)
FG=5059.493
FES 10A
INV. IN=5053.12 (W)
FG=5056.639
181.03 L
F
R
C
P
@
0
.
5
0
%
STMH 7B
INV. IN=5056.84 (SE)
INV. OUT=5056.84 (W)
FG=5062.899FES 7A
INV. IN=5054.71 (E)
FG=5055.871
155.73 LF HDPE @ 1.37%
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A11
INV. IN=5052.98 (S)
INV. OUT=5052.98 (E)
FG=5055.686
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A10
INV. IN=5052.07 (W)
INV. OUT=5052.07 (E)
FG=5054.816
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A9
INV. IN=5051.00 (W)
INV. OUT=5051.00 (E)
FG=5053.746
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A8
INV. IN=5050.75 (W)
INV. OUT=5050.75 (E)
FG=5053.498
51.07 LF PERF. PVC @ 0.50%
214.13 LF PERF. PVC @ 0.50%
180.53 L
F
P
E
R
F
.
P
V
C
@
0
.
5
0
%350.59 LF PERF. PVC @ 0.50%PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
(TYP.)
FES 8A
INV. IN=5060.47 (W)
FG=5060.47
STMH 8B
INV. IN=5060.56 (S)
INV. OUT=5060.56 (E)
FG=5062.998
45.00 LF HDPE @ 0.20%74.26 LF HDPE @ 0.20%INLET 8C
INV. OUT=5060.71 (N)
FG=5062.656
3
'
S
IDEWA
LK
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 20
LOT 19
LOT 18
12'
G
R
A
V
E
L
D
I
T
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
A
D
TOP OF
DITCH
SIDEWALK
CHASE
30.92 LF HDPE @ 0.43%
INLET 7C
INV. IN=5057.33 (SE)
INV. OUT=5056.97 (NW)
FG=5061.690
FUTURE SIPHON
(BY OTHERS)
5' U.E.
5' GRAVEL
BIORETENTION
SIDEWALK
CHASE
(TYP.)
DETENTION
POND 2
RAIN
GARDEN B2
47'2.3%4.5
%
15.8%20.2%
21.6%
23.9%
23.7%23.5%
19.9%24.1%
PROPOSED
RETAINING
WALL
PROPOSED
GRASS
SWALE
2' CONCRETE
PAN
2' CONCRETE
PAN
2.2%2.2%2.1%2.1%2.1%2.1%2.
2%
2.2%23.3%0.9
%
9.2
%23.0%2
2
.
9%22.1%18.4%5' SIDEWALK 5' SIDEWALK25.0%25.1%25.3%26.2%24.1%25.2%2.0%22.1%21.3%2.3%
2.2%
2' CONCRETE
PAN
SIDEWALK
CHASE
7.2%
NATURAL
HABITAT BUFFER
ZONE
NEW MERCER
DITCH EASEMENT
(WIDTH VARIES)
70.06 LF RCP
@
0
.
2
0
%
168.93 LF RCP @ 0.20%
PROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODWAY
PROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODWAY
PROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODPLAIN
FFE=66.42
FFE=64.29
FFE=64.25
FFE=64.13
FFE=64.27
B M
KEYMAP
LAPORTE AVE.TAFT HILL RD.SheetSANCTUARY ON THE GREENSThese drawings areinstruments of serviceprovided by NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.and are not to be used forany type of constructionunless signed and sealed bya Professional Engineer inthe employ of NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREVIEW SETENGINEERNGIEHTRONRNFORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631970.221.4158northernengineering.comof 30
NORTH
C3.01GRADING PLAN13
DateCity Engineer
Date
Date
Date
Date
Stormwater Utility
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Date
Water & Wastewater Utility
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
Environmental Planner
( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet04040
40
80 120
MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C3.02C3.03 C3.04 C3.05
C3.01 C3.02
MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C3.04
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
LEGEND:
1.EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES AS
SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO
THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF
SUCH INFORMATION. EXISTING UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES MAY NOT BE
STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE)
PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY EXACT UTILITY LOCATIONS.
2.ALL WATER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, LATEST EDITION.
3.MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN
ALL SANITARY SEWER & WATER MAINS & SERVICES.
4.ALL WATER FITTINGS AND VALVES ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND
ARE NOT TO SCALE.
5.ROTATE ALL SANITARY MANHOLE LIDS TO LIE OUTSIDE OF THE WHEEL PATH.
6.DRY UTILITY CONDUIT TO BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO
STREET CONSTRUCTION.
7.NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE
FLOODWAY, WHETHER TEMPORARY (DURING CONSTRUCTION) OR PERMANENT.
LANDSCAPING SHALL ALSO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NO RISE IN THE
FLOODWAY.
8.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND NO RISE CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO
PERFORMING ANY WORK WITHIN THE FLOODWAY (I.E., CURB CUT REMOVAL,
LANDSCAPING).
9.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK
WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
10.THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A
NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR
ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. THIS WILL HELP
PRESERVE THE INTENTION BEHIND THE BUFFER ZONES AND THE NATURAL
FEATURES INTO THE FUTURE.
NOTES:
EXISTING DECID. TREE
EXISTING CONIF. TREE
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING STUMP
STEXISTING STORM SEWER LINE
EXISTING CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
4:1BANK SLOPE
PROPOSED ASPHALT CROSS SLOPE
CONCENTRATED FLOW DIRECTION
PROPOSED SWALE FLOWLINE
PROPOSED OUTFALL CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN WITH INLET
PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR
79.45PROPOSED FINISH GROUND ELEVATION
(79.45)EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
PROPOSED INFLOW CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
2.0%
4950
100-YR FLOODWAY
100-YR FLOODPLAIN
SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSDTSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD SD
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDTSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
SDSDSS SS
SS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS OHUOHUOHUOHUOHU
OHU
EEEETTTGGGWWWGGGGGFOFOFOFOWCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTV CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVGGGGGGGGGGGGGFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFO
FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGXXXXXXXCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUGGGGGGGGGGGGCTVFO
CTVTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUXXX
OHUOHUSS
SSSTSTST
ST
ST ST
XXXXXXXXXXXVAULT
F.O.
ELEC
ELEC
ELEC
BRKRE
CABLE CABLETT
CELEC
T
D
TELE
F.O.
F.O.
S
VAULT
F.O.
S
W
M
M
T
W
TH
TH
VAULT
ELEC
OWNER
WILLIAM GREYBAR
413 N TAFT HILL ROAD
N TAFT HILL ROADOWNER
MIRANDA SPINDEL
330 N TAFT HILL ROAD
OWNER
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
OWNER
WEST VINE BUNGALOWS
HOMEOWNERS
NEW MERC
E
R
D
I
T
C
H
36' FL-FL
57' ROW
20' EOC-EOC
26' EOC-EOC
30''
9' U.E.
PROPOSED
42'' HALF
ROW
EXISTING
40'' HALF
ROW
30''
8' U.E.
26' EOC-EOC
36'
FL-FL
57' ROW
25' EOC-EOC
30''
8'' ACC. (TYP.)
PROPOSED
42'' HALF
ROW
EXISTING
40'' HALF
ROW
PROPOSED 4X16
BOX CULVERT6' SIDEWALK 8' SIDEWALK6' SIDEWALK
3' SIDEWALK3' SIDEWALK6' SIDEWALK9' U.E.
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSWALK6'
S
IDEWALK
17' ACC.
5' S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
STMH 11D
INV. IN=5050.70 (SE)
INV. OUT=5050.70 (N)
FG=5058.003
STMH 11C
INV. IN=5050.12 (E)
INV. IN=5050.12 (S)
INV. OUT=5050.12 (W)
FG=5055.745 STMH 11C-2 w/WQ WEIR
INV. IN=5050.22 (S)
INV. IN=5050.22 (N)
INV. OUT=5050.22 (W)
FG=5055.561
INLET 11C-1
INV. OUT=5050.24 (N)
FG=5055.282
289.24 LF RCP @ 0.20%OUTLET 13B
INV. OUT=5048.01 (NE)
FG=5052.630
FES 13A
INV. IN=5047.08 (SW)
183.
1
5
L
F
D
O
U
B
L
E
RCP
@
0.
5
0
%
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A8
INV. IN=5050.75 (W)
INV. OUT=5050.75 (E)
FG=5053.498
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A7
INV. IN=5050.49 (W)
INV. OUT=5050.49 (NE)
FG=5053.235
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A2
INV. IN=5048.86 (SW)
INV. OUT=5048.86 (E)
FG=5053.170
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A1
INV. IN=5048.15 (W)
INV. OUT=5048.15 (S)
FG=5054.647
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A3
INV. IN=5048.93 (W)
INV. OUT=5048.93 (NE)
FG=5052.350
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A6
INV. IN=5049.81 (SW)
INV. OUT=5049.81 (E)
FG=5052.707
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A5
INV. IN=5049.57 (W)
INV. OUT=5049.57 (E)
FG=5052.607
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A4
INV. IN=5049.33 (W)
INV. OUT=5049.33 (E)
FG=5052.507
24.91 LF PVC @ 0.20%
353.15 LF PVC @ 0.20%
36.77 LF PVC @ 0.20%
79.08 LF PERF. PVC @ 0.50%
49.44 LF PERF. PVC @ 0.50%
48.40 LF PERF. PVC @ 0.50%
135.4
4
L
F
P
E
R
F.
P
V
C
@
0.
5
0
%
51.07 LF PERF. PVC @ 0.50%
STREET C
STREET BCURB CUT &
SIDEWALK
CHASE3' SIDEWALK3
'
S
IDEWA
LK
9' U.E.
4' SID
E
W
A
L
K
LOT 2
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 20
LOT 19
LOT 18
LOT 23
LOT 25
LOT 24
LOT 21
LOT 22
LOT 22
LOT 21
LOT 23
LOT 19
LOT 20
LOT 16
LOT 17
LOT 15
LOT 12 LOT 13LOT 10 LOT 11
LOT 8LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 9LOT 5
LOT 4
LOT 3
LOT 2
LOT 7
LOT 5
LOT 6
LOT 8
LOT 14
LOT 11
LOT 13
LOT 12
LOT 10
LOT 17
LOT 15
LOT 18
LOT 3
LOT 2
LOT 4
LOT 5
LOT 7
LOT 6
LOT 8
LOT 11
LOT 12
LOT 9
LOT 13
LOT 10
LOT 18 LOT 19 LOT 20LOT 16LOT 15 LOT 17LOT 14 LOT 21 LOT 23LOT 22 LOT 25 LOT 29LOT 27 LOT 28 LOT 30LOT 26
LOT 31LOT 35
LOT 33
LOT 32LOT 34
LOT 40 LOT 39 LOT 36
LOT 42
LOT 44
LOT 43
LOT 41
LOT 37
LOT 45
LOT 48
LOT 46
LOT 47
LOT 50
LOT 49
TRACT V
D&AE
TRACT W
D&AE
BLOCK 6
BLOCK 6
BLOCK 6
BLOCK 4
BLOCK 4
FES 11A
INV. IN=5049.50 (S)
FG=5051.875
253.34 LF RCP @ 0.20%
STMH 11B
INV. IN=5050.01 (E)
INV. OUT=5050.01 (N)
FG=5056.087
7.94 LF RCP @ 0.20%
12' GRA
V
E
L
D
I
T
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
A
D
PROPOSED STORMTECH
MC 3500 DETENTION
CHAMBERS C2
CURB CUT &
SIDEWALK
CHASE
CURB CUT &
SIDEWALK
CHASE
CURB CUT &
SIDEWALK CHASE
5' GRAVEL
BIORETENTION
3' SIDEWALK8
0
.
8
3
L
F
R
C
P
@
0
.
2
0%
STMH 11E
INLET 11E-1
INV. IN=5052.55 (NE)
INV. OUT=5052.55 (SW)
FG=5056.436
LOT 38
TRACT U
UDA&EAE
5' U.E.
TRACT Q
UDA&EAE
INLET 11C-3
INV. IN=5050.27 (N)
INV. OUT=5050.27 (S)
FG=5055.263
28.06 LF
RCP
@ 0.20%
INLET 11C-4
INV. OUT=5050.47 (S)
FG=5057.3516' SIDEWALKRAIN
GARDEN C6
CURB CUT &
SIDEWALK
CHASE
TRACT S
UDA&EAE
DETENTION
POND 3
RAIN
GARDEN D3
LOT 14
SIDEWALK
CHASE
4' SIDEWALK
GRASS
SWALE
25.0%2.1%2.1%2.
1
%
2.1%16.6%24.9%9.2
%
2.6%2.6%2.1%2.1%2.1%2.1%2.
6
%
2.4%2.6%2.
6
%
1
4
.
6%3.6%8.9%2.1%
2.1%9.7%2.1%2.1%2.0%
2.1%2.0%1.8%2.0%1.9%2
2
.
9%24.6%21.4%15.2%24.4%13.8%18.4%23.9%21.1%17.4%50.80 LF RCP @ 0.20%55.05 LF RCP @ 0.20%
26.2%24.1%25.2%2.0%22.1%21.3%2.3%
2.2%
25.1%25.9%7.2%13.7%25.0%24.5%2' CONCRETE
PAN
2' CONCRETE
PAN
SIDEWALK
CHASE
20.4%24.2%17.2%6.6%25.9%24.8%
15.
2
%
2' CONCRETE
PAN
PROPOSED
RETAINING
WALL
SIDEWALK
CHASE
NEW MERCER
DITCH EASEMENT
(WIDTH VARIES)
CURB CUT
2.9%
2.7%
6.5
%
CURB CUT
PROPOSED
RIP RAPPROPOSED
RIP RAP
4.7%25.0%27.0%6.1%4
4
.
0
0LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO. 2LOT 1 25.7%PROPOSED
RECTANGULAR RAPID
FLASH BEACON
15''
PEDESTRIAN
RAMP
2.2
%2.2%
CURB CUT &
SIDEWALK
CHASE
33.83 LF RCP @ 4.99%
PROPOSED
GRASS SWALE
LOT 24
FFE=60.40FFE=60.12FFE=61.51FFE=61.35FFE=62.35
FFE=59.47
FFE=59.86
FFE=62.28
FFE=64.16
FFE=65.97
FFE=65.12
FFE=66.42
FFE=61.32
FFE=61.00
FFE=60.92
FFE=59.93 FFE=59.92
FFE=60.40
FFE=60.33
FFE=59.90
FFE=59.79
LOT 16
LOT 1
FFE=64.20
SheetSANCTUARY ON THE GREENSThese drawings areinstruments of serviceprovided by NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.and are not to be used forany type of constructionunless signed and sealed bya Professional Engineer inthe employ of NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREVIEW SETENGINEERNGIEHTRONRNFORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631970.221.4158northernengineering.comof 30
NORTH
DateCity Engineer
Date
Date
Date
Date
Stormwater Utility
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Date
Water & Wastewater Utility
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
Environmental PlannerMATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C3.01B M
KEYMAP
LAPORTE AVE.TAFT HILL RD.( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet04040
40
80 120
C3.03 C3.04 C3.05
C3.01 C3.02
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C3.05 C3.02GRADING PLAN14
LEGEND:
1.EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES AS
SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO
THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF
SUCH INFORMATION. EXISTING UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES MAY NOT BE
STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE)
PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY EXACT UTILITY LOCATIONS.
2.ALL WATER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, LATEST EDITION.
3.MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN
ALL SANITARY SEWER & WATER MAINS & SERVICES.
4.ALL WATER FITTINGS AND VALVES ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND
ARE NOT TO SCALE.
5.ROTATE ALL SANITARY MANHOLE LIDS TO LIE OUTSIDE OF THE WHEEL PATH.
6.DRY UTILITY CONDUIT TO BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO
STREET CONSTRUCTION.
7.NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE
FLOODWAY, WHETHER TEMPORARY (DURING CONSTRUCTION) OR PERMANENT.
LANDSCAPING SHALL ALSO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NO RISE IN THE
FLOODWAY.
8.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND NO RISE CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO
PERFORMING ANY WORK WITHIN THE FLOODWAY (I.E., CURB CUT REMOVAL,
LANDSCAPING).
9.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK
WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
10.THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A
NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR
ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. THIS WILL HELP
PRESERVE THE INTENTION BEHIND THE BUFFER ZONES AND THE NATURAL
FEATURES INTO THE FUTURE.
NOTES:
EXISTING DECID. TREE
EXISTING CONIF. TREE
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING STUMP
STEXISTING STORM SEWER LINE
EXISTING CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
4:1BANK SLOPE
PROPOSED ASPHALT CROSS SLOPE
CONCENTRATED FLOW DIRECTION
PROPOSED SWALE FLOWLINE
PROPOSED OUTFALL CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN WITH INLET
PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR
79.45PROPOSED FINISH GROUND ELEVATION
(79.45)EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
PROPOSED INFLOW CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
2.0%
4950
100-YR FLOODWAY
100-YR FLOODPLAIN
SDTSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
USD
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U SBSBSB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SBSB
S
B
SDSDOHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU
OHU OHU OHU OHU
OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU
SS
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
E E E E E
W W W W W W W
CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVFO FO
FO FO FO FO FO FO
G G G G G G GFOFOFOFOFOFOFO FOFO
CTV FOFO FO FO FO
FOFOFOFOCTVCTVCTVCTVFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOCTVCTVCTVCTVG CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOWW W W W W W W W
EEEEEEEEE E E E E E E EEEEEEEEGGG
G G G G G G G
EEEEX X X X X X
XXXECTVCTVEEE
GGGXFOFOFOFOFOFOEEEEEFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTEG G G G G G G G G G G
G G G G G G G G G G G
W W W W W W W W W W W
GGWE E
E E E
W
W
GGGGGG G G G G G
G G G G G GFOFOCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTV XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX X
X X
XXXX
X
H2O
S
W
G
SHYDVAULT
CABLE
CABLE
TRAFFICVAULT
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
ELEC
TELECABLE
CABLE
TELE
TELE
VAULT
CABLE
F.O.
W
TELE
VAULT
ELEC
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
CONTROL
IRR
W F.O.
MTELE
VAULT
ELEC
TELEM VAULT
TELE
VAULT
CABLE
VAULT
CABLE
VAULT
F.O.
GAS
TELE
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
HY DM
VAULT
ELEC T SVAULT
ELEC
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
TELE
TELE
CONTROL
IRR CONTROL
IRR
F.O.
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
F.O.TELE
VAULT
CABLE
GAS
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
WH2O
G
C SW
C S
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
VAULT
ELECT S
C S
C S
TT
TVAULT
ELEC
W M
S
F.O.
VAULT
F.O.
ELEC
CONTROL
IRR
V.P.
V.P.V.P.
V.P.
M
E
S
TELE
T
X X X
XXXXXXOWNER
LEORA & JAY SPENCE
316 IRISH DR.
OWNER
ROLAND & CAROL
TREMBLE
317 IRISH DR.
OWNER
CARLA COOLEY
316 WEBB AVE.
OWNER
ERIC & MARY
TACORONTE
317 WEBB AVE.IRISH DRIVEWEBB AVENUEOWNER
KIRK WILSON
W CHERRY STREET
OWNER
KIRK & DEBRA WILSON
320 N SUNSET STREET
OWNER
KIRK WILSON
310 N SUNSET STREET
OWNER
FRANK ERNSET
242 N SUNSET STREET
OWNER
KIRI SAFTLER
230 N SUNSET STREET
OWNER
POUDRE R-1
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2444 LAPORTE AVE
OWNER
POUDRE R-1
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2444 LAPORTE AVE
OWNER
FORREST SCHRUPP
2318 LAPORTE AVE
OWNER
CALVARY BAPTIST TEMPLE
2420 LAPORTE AVENUE
OWNER
RICHARD & DIXIE
LOYD
2316 LAPORTE
AVENUE
LAPORTE AVENUE
OWNER
POUDRE R-1
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2444 LAPORTE AVE
OWNER
POUDRE R-1
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2444 LAPORTE AVE ACCESS DRIVEDETENTION
POND 1
LOT 26
LOT 28
LOT 19
LOT 9
LOT 3
LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8
LOT 11
LOT 10
LOT 12
LOT 5
LOT 1
LOT 4 LOT 2
LOT 13LOT 14LOT 15LOT 16LOT 17LOT 18
LOT 21
TRACT CTRACT DLOT 5LOT 4LOT 2
TRACT F
D&AE
LOT 1
LOT 6 TRACT EUDA&EAETRACT HLOT 11
LOT 15
TRACT B
DE
LOT 7
LOT 10
LOT 12
LOT 9LOT 8
TRACT J
D&AE
LOT 23TRACT GLOT 19
LOT 17
LOT 3
LOT 13
LOT 26
TRACT I
DE
LOT 28
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 2
5' SIDEWALK
5' SIDEWALK
5' SIDEWALK5' SIDEWALK5' SIDEWALK5' SIDEWALK5' GRAVEL SIDEWALK
8' U.E.
8' U.E.
20' EOC-EOC
30'
30'
8' U.E.
8' U.E.
20' EOC-EOC
30'
8' U.E.
8' U.E.
28' EOC-EOC
INLET 2B
INV. OUT=5071.99 (NE)
FG=5079.309
FES 2A
INV. IN=5067.81 (SW)
FG=5070.060
83.62 LF RCP
@ 5.00
%
INLET 3D
INV. IN=5069.17 (S)
INV. OUT=5069.17 (N)
FG=5072.904
INLET 3E
INV. IN=5069.56 (S)
INV. OUT=5069.56 (N)
FG=5072.531
INLET 3F
INV. OUT=5069.93 (N)
FG=5072.534
77.65 LF RCP @ 0.50%
74.00 LF RCP @ 0.50%
PROPOSED
RETAINING
WALL
GRASS
SWALE
PROPOSED
AREA INLETS
GRASS
SWALE
5' SIDEWALK30' FL-FL
51' ROW
9' U.E.
9' U.E.
GRASS
SWALE
SIDEWALK
CHASE
CURB CUT &
SIDEWALK
CHASE
STREET A
STREET ACURB CUT &
SIDEWALK
CHASE
GRASS
SWALE
STMH 1F
INV. IN=5071.70 (S)
INV. OUT=5071.70 (NE)
FG=5082.504
STMH 1E
INV. IN=5070.86 (SW)
INV. IN=5070.86 (SE)
INV. OUT=5070.86 (NE)
FG=5081.820
STMH 1E-1A
INV. IN=5070.91 (E)
INV. OUT=5070.91 (NW)
FG=5081.539
STMH 1D
INV. IN=5070.70 (NW)
INV. IN=5070.70 (SW)
INV. OUT=5070.70 (NE)
FG=5080.993
BASIN 1D-1A w/ WQ WEIR
INV. IN=5071.65 (NE)
INV. OUT=5071.65 (SE)
FG=5080.953
STMH 1C
INV. IN=5070.06 (SW)
INV. OUT=5070.06 (E)
FG=5080.345
STMH 1G
INV. IN=5074.11 (W)
INV. IN=5074.11 (E)
INV. OUT=5074.11 (N)
FG=5080.071
INLET 1G-1A
INV. OUT=5074.21 (W)
INV. OUT=5074.21 (E)
FG=5079.737INLET 1G-2A
INV. OUT=5074.31 (E)
FG=5079.725
INLET 1D-1D
INV. OUT=5071.81 (SW)
FG=5079.000
INLET 1E-1B w/ WG WEIR
INV. IN=5071.04 (E)
INV. OUT=5071.04 (W)
FG=5078.119
STMH 1B
INV. IN=5069.16 (W)
INV. OUT=5069.16 (N)
FG=5078.113
INLET 1E-1C
INV. OUT=5071.93 (W)
FG=5076.863
FES 1A
INV. IN=5067.50 (S)
FG=5069.875
173.36 LF RCP @ 0.96%93.93 LF RCP @ 0.96%84.20 LF RCP @ 1.00%160.45 LF RCP @ 1.50%20.00 LF RCP @ 1.00%
64.63 LF RCP @ 0.99%
27.52 LF
RCP
@ 0.20%
118.27 LF HDPE @ 0.75%
53.94 LF
RCP
@ 1.76%81.87 LF RCP @ 0.20%67.25 LF RCP @ 0.20%
10.00 LF RCP @ 1.00%
8' U.E.
PROPOSED STORMTECH
MC 4500 DETENTION
CHAMBERS A6
LOT 14
LOT 27
LOT 25
LOT 18
LOT 22
LOT 24
LOT 20
LOT 16 84.08 LF RCP @ 0.50%INLET 3C
INV. IN=5068.75 (S)
INV. OUT=5068.75 (N)
FG=5076.282
31.96 LF RCP @ 0.50%
INLET 3B
INV. IN=5068.59 (S)
INV. OUT=5068.59 (N)
FG=5076.27075.02 LF RCP @ 2.22%FES 3A
INV. IN=5066.92 (S)
FG=5069.295
FUTURE 5' SIDEWALK (BY OTHERS)PROPOSED STORMTECH
MC 4500 DETENTION
CHAMBERS A5
2.9%
2.
9
%
2.1%
2.1%2.1%2.1%2.1%
2.3%
GRASS
SWALE
5' SIDEWALK
RAIN GARDEN D5
2.1%
2.1%5' SIDEWALKPROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODPLAIN23.2%21.8%SheetSANCTUARY ON THE GREENSThese drawings areinstruments of serviceprovided by NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.and are not to be used forany type of constructionunless signed and sealed bya Professional Engineer inthe employ of NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREVIEW SETENGINEERNGIEHTRONRNFORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631970.221.4158northernengineering.comof 30
NORTH
DateCity Engineer
Date
Date
Date
Date
Stormwater Utility
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Date
Water & Wastewater Utility
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
Environmental PlannerMATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C3.04B M
KEYMAP
LAPORTE AVE.TAFT HILL RD.( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet04040
40
80 120
C3.03 C3.04 C3.05
C3.01 C3.02
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
C3.03GRADING PLAN15
LEGEND:
1.EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES AS
SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO
THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF
SUCH INFORMATION. EXISTING UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES MAY NOT BE
STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE)
PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY EXACT UTILITY LOCATIONS.
2.ALL WATER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, LATEST EDITION.
3.MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN
ALL SANITARY SEWER & WATER MAINS & SERVICES.
4.ALL WATER FITTINGS AND VALVES ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND
ARE NOT TO SCALE.
5.ROTATE ALL SANITARY MANHOLE LIDS TO LIE OUTSIDE OF THE WHEEL PATH.
6.DRY UTILITY CONDUIT TO BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO
STREET CONSTRUCTION.
7.NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE
FLOODWAY, WHETHER TEMPORARY (DURING CONSTRUCTION) OR PERMANENT.
LANDSCAPING SHALL ALSO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NO RISE IN THE
FLOODWAY.
8.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND NO RISE CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO
PERFORMING ANY WORK WITHIN THE FLOODWAY (I.E., CURB CUT REMOVAL,
LANDSCAPING).
9.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK
WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
10.THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A
NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR
ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. THIS WILL HELP
PRESERVE THE INTENTION BEHIND THE BUFFER ZONES AND THE NATURAL
FEATURES INTO THE FUTURE.
NOTES:
EXISTING DECID. TREE
EXISTING CONIF. TREE
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING STUMP
STEXISTING STORM SEWER LINE
EXISTING CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
4:1BANK SLOPE
PROPOSED ASPHALT CROSS SLOPE
CONCENTRATED FLOW DIRECTION
PROPOSED SWALE FLOWLINE
PROPOSED OUTFALL CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN WITH INLET
PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR
79.45PROPOSED FINISH GROUND ELEVATION
(79.45)EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
PROPOSED INFLOW CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
2.0%
4950
100-YR FLOODWAY
100-YR FLOODPLAIN
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDTSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
TSALPOLYN
D
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U SDSDNYLOPLAST
DO NOT POLLUTE DRAINS TO WATERWAYS
SDSDSDTSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
SD
SD
SDSDTSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSOHUOHU
GGGGWWGGGGXXXXGGGFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOWOHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHU OHUXXXXXXXXXXXTT
TTTTTTTTGGGGGGGGGGEEFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWTTTTFO FO
FOFOCTVCTVFOFOFOFOCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVFOFOFOFOFOFOFOW W W W W W W W
EEE GEEEEEEEEG G G G G G G G
EEECTVCTVGCTV CTVCTVFOFOFO
FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOE E E E E E E GGGGGGGGE
X
WWWFO FO FO FOGGGGTTTT T T T T T T T T TTTTT
TCTVCTVCTVCTVTTTTTTOHUOHUOHUOHUEE FOFOG G G
EFOEWWWGGGEEEEFOFOFOFOCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVXXXXXXXXXXXXXSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSST ST ST ST ST STSTST
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
X X X
XXXXXX X X XXXXXX
X XXXXXX X
XX X
X X XXXX X X X
STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTMH
V.P.VAULT
ELEC
V.P.
TTELE
VAULT
ELEC T MCSH2OMM
S
HY DVAULT
ELEC
W
D
TELEMTELEMTELE
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC T SVAULT
ELEC
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
C SW C SW
H2O
TGAS
F.O.
S
M
C S
HY DVAULT
F.O.
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
CABLEVAULT
CABLE
CABLE
MH
D
MH
D
CT
T
VAULT
ELEC
V.P.
T M M
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
CONTROL
IRR
CONTROL
IRR
VAULT
ELECT S
VAULT
F.O.
VAULT
F.O.
VAULT
CABLE
S
MH
MHW
G
ELEC
ELEC ELEC
ELEC
T
XXXWWWWWWWWOWNER
LORIN YOUNG
316 N IMPALA DR.N IMPALA DRIVEOWNER
CHRISTOPHER &
SARAH WEEKS
317 N IMPALA DR.
OWNER
LEORA & JAY SPENCE
316 IRISH DR.IRISH DRIVEOWNER
RICHARD & DIXIE
LOYD
2316 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
SYDNE
ARCHAMBAULT
2314 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
CURTIS LYONS
LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
ALEX OZOLS
2224 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
DANNY
ROGERS
2214 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
ROBERT JONES
2218 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
PATRICK ST.
CLAIR
2216 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
JAMES
PEABODY
2212 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
RANDOLPH
MILAN
2140 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
LAURA LARSON
320 N IMPALA DR.S IMPALA DRIVEBRIARWOOD ROADDETENTION
POND 2
EASEMENT
EXCLUSION
(TYP.)TRACT MTRACT KLOT 40
LOT 36TRACT LLOT 29
LOT 34LOT 31LOT 26
LOT 28
TRACT J
D&AE
LOT 26
TRACT I
DE
LOT 285' SIDEWALK5' SIDEWALK8' SIDEWALK4.5' SIDEWALKBLOCK 2
26' EOC-EOC
16'
8' U.E.
STMH 4B
INV. IN=5062.35 (W)
INV. OUT=5062.35 (NE)
FG=5067.393
71.9
1 L
F
R
C
P
@ 5.
24
%
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A14
INV. IN=5057.19 (SE)
INV. OUT=5057.19 (N)
FG=5059.904
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A15
INV. IN=5057.38 (E)
INV. OUT=5057.38 (NW)
FG=5060.103
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A13
INV. IN=5056.61 (S)
INV. OUT=5056.61 (N)
FG=5059.389
115.91 LF PERF. PVC @ 0.50%
GRASS
SWALE
SIDEWALK
CHASE
STREET A
STREET A
DETENTION
POND 1
EXISTING BOX
CULVERT
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
(TYP.)
CURB CUT &
SIDEWALK
CHASE
2 - (4X12) PROPOSED
BOX CULVERT w/
CONCRETE CAP AND
RESTRICTOR PLATE
LAPORTE AVENUE5' SIDEWALK51' ROW 30' FL-FL
9' U.E.
9' U.E.
20' EOC-EOC
30'
20' EOC-EOC
8' U.E.8' U.E.
30'
8' U.E.8' U.E.
57' ROW
36' FL-FL
9' U.E.
9' U.E.
LOT 20
LOT 19
LOT 18
38.81 LF PERF. PVC @ 0.50%
113.24
L
F
P
E
R
F
.
P
V
C
@
0
.
5
0
%
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT A16
INV. OUT=5057.95 (W)
FG=5060.788
PROPOSED CONCRETE WEIR
WITH NOTCH AND WATER
QUALITY PLATE
16'' EMERGENCY
ACCESS EASEMENT
(BY SEPARATE
DOCUMENT)FUTURE BRIARWOODROADPROPOSED 8''
ASPHALT WALK
INLET 6F
INV. IN=5058.32 (W)
INV. OUT=5058.32 (E)
FG=5060.875
STREET COUTFALL 4A
INV. IN=5058.58 (SW)
FG=5059.816
LOT 30LOT 27
LOT 25 LOT 32 LOT 33
LOT 35
LOT 38
LOT 39
LOT 37
LOT 1LOT 4
LOT 3
LOT 2
LOT 9
LOT 8
LOT 7
RAIN
GARDEN D5
PROPOSED CONCRETE
APRON
PROPOSED STORMTECH
SC 740 DETENTION
CHAMBERS B3
8' U.E.
13' U.E.
5' GRAVEL
BIORETENTION
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
EXISTING BOX
CULVERT
SIDEWALK
CHASE
(TYP.)
RAIN
GARDEN D4
RAIN GARDEN D5
RAIN
GARDEN D3
RAIN
GARDEN D4
LOT 5
TRACT N
D&AE
LOT 17
36.32 LF RCP @ 0.50%
CURB CUT &
SIDEWALK
CHASE
FUTURE 5' SIDEWALK (BY OTHERS)18.5%
28.7%
16.2
%
24.3%
PROPOSED
RETAINING
WALL
25.1%22.8%29.6%22.4%25.1%26.1%
2.3%
PROPOSED
HIGH POINT2.1%2.1%2.1%2.1%2.1%2.1%1.1%2.0%2.2%PROPOSED
RETAINING
WALL
RAIN GARDEN D5
2.
8%2.8%
2.
8%2.8%
PROPOSED
GRADE
BREAK
13.0
%
INLET 4C
INV. IN=5067.05 (W)
INV. OUT=5067.05 (E)
FG=5071.001
STMH 9C
INV. IN=5058.93 (E)
INV. OUT=5058.93 (W)
FG=5065.496
STMH 9D
INV. IN=5059.07 (SE)
INV. OUT=5059.07 (W)
FG=5064.282
INLET 9E
INV. OUT=5059.14 (NW)
FG=5061.990
INLET 9B w/WQ WEIR
INV. IN=5058.60 (E)
INV. OUT=5058.60 (W)
FG=5061.240
FES 9A
INV. IN=5056.76 (E)
FG=5057.993
39.38 LF RCP @ 4.67%
70.06 LF RCP
@
0
.
2
0
%
32.77 LF RCP @ 0.20%
168.93 LF RCP @ 0.20%
4' SIDEWALK
PROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODWAY
PROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODPLAIN
94.03 LF RCP @ 5.00%
FFE=66.52
FFE=66.89
FFE=66.57
FFE=66.45
FFE=66.02
FFE=65.81
SheetSANCTUARY ON THE GREENSThese drawings areinstruments of serviceprovided by NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.and are not to be used forany type of constructionunless signed and sealed bya Professional Engineer inthe employ of NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREVIEW SETENGINEERNGIEHTRONRNFORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631970.221.4158northernengineering.comof 30
NORTH
DateCity Engineer
Date
Date
Date
Date
Stormwater Utility
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Date
Water & Wastewater Utility
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
Environmental PlannerMATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C3.05B M
KEYMAP
LAPORTE AVE.TAFT HILL RD.( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet04040
40
80 120
C3.03 C3.04 C3.05
C3.01 C3.02
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C3.03MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C3.01
C3.04GRADING PLAN16
LEGEND:
1.EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES AS
SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO
THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF
SUCH INFORMATION. EXISTING UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES MAY NOT BE
STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE)
PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY EXACT UTILITY LOCATIONS.
2.ALL WATER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, LATEST EDITION.
3.MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN
ALL SANITARY SEWER & WATER MAINS & SERVICES.
4.ALL WATER FITTINGS AND VALVES ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND
ARE NOT TO SCALE.
5.ROTATE ALL SANITARY MANHOLE LIDS TO LIE OUTSIDE OF THE WHEEL PATH.
6.DRY UTILITY CONDUIT TO BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO
STREET CONSTRUCTION.
7.NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE
FLOODWAY, WHETHER TEMPORARY (DURING CONSTRUCTION) OR PERMANENT.
LANDSCAPING SHALL ALSO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NO RISE IN THE
FLOODWAY.
8.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND NO RISE CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO
PERFORMING ANY WORK WITHIN THE FLOODWAY (I.E., CURB CUT REMOVAL,
LANDSCAPING).
9.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK
WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
10.THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A
NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR
ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. THIS WILL HELP
PRESERVE THE INTENTION BEHIND THE BUFFER ZONES AND THE NATURAL
FEATURES INTO THE FUTURE.
NOTES:
EXISTING DECID. TREE
EXISTING CONIF. TREE
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING STUMP
STEXISTING STORM SEWER LINE
EXISTING CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
4:1BANK SLOPE
PROPOSED ASPHALT CROSS SLOPE
CONCENTRATED FLOW DIRECTION
PROPOSED SWALE FLOWLINE
PROPOSED OUTFALL CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN WITH INLET
PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR
79.45PROPOSED FINISH GROUND ELEVATION
(79.45)EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
PROPOSED INFLOW CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
2.0%
4950
100-YR FLOODWAY
100-YR FLOODPLAIN
TSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U
SD
SD
SD SDSDSDSDTSALPOLYND
D D
ONOTPOLLTEUCTILEIRONRAINSTOWATERWAYS
U SD2.0 1.0
.5
2.0
.5
2.0
1.0
1.0
.5
.5
.5
2.0
XXXXXOHUOHUSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
OHU
X
E FOFOG
W W
G G G
EEEEEEEEEEEFO FO FO FO FO FO FO
FOEWWWGGGEEEFOFOFOCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVX XXXXFO
FO
FO
FO FO FO FO FO FOEEEEEOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUCTVECTVCTVWWWWWWWEEEGGGGGGGGWWWGEEECTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVEEECTVCTVCTV WWWWWWWWWWWWWWCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGWWWWWFOFOFOFOFOFOCTVCTVCTVCTVE
E
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVEEEEEGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGWWWWWWGGGG
GGWWWGGWWGGGWWGWGGGWWWWWWGG
G GFOFOCTVCTV
CTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOXXXXXXXXXOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUOHUX X X
SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SSSSSS
STSTST ST ST
STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST
ST
ST
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
OHU
XX X X
X
X XB M
S
W
F.O.
GAS
HY DM
WCS
M
M
S
M
M
S
EELEC
C
MH
D
M
M
MMM
W
VAULT
ELEC T MCS
S
C S
W
C S
W
WCSF E
S
W
W
M
TESTSTA
C S
MW
F.O.
D
D
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
CABLE
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
D
MW
MW
ELEC
TFES C
T
M
FE S
MW
VAULT
ELEC
T S
T SVAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
T SVAULT
ELEC
T SVAULT
ELEC
GAS
S
VAULT
ELEC
D
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
CABLEC
VAULT
ELEC
VAULT
ELEC
W
CVAULT
CABLEVAULT
ELEC
S
S
S
OWNER
KURT VATTANO
OWNER
RANDOLPH
MILAN
2140 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
PAIGE HAIGH
2210
LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
CYNTHIA
HERNANDEZ
2208 LAPORTE
AVENUE
OWNER
KURT VATTANO
OWNER
KEITH & SHERALYN HESS
229 PENNSYLVANIA STREET
OWNER
SUSAN & CATHLEEN DESANTIS
230 PENNSYLVANIA STREET
OWNER
MELISSA VANDERSLUYS
223 PENNSYLVANIA STREET
PENNSYLVANIA STREETOWNER
PAULA METROPOULOS
224 PENNSYLVANIA STREET
OWNER
GILBERT BOYER
241 N TAFT HILL ROAD
OWNER
BRIAN & LAURA DAVIS
237 N TAFT HILL ROAD
OWNER
CARRIE HEYRMAN
233 N TAFT HILL ROAD
OWNER
HUGO RUTHERFURD
229 N TAFT HILL ROAD
LAPORTE AVENUE
BRIARWOOD ROADOWNER
FAITH REALTY
OWNER
LAPORT OUTREACH
MINISTRIES INC.
220 N TAFT HILL ROAD
OWNER
7-ELEVEN
200 N TAFT HILL ROAD
OWNER
CITY OF FORT COLLINSNEW MERCER
D
ITCH NEW MERCER DITCH
PROPOSED
42' HALF ROW
EXISTING 40'
HALF ROW
N TAFT HILL ROADCLUBHOUSE
DETENTION
POND 5
EASEMENT
EXCLUSION
5' S
IDEWALK
EXISTING 15"
SANITARY SEWER
OUTLET 11F w/ WQ PLATE
INV. OUT=5051.09 (N)
FG=5053.515
9' U.E.
PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE
LOT 20
LOT 19
LOT 18
LOT 25
TRACT R
D&AE
LOT 16 LOT 15
LOT 12
LOT 13
LOT 14
RAIN
GARDEN C5
12'
G
R
A
V
E
L
DI
T
C
H
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
A
D
TOP OF
DITCH
TRACT O
D&AE
CURB CUT &
SIDEWALK CHASE
INLET 6F
INV. IN=5058.32 (W)
INV. OUT=5058.32 (E)
FG=5060.875
STMH 6D
INV. IN=5056.76 (NW)
INV. OUT=5056.76 (SE)
FG=5062.585
STMH 6E
INV. IN=5058.14 (W)
INV. OUT=5058.14 (SE)
FG=5062.414
8
0
.
8
3
L
F
R
C
P
@
0
.
2
0%
STMH 11E
INV. IN=5050.86 (S)
INV. IN=5050.86 (NE)
INV. OUT=5050.86 (NW)
FG=5055.874
INLET 11E-1
INV. IN=5052.55 (NE)
INV. OUT=5052.55 (SW)
FG=5056.436
LOT 1LOT 4
LOT 3
LOT 2
LOT 11LOT 10LOT 9
LOT 8
LOT 7
TRACT Q
UDA&EAE
20' EOC-EOC
8' U.E.
5' U.E.
13' U.E.
NATURAL
HABITAT BUFFER
ZONE
75' ELECTR
ICTRANSMISS
ION
L
INEEASEMENT BOOK
914PAGE 532
15' MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
EASEMENT116.86 LF RCP @ 0.20%DETENTION
POND 4
RAIN
GARDEN D3
RAIN
GARDEN D4
LOT 5
LOT 17
11
4
.
5
5
L
F
R
C
P
@
1
.
2
0
%
36.32 LF RCP @ 0.50%
STMH 6B
INV. IN=5056.15 (NE)
INV. OUT=5056.15 (S)
FG=5063.141
42.57 LF RCP @ 0.50%161.24 LF RCP
@ 0.50
%
FES 6A
INV. IN=5055.94 (N)
FG=5057.977
OUTLET 12B
INV. OUT=5054.74 (E)
FG=5058.083
237.95 LF R
C
P
@
0
.
2
0
%
RG BASIN 14B
INV. IN=5054.27 (NE)
INV. OUT=5054.27 (S)
FG=5056.870
INLET 6C-1
INV. IN=5058.12 (N)
INV. OUT=5058.12 (SW)
FG=5060.700
25.1%26.1%
18.9%
26.3%23.2%
8.
1%
2.5%
2.1%
2.1
%
2.1%
1.9
%
5.
5
%
2.
7%
2.3%
4.9%2.0%2.2%
2.4%
CURB CUT &
SIDEWALK
CHASE
2.0%2.2%2.1%2.1%2.
1
%
2.1%
1
4
.
6%6.2%3.8%2.0%5' SIDEWALKPROPOSED
RETAINING
WALL
PROPOSED
CONCRETE
WEIR
15.
2
%
13
.
4
%
18.0%
PROPOSED
GRADE
BREAK
13.0
%
2
4
.
8%2.3%2.4%
78.1
7
L
F
R
C
P
@
0.
5
2
%
STMH 6C
INV. IN=5056.55 (NW)
INV. IN=5057.32 (NE)
INV. OUT=5056.55 (SW)
FG=5061.984
41.41 LF RCP @ 0.50%
NATURAL
HABITAT BUFFER
ZONE
2' CONCRETE
PAN
NEW MERCER
DITCH EASEMENT
(WIDTH VARIES)
CURB CUT
CURB CUT
2
2
.
1%
2.9%
6.5
%
4' SIDEWALK
33.83 LF RCP @ 4.99%2.1%2.3%
2.
0
%
2.
1
%1.9%2.2%2.
0
%19.7%8.5%
4.4%24.4%14.7%2.7%4.7%
12.1%
2
6
.
4%
FES 14A
INV. IN=5054.08 (N)
FG=5055.315
37.77 LF RCP @ 0.50%
FES 12A
INV. IN=5054.27 (W)
FG=5056.643
MAINTENANCE
ROAD TURN
AROUND
PROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODWAY
PROPOSED 100-YR
FLOODPLAIN
EXISTING MANHOLE RIMS TO
BE RAISED 1-FT ABOVE 100-YR
WSEL (MIN. ELEV:5055.2)10.9%6' SIDEWALKFFE=66.02
FFE=65.81
FFE=64.63
FFE=64.75 FFE=59.00
SheetSANCTUARY ON THE GREENSThese drawings areinstruments of serviceprovided by NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.and are not to be used forany type of constructionunless signed and sealed bya Professional Engineer inthe employ of NorthernEngineering Services, Inc.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREVIEW SETENGINEERNGIEHTRONRNFORT COLLINS: 301 North Howes Street, Suite 100, 80521GREELEY: 820 8th Street, 80631970.221.4158northernengineering.comof 30
NORTH
DateCity Engineer
Date
Date
Date
Date
Stormwater Utility
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Engineer
Date
Water & Wastewater Utility
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
Environmental PlannerMATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C3.04B M
KEYMAP
LAPORTE AVE.TAFT HILL RD.( IN FEET )
1 inch = ft.
Feet04040
40
80 120
C3.03 C3.04 C3.05
C3.01 C3.02
CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF
COLORADO
Know what's below.
before you dig.Call
R
MATCHLINE-SEE SHEET C3.02
C3.05GRADING PLAN17
LEGEND:
1.EXISTING UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES AS
SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO
THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF
SUCH INFORMATION. EXISTING UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES MAY NOT BE
STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE)
PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY EXACT UTILITY LOCATIONS.
2.ALL WATER CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, LATEST EDITION.
3.MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL AND 18" VERTICAL MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN
ALL SANITARY SEWER & WATER MAINS & SERVICES.
4.ALL WATER FITTINGS AND VALVES ARE ONLY GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTED AND
ARE NOT TO SCALE.
5.ROTATE ALL SANITARY MANHOLE LIDS TO LIE OUTSIDE OF THE WHEEL PATH.
6.DRY UTILITY CONDUIT TO BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS PRIOR TO
STREET CONSTRUCTION.
7.NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE
FLOODWAY, WHETHER TEMPORARY (DURING CONSTRUCTION) OR PERMANENT.
LANDSCAPING SHALL ALSO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NO RISE IN THE
FLOODWAY.
8.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND NO RISE CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO
PERFORMING ANY WORK WITHIN THE FLOODWAY (I.E., CURB CUT REMOVAL,
LANDSCAPING).
9.A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK
WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
10.THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE IS INTENDED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A
NATIVE LANDSCAPE. PLEASE SEE SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE FOR
ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE. THIS WILL HELP
PRESERVE THE INTENTION BEHIND THE BUFFER ZONES AND THE NATURAL
FEATURES INTO THE FUTURE.
NOTES:
EXISTING DECID. TREE
EXISTING CONIF. TREE
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING STUMP
STEXISTING STORM SEWER LINE
EXISTING CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
4:1BANK SLOPE
PROPOSED ASPHALT CROSS SLOPE
CONCENTRATED FLOW DIRECTION
PROPOSED SWALE FLOWLINE
PROPOSED OUTFALL CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN WITH INLET
PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR
79.45PROPOSED FINISH GROUND ELEVATION
(79.45)EXISTING GROUND ELEVATION
PROPOSED INFLOW CURB/GUTTER FLOWLINE
2.0%
4950
100-YR FLOODWAY
100-YR FLOODPLAIN
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report_Appendix_Covers.doc
Appendix E:
Proposed Project Hydraulic Data
LAPORTE AVEN SUNSET STCHERRY STIRISH DRN TAFT HILL RDN IMPALA DRWEBB AVESUNRISE LNPENNSYLVANIA STTARRAGON LN
BELLWETHER LN
S IMPALA DRSTEPHENS STBASIL LNS TAFT HILL RDBRIARWOOD RDCORIANDER LNCentral FP Reach 6
Central FP Reach 5
Southern F
P
R
e
a
c
h
3
Southern FP PHS SplitN BRIARWOOD RDSouthern FP Reach 2
Central FP Ch
e
r
r
y
S
u
n
r
i
s
e
Central FP CherrySunr
i
s
e
Southern FP Reach 4Figure E.1: Hydraulic Tie-in Locations 200
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Pre-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Pre-Project Floodplain Centerline
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Floodway
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin 100-Year Floodplain
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Shallow Flooding
Proposed Site Layout
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain
Southern Flow PathPHS Split flow upstreamtie-in at cross section 1459 Pre-Project1477 Post-Project
New
M
e
r
c
e
r
C
a
n
a
l
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
Larimer C
o
u
n
t
y
Canal No.
2
Sanctuary on the Greens
Central Flow PathReach 5 downstreamtie-in at cross section 242 Pre-Project243 Post-Project
Southern Flow PathReach 2 downstreamtie-in at cross section 11111 Pre-Project11111 Post-Project
Central Flow PathReach CherrySunrise upstreamtie-in at cross section 1728 Pre-Project (5062.93)1796 Post-Project (5062.96)
Central Flow PathReach 6 upstreamtie-in at cross section 2439 Pre-Project2516 Post-Project
Southern Flow PathReach 3 upstreamtie-in at cross section 12209 Pre-Project12209 Post-Project
LAPORTE AVEN SUNSET STCHERRY STIRISH DRN TAFT HILL RDN IMPALA DRWEBB AVESUNRISE LNS IMPALA DRPENNSYLVANIA STS TAFT HILL RDBRIARWOOD RDTARRAGON LN
BELLWETHER LN
STEPHENS STBASIL LNCORIANDER LNCentral FP Reach 6
Central FP Reach 5
Southern FP PHS Split
Southern FP Reach 4HILLCREST DRN BRIARWOOD RDMERCER DRSouthern FP Reach 2
Southern F
P
R
e
a
c
h
3
Central FP Cherry
S
u
n
ri
s
e
Central FP CherrySun
r
i
s
e
Figure E.2: Floodplain Workmap Sheet Index 250
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Workmap Sheet Outlines
Pre-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Pre-Project Floodplain Centerline
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Floodway
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin 100-Year Floodplain
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Shallow Flooding
Proposed Site Layout
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain New
M
e
r
c
e
r
C
a
n
a
l
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
Larimer C
o
u
n
t
y
Canal No.
2
Sanctuary on the Greens
Figures:E.3 / E.4 / E.5 / E.6
Figures:E.7 / E.8 /E.9 / E.10Figures:E.11 / E.12 / E.13 / E.14
New Mercer
C
a
n
a
l Larimer County Canal No. 2N IMPALA DRN TAFT HILL RDTARRAGON LN
CHERRY ST BASIL LNCORIANDER LN0 5065506050555050507050455
0
7
0
506
0
5060
5055 50555060506550455
0
6
5
50555065506550655070506050
6
0 505550
6
5
5070
5060505550505060
5055
506050655
0
7
0
Central FP Reach 5
Central FP Reach 637043727062260 92520431645
301118918441811909172811111109041114610956107981130211405116461707
1758
1
0
6
1
9
117222259
BELLWE
T
H
E
R
L
N
507550755075
5
0
7
5
5050
505550655065 50455
0
6
5 5055506
5
5050
50605055507050
6
0
5070
5060
5065505550655060
50
6
5 50655065
5065
5060
5065
5060 50555055Central FP CherrySunrise 2421534
11200115121946
1828
2157
Figure E.3: Hydraulic Workmap - Pre-Project Floodplains with Contours (north)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Pre-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Pre-Project Floodplain Centerline
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Floodway
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin 100-Year Floodplain
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Shallow Flooding
Existing Intermediate Contour
Existing Index Contour
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
New Mercer
C
a
n
a
l Larimer County Canal No. 2N IMPALA DRN TAFT HILL RDTARRAGON LN
CHERRY ST BASIL LNCORIANDER LNCentral FP Reach 5
Central FP Reach 637043727062260 92520431645
30111891844181190917281111110904112001114610956107981130211405116461707
1758
1
0
6
1
9
1946
1828
2157
117222259 3724882756479461713 160219121796
2328 1090410956113021854
1796
BELLWE
T
H
E
R
L
N
Central FP CherrySunrise 2421534
11512404113 24321111445181197712341111111200111461079811405116461775
1151218072014
2225
1
0
6
1
9
1896
11722Figure E.4: Hydraulic Workmap - Pre-Project and Post-Project Floodplains (north)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Pre-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Pre-Project Floodplain Centerline
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Floodway
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin 100-Year Floodplain
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Shallow Flooding
Proposed Site Layout
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain
Post-Project Floodway
Post-Project Shallow Flooding
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
New Mercer
C
a
n
a
l Larimer County Canal No. 2N IMPALA DRN TAFT HILL RDTARRAGON LN
CHERRY ST BASIL LNCORIANDER LNCentral FP Reach 5
Central FP Reach 63724882756479461132111171316021912 181197717962328 111111090411200109561079811302116461775
18541807
2014
2225
1
0
6
1
9
1896
11722BELLWE
T
H
E
R
L
N
Central FP CherrySunrise 404243144512341114611405115121796
Figure E.5: Hydraulic Workmap - Post-Project Floodplains (north)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Proposed Site Layout
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain
Post-Project Floodway
Post-Project Shallow Flooding
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
New Mercer
C
a
n
a
l Larimer County Canal No. 2N IMPALA DRN TAFT HILL RDTARRAGON LN
CHERRY ST BASIL LNCORIANDER LN0 5065506050555050507050455
0
7
0
506
0
5060
5055 50555060506550455
0
6
5
50555065506550655070506050
6
0 505550
6
5
5070
5060505550505060
5055
506050655
0
7
0
5060 50555050
50
6
5
50605060
5055506550655060
5
0
6
55055 5060
50
6
0
50605060
50655060 50605065Central FP Reach 5
Central FP Reach 63724882756479461132111171316021912 18119771796
2328 1111110904109561079811302116461854
1
0
6
1
9
11722BELLWE
T
H
E
R
L
N
507550755075
5
0
7
5
5050
505550655065 50455
0
6
5 5055506
5
5050
50605055507050
6
0
5070
5060
5065505550655060
50
6
5 50655065
5065
5060
5065
5060 50555055Central FP CherrySunrise 4042431445179612341120011146114051775
1151218072014
2225
1896
Figure E.6: Hydraulic Workmap - Post-Project Floodplains with Contours (north)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Proposed Site Layout
Proposed Intermediate Contour
Proposed Index Contour
Existing Intermediate Contour
Existing Index Contour
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain
Post-Project Shallow Flooding
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
New Mercer
C
a
n
a
l
LAPORTE AVE N TAFT HILL RDIRISH DRPENNSYLVANIA STN IMPALA DR05065 50605070
5075
50555080
5070
506050555060
506
5
0
5060
5070 50655065
5065
5060
5065506550655075 50
6
0
50705060
5060
50755075 50555065 50555055506
0
50655055506050655065 5065
50650 5065506050605070 50605065Southern FP PHS SplitCentral FP Reach 6
Southern FP Reach 2 1111111146113021140511646117229
2
2
55
7
1173712
2
1 109566
9
3
10
4
8
1
2
2
0
9
12422123311254212
6
7
6
12
7
5
5
2
6
0
3
128192574280824
1
3 4372259 622S IMPALA DRBRIARWOOD RDS TAFT HILL RD5070
506
050705060
5065
507550555060
5070
5070
5075
50555065
5
0
7
0
50
7
0
5070
507050755060
5070
506
55070
5065
5070506550655055505550705055507050705065
50705075
50605065
50
6
0
5065
5060
506050755065506050
7
0
5
0
6
5506550
7
0
506050705070 5055Southern F
P
R
e
a
c
h
3
60
301112001151213
5
8 119771459 12865 92524
3
920432355
21572246 37027012
9
5
2
Figure E.7: Hydraulic Workmap - Pre-Project Floodplains with Contours (south)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Pre-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Pre-Project Floodplain Centerline
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Floodway
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin 100-Year Floodplain
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Shallow Flooding
Existing Intermediate Contour
Existing Index Contour
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
New Mercer
C
a
n
a
l
LAPORTE AVE N TAFT HILL RDIRISH DRPENNSYLVANIA STN IMPALA DRSouthern FP PHS Split
Southern FP Reach 3
Central FP Reach 6
Southern FP Reach 2 111111120011146113021140511646117229
2
2
55
7
1173712
2
1 109566
9
3
10
4
8
1
2
2
0
9 1197712422123311254212
6
7
6
12
7
5
5
2
6
0
3
128192574280824
1
3 4372157
2259 62211302117371095613
7
6
8
2
3
2328
600521184
7072423
409330S IMPALA DRBRIARWOOD RDS TAFT HILL RD60
3011151213
5
8
1459 12865 92524
3
9204323552246 37027012
9
5
2
113
111111120011146114051164611512117229
4
0
12
3
9
10
6
6
1
2
2
0
9 119771242212331125421477
86
9
12
6
7
6
12
7
5
5
2
6
8
0
1281924
9
02651
288512865
2225 94625
1
621112314 40437248864727512
9
5
2
Figure E.8: Hydraulic Workmap - Pre-Project and Post-Project Floodplains (south)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Pre-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Pre-Project Floodplain Centerline
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Floodway
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin 100-Year Floodplain
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Shallow Flooding
Proposed Site Layout
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain
Post-Project Floodway
Post-Project Shallow Flooding
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
New Mercer
C
a
n
a
l
LAPORTE AVE N TAFT HILL RDIRISH DRPENNSYLVANIA STN IMPALA DRSouthern FP PHS Split
Southern FP Reach 3Central FP Reach 6
Southern FP Reach 2 11111112001130211646117229
4
0 1173712
3
9 1095610
6
6
1
2
2
0
9
13
7
6 1197712422123318
2
3
125422328
60012
6
7
6 521184
70712
7
5
5
2
6
8
0
1281924
9
028852423
2225
409330S IMPALA DRBRIARWOOD RDS TAFT HILL RD113
1114611405115121477
86
92651
12865 94625
1
621112314 40437248864727512
9
5
2
Figure E.9: Hydraulic Workmap - Post-Project Floodplains (south)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Proposed Site Layout
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain
Post-Project Floodway
Post-Project Shallow Flooding
Upstream tie-in for Southern FP Reach 3
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
New Mercer
C
a
n
a
l 11111112001130211646117229
4
0 1173712
3
9 1095610
6
6
1
2
2
0
9
13
7
6 1242211977123318
2
3
125422328
60012
6
7
6 521184
70712
7
5
5
2
6
8
0
1281924
9
0
28852423
2225
409330113
1114611405115121477
86
92651
12865 94625
1
621112314 40437248864712
9
5
2 275LAPORTE AVE N TAFT HILL RDIRISH DRPENNSYLVANIA STN IMPALA DR05065 50605070
5075
50555080
5070
5
0
6
0 50555060
506
5
0
5060
5070
5065
5065
5065
5060
5065
50
6
5
5075
50705060
5060
50755075 50555065 50555055506
0
506550555060506550650
5065
506
0
50605070 50605065506050555065
5075 50705065
50605070 506050605075507050655060
506050755060
50655
0
6
5
5060 5060506550
65
Southern FP PHS Split
Central FP Reach 6
Southern FP Reach 2
S IMPALA DRBRIARWOOD RDS TAFT HILL RD5070
506
050705060
5065
507550555060
5070
5070
5075
5055506550
6
0
5065
5
0
7
0
50
7
0
5070
507050755060
5070
506
55070
5065
5070506550655055505550705055507050705065
50705075
50605065
50
6
0
5065
5065
50655060
506050755065506050
7
0
5
0
6
5506550
7
0
506050705070 5055Southern F
P
R
e
a
c
h
3
Figure E.10: Hydraulic Workmap - Post-Project Floodplains with Contours (south)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Proposed Site Layout
Proposed Intermediate Contour
Proposed Index Contour
Existing Intermediate Contour
Existing Index Contour
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain
Post-Project Shallow Flooding
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
Upstream tie-in for Southern FP Reach 3
LAPORTE AVE
S IMPALA DRBRIARWOOD RDSTEPHENS STHILLCREST DR
0
50755070
5080
5065506050855065
50655065
5065
50605075 506550755075
0
506550655070
5
0
8
5
5
0
6
0
5085
5075
5065508550700
5070
5070
5065
50805065
5070506
5
506550655080
5070Southern FP PHS SplitCentral FP Reach 6
13
5
8
9
2
2
55
7
1
3
4
8
2
12
2
1 125421
3
6
8
7
1
2
2
0
9
124226
9
3
10
4
8
1233112
6
7
6
12
7
5
5
138
9
6 128191
3
0
4
213290145925742808
1
3
8
5
93316 24
1
3
509050
7
0
5075
5075507050805
0
7
0
5070
50
6
0
5085 506550705075 5065
5
0
6
5
5070
5065
5060
5065
5070
5085 5060507550855065
5070
5070
506050805060
50705075
506
5
50
7
0
5070
5065 5060507
0
50705070506550705070507050655065
5060Southern F
P
R
e
a
c
h
3
Southern FP Reach 4Southern FP Reach 2301601286512
9
5
2 11737119772
6
0
3
11722306324
3
9
2355
407939573693Figure E.11: Hydraulic Workmap - Pre-Project Floodplains with Contours (southwest)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Pre-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Pre-Project Floodplain Centerline
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Floodway
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin 100-Year Floodplain
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Shallow Flooding
Existing Intermediate Contour
Existing Index Contour
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
LAPORTE AVE
S IMPALA DRBRIARWOOD RDSTEPHENS STHILLCREST DR
Southern
F
P
R
e
a
c
h
3
Southern FP PHS Split
Central FP Reach 6
Southern FP Reach 413
5
8
9
2
2
55
7
1
3
4
8
2
12
2
1
125421
3
6
8
7
1
2
2
0
9
124226
9
3
10
4
8
1233112
6
7
6
12
7
5
5
138
9
6 128191
3
0
4
2132901459 11977257428081
3
8
5
93316 24
1
33063 1138
2
3
1329011737600521184
70711722409330Southern FP Reach 2301601286512
9
5
2 117372
6
0
3
1172224
3
9
2355
40793957369313
7
6
9
4
0
1
3
4
8
2
12
3
9
125421
3
6
8
7
1
2
2
0
9
1242210
6
6
1233112
6
7
6
12
7
5
5
138
9
6 128191
3
0
4
2
12865147712
9
5
2 1197786
9
2
6
8
0
24
9
02651
28852423
1
3
8
5
93393 313925
1
6415640343770
Figure E.12: Hydraulic Workmap - Pre-Project and Post-Project Floodplains (southwest)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Pre-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Pre-Project Floodplain Centerline
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Floodway
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin 100-Year Floodplain
Effective / Pre-Project West Vine Basin Shallow Flooding
Proposed Site Layout
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain
Post-Project Floodway
Post-Project Shallow Flooding
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
LAPORTE AVE
S IMPALA DRBRIARWOOD RDSTEPHENS STHILLCREST DR
Southern
F
P
R
e
a
c
h
3
Southern FP PHS Split
Central FP Reach 6
Southern FP Reach 413
7
6
9
4
0
1
3
4
8
2
12
3
9
125421
3
6
8
7
1
2
2
0
9
1242210
6
6
1233112
6
7
6 11312
7
5
5
138
9
6 128198
2
3
1
3
0
4
2
132901477 1173711977600521184
70724
9
0
11722265128851
3
8
5
93393 3139409330Southern FP Reach 21286512
9
5
2
86
9
2
6
8
0
2423
25
1
6415640343770
Figure E.13: Hydraulic Workmap - Post-Project Floodplains (southwest)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Proposed Site Layout
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain
Post-Project Floodway
Post-Project Shallow Flooding
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
Upstream tie-in for Southern FP Reach 3
LAPORTE AVE
S IMPALA DRBRIARWOOD RDSTEPHENS STHILLCREST DR
0
50755070
5080
5065506050855065
5
0
6
0
5075
5065
506
5
5
0
8
5
506550655070
50750
50655070
50705085 50605065
5075
506550705075
0
5065
5080506550705065506550655080
50705080
5065
50755060507050705065
5075506050605065508050755080
50655070
5
0
6
5
5
0
7
5
508050605060
5075
Southern
F
P
R
e
a
c
h
3
Southern FP PHS Split
Central FP Reach 6
Southern FP Reach 413
7
6
9
4
0
1
3
4
8
2
12
3
9
125421
3
6
8
7
10
6
6
1233112
6
7
6 11312
7
5
5
138
9
6 128198
2
3
1
3
0
4
2
132901477 11737600521707265128851
3
8
5
93393 409330509050605070 507050755
0
6
0
5
0
7
0
5070
50
7
0
5065
50705075
5070
5065
50805070
5065 5065
5085
50755085
5065
5065
5060
5070
50
6
0
50805085
506050705075
506
5
50
7
0
50705075 5065
5060507
0
50705070 506550705070507050655
0
6
5
5060 Southern FP Reach 21
2
2
0
9
124221286512
9
5
2 1197786
9
184
2
6
8
0
24
9
0
117222423
313925
1
6415640343770
Figure E.14: Hydraulic Workmap - Post-Project Floodplains with Contours (southwest)100
Feet±Sanctuary on the Greens - Initial Floodplain Report
Legend
Proposed Site Layout
Proposed Intermediate Contour
Proposed Index Contour
Existing Intermediate Contour
Existing Index Contour
Post-Project Hydraulic Cross Sections
Post-Project Floodplain Centerline
Post-Project 100-Year Floodplain
Post-Project Shallow Flooding
Datum: NAVD 88Projection: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_FeetAerial Image: CSU 2018
9000100001100012000130001400050405045505050555060506550705075Sanctuary_Development Plan: 08_Post-Project_2021-03-17REV 2021-03-23 Main Channel Distance (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendWS 100yrGroundSouthern FP Reach 2Southern FP Reach 3
01000200030004000500050455050505550605065507050755080Sanctuary_Development Plan: 08_Post-Project_2021-03-17REV 2021-03-23 Main Channel Distance (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendWS 100yrLat StructGroundCentral FP Reach 5Central FP Reach 6
020040060080010001200140016005056505850605062506450665068507050725074Sanctuary_Development Plan: 08_Post-Project_2021-03-17REV 2021-03-23 Main Channel Distance (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendWS 100yrLat StructGroundSouthern FP PHS Split
HEC-RAS Plan: 08_Post-Project_2021-03-17REV
River Reach River Sta Profile Top Wdth Act Area Vel Total W.S. Elev Base WS Prof Delta WS
(ft) (sq ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Central FP Reach 5 181 100yr 15.40 0.95 1.37 5050.50 5050.50
Central FP Reach 5 181 FW 15.40 0.95 1.37 5050.50 5050.50 0.00
Central FP Reach 5 243 100yr 480.41 600.30 0.56 5050.54 5050.54
Central FP Reach 5 243 FW 50.00 117.55 2.83 5050.57 5050.54 0.03
Central FP Reach 5 275 100yr 338.63 284.56 1.17 5050.56 5050.56
Central FP Reach 5 275 FW 50.00 55.91 5.96 5050.68 5050.56 0.12
Central FP Reach 5 338 Inl Struct
Central FP Reach 5 372 100yr 456.31 403.81 0.50 5055.64 5055.64
Central FP Reach 5 372 FW 98.47 130.51 1.53 5055.88 5055.64 0.23
Central FP Reach 5 404 100yr 462.19 988.00 0.20 5055.65 5055.65
Central FP Reach 5 404 FW 64.74 109.97 1.82 5055.90 5055.65 0.25
Central FP Reach 5 488 100yr 307.36 525.89 0.63 5055.65 5055.65
Central FP Reach 5 488 FW 87.07 214.32 1.55 5055.98 5055.65 0.33
Central FP Reach 5 647 100yr 117.18 385.49 1.43 5055.68 5055.68
Central FP Reach 5 647 FW 95.84 236.64 1.41 5056.07 5055.68 0.39
Central FP Reach 5 946 100yr 81.56 165.09 2.02 5055.90 5055.90
Central FP Reach 5 946 FW 79.74 190.66 1.75 5056.22 5055.90 0.33
Central FP Reach 5 1234 100yr 90.71 208.15 1.54 5056.16 5056.16
Central FP Reach 5 1234 FW 90.89 229.93 1.40 5056.40 5056.16 0.24
Central FP Reach 5 1445 100yr 66.38 151.22 2.12 5056.30 5056.30
Central FP Reach 5 1445 FW 66.92 164.60 1.95 5056.50 5056.30 0.20
Central FP Reach 5 1602 100yr 349.31 122.92 2.61 5062.87 5062.87
Central FP Reach 5 1602 FW 103.66 71.50 4.49 5063.00 5062.87 0.13
Central FP Reach 5 1713 100yr 307.74 498.15 0.64 5063.09 5063.09
Central FP Reach 5 1713 FW 173.45 394.88 0.67 5063.48 5063.09 0.38
Central FP Reach 6 1775 100yr 137.94 238.00 1.21 5063.08 5063.08
Central FP Reach 6 1775 FW 73.00 231.88 1.24 5063.46 5063.08 0.39
Central FP Reach 6 1796 100yr 115.18 145.94 1.97 5063.05 5063.05
Central FP Reach 6 1796 FW 77.20 159.39 1.80 5063.45 5063.05 0.39
Central FP Reach 6 1807 100yr 110.94 66.23 4.33 5062.96 5062.96
Central FP Reach 6 1807 FW 79.78 83.87 3.42 5063.38 5062.96 0.41
Central FP Reach 6 1854 100yr 109.62 228.44 1.26 5063.34 5063.34
Central FP Reach 6 1854 FW 90.96 234.67 1.22 5063.60 5063.34 0.26
Central FP Reach 6 1896 100yr 104.10 215.40 1.33 5063.36 5063.36
Central FP Reach 6 1896 FW 87.18 224.39 1.28 5063.61 5063.36 0.25
Central FP Reach 6 2014 100yr 86.75 201.95 1.44 5063.41 5063.41
Central FP Reach 6 2014 FW 85.71 219.64 1.31 5063.65 5063.41 0.24
Central FP Reach 6 2225 100yr 101.47 227.21 1.26 5063.51 5063.51
Central FP Reach 6 2225 FW 98.41 247.64 1.16 5063.73 5063.51 0.21
HEC-RAS Plan: 08_Post-Project_2021-03-17REV (Continued)
River Reach River Sta Profile Top Wdth Act Area Vel Total W.S. Elev Base WS Prof Delta WS
(ft) (sq ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Central FP Reach 6 2328 100yr 78.73 282.61 1.57 5063.55 5063.55
Central FP Reach 6 2328 FW 77.40 198.21 1.45 5063.76 5063.55 0.20
Central FP Reach 6 2423 100yr 79.57 184.70 1.58 5063.61 5063.61
Central FP Reach 6 2423 FW 78.65 196.51 1.46 5063.80 5063.61 0.19
Central FP Reach 6 2490 100yr 42.17 229.31 2.91 5063.61 5063.61
Central FP Reach 6 2490 FW 41.21 106.23 2.70 5063.80 5063.61 0.18
Central FP Reach 6 2516 100yr 9.00 37.05 10.00 5066.42 5066.42
Central FP Reach 6 2516 FW 9.00 28.97 9.91 5066.45 5066.42 0.03
Central FP Reach 6 2577 Culvert
Central FP Reach 6 2651 100yr 9.00 317.72 3.34 5073.72 5073.72
Central FP Reach 6 2651 FW 9.00 89.49 3.34 5073.72 5073.72 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 2680 100yr 52.35 462.34 0.73 5073.94 5073.94
Central FP Reach 6 2680 FW 52.35 391.40 0.73 5073.94 5073.94 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 2885 100yr 76.41 361.67 0.79 5073.94 5073.94
Central FP Reach 6 2885 FW 76.18 361.67 0.79 5073.94 5073.94 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 3139 100yr 71.04 286.15 1.00 5073.95 5073.95
Central FP Reach 6 3139 FW 69.18 285.96 1.00 5073.95 5073.95 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 3393 100yr 55.33 192.92 1.49 5073.96 5073.96
Central FP Reach 6 3393 FW 54.24 192.83 1.49 5073.96 5073.96 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 3514 100yr 50.66 148.81 1.93 5073.97 5073.97
Central FP Reach 6 3514 FW 50.42 148.83 1.93 5073.97 5073.97 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 3770 100yr 127.59 1480.81 0.62 5074.06 5074.06
Central FP Reach 6 3770 FW 127.59 1477.45 0.64 5074.06 5074.06 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 4034 100yr 325.81 3024.58 0.21 5074.07 5074.07
Central FP Reach 6 4034 FW 324.56 3025.05 0.22 5074.07 5074.07 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 4101 Lat Struct
Central FP Reach 6 4156 100yr 277.30 2122.70 0.35 5074.07 5074.07
Central FP Reach 6 4156 FW 276.23 2123.48 0.35 5074.07 5074.07 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 4288 100yr 113.12 1022.58 0.89 5074.07 5074.07
Central FP Reach 6 4288 FW 113.13 1020.66 0.89 5074.07 5074.07 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 4335 100yr 117.07 237.82 1.87 5074.04 5074.04
Central FP Reach 6 4335 FW 108.00 175.72 1.95 5074.04 5074.04 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 4433 100yr 61.92 116.24 3.43 5074.06 5074.06
Central FP Reach 6 4433 FW 54.00 96.00 3.56 5074.06 5074.06 0.00
Central FP Reach 6 4521 100yr 28.60 62.16 7.16 5074.59 5074.59
Central FP Reach 6 4521 FW 27.00 47.89 7.14 5074.61 5074.59 0.02
Central FP Reach 6 4727 100yr 31.30 73.46 4.66 5076.36 5076.36
Central FP Reach 6 4727 FW 23.78 69.20 4.94 5076.46 5076.36 0.10
Southern FP Reach 2 9380 100yr 463.33 140.00 2.78 5043.86 5043.86
HEC-RAS Plan: 08_Post-Project_2021-03-17REV (Continued)
River Reach River Sta Profile Top Wdth Act Area Vel Total W.S. Elev Base WS Prof Delta WS
(ft) (sq ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Southern FP Reach 2 9380 FW 152.77 95.57 4.07 5044.13 5043.86 0.27
Southern FP Reach 2 9442 100yr 341.63 198.92 2.21 5044.79 5044.79
Southern FP Reach 2 9442 FW 169.17 159.48 2.44 5044.97 5044.79 0.18
Southern FP Reach 2 9577 100yr 380.49 159.27 2.44 5046.03 5046.03
Southern FP Reach 2 9577 FW 164.18 94.02 4.14 5046.17 5046.03 0.14
Southern FP Reach 2 9672 100yr 550.23 442.43 0.89 5046.62 5046.62
Southern FP Reach 2 9672 FW 271.00 398.44 0.98 5047.04 5046.62 0.42
Southern FP Reach 2 9784 100yr 527.59 397.85 1.04 5047.03 5047.03
Southern FP Reach 2 9784 FW 264.00 293.48 1.33 5047.46 5047.03 0.42
Southern FP Reach 2 9878 100yr 555.87 460.91 1.00 5047.42 5047.42
Southern FP Reach 2 9878 FW 383.00 429.96 0.90 5047.90 5047.42 0.48
Southern FP Reach 2 10000 100yr 466.08 376.67 1.47 5047.83 5047.83
Southern FP Reach 2 10000 FW 439.45 314.90 1.24 5048.30 5047.83 0.47
Southern FP Reach 2 10036 100yr 272.82 126.60 3.55 5049.99 5049.99
Southern FP Reach 2 10036 FW 196.73 100.38 3.88 5050.17 5049.99 0.17
Southern FP Reach 2 10338 100yr 437.91 888.11 1.18 5050.86 5050.86
Southern FP Reach 2 10338 FW 218.00 347.53 1.71 5051.25 5050.86 0.39
Southern FP Reach 2 10445 100yr 582.96 830.95 0.72 5050.94 5050.94
Southern FP Reach 2 10445 FW 219.00 463.32 1.28 5051.38 5050.94 0.44
Southern FP Reach 2 10619 100yr 493.62 215.28 2.68 5051.83 5051.83
Southern FP Reach 2 10619 FW 241.00 141.59 4.08 5051.93 5051.83 0.10
Southern FP Reach 2 10798 100yr 287.59 389.74 2.35 5053.85 5053.85
Southern FP Reach 2 10798 FW 171.39 198.03 2.91 5054.30 5053.85 0.45
Southern FP Reach 2 10904 100yr 166.47 262.58 4.36 5054.98 5054.98
Southern FP Reach 2 10904 FW 125.43 114.52 5.04 5055.00 5054.98 0.02
Southern FP Reach 2 10956 100yr 323.23 409.20 2.53 5055.75 5055.75
Southern FP Reach 2 10956 FW 230.67 217.55 2.65 5055.85 5055.75 0.10
Southern FP Reach 2 11111 100yr 446.89 178.48 3.23 5057.31 5057.31
Southern FP Reach 2 11111 FW 234.00 134.72 4.28 5057.32 5057.31 0.01
Southern FP Reach 2 11146 100yr 518.43 881.26 0.81 5057.55 5057.55
Southern FP Reach 2 11146 FW 184.00 401.98 1.44 5057.68 5057.55 0.13
Southern FP Reach 2 11200 100yr 296.63 713.86 0.85 5057.57 5057.57
Southern FP Reach 2 11200 FW 85.89 214.38 2.69 5057.70 5057.57 0.13
Southern FP Reach 2 11302 100yr 436.46 672.48 0.96 5057.61 5057.61
Southern FP Reach 2 11302 FW 240.28 529.15 1.09 5057.97 5057.61 0.36
Southern FP Reach 2 11405 100yr 424.17 734.90 0.78 5057.64 5057.64
Southern FP Reach 2 11405 FW 249.00 715.60 0.80 5057.99 5057.64 0.36
Southern FP Reach 2 11512 100yr 247.48 479.26 1.19 5057.65 5057.65
Southern FP Reach 2 11512 FW 189.90 511.56 1.11 5058.00 5057.65 0.35
HEC-RAS Plan: 08_Post-Project_2021-03-17REV (Continued)
River Reach River Sta Profile Top Wdth Act Area Vel Total W.S. Elev Base WS Prof Delta WS
(ft) (sq ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Southern FP Reach 2 11646 100yr 211.41 137.66 4.13 5058.97 5058.97
Southern FP Reach 2 11646 FW 130.84 111.19 5.12 5059.30 5058.97 0.33
Southern FP Reach 2 11722 100yr 235.81 263.28 3.77 5060.56 5060.56
Southern FP Reach 2 11722 FW 235.81 199.70 2.85 5060.77 5060.56 0.21
Southern FP Reach 2 11737 100yr 164.34 134.69 4.22 5062.01 5062.01
Southern FP Reach 2 11737 FW 130.60 115.42 4.93 5062.06 5062.01 0.05
Southern FP Reach 3 11977 100yr 182.75 484.16 1.06 5062.89 5062.89
Southern FP Reach 3 11977 FW 122.00 293.17 2.00 5063.25 5062.89 0.36
Southern FP Reach 3 12209 100yr 155.17 198.78 1.74 5063.03 5063.03
Southern FP Reach 3 12209 FW 140.52 268.37 2.19 5063.53 5063.03 0.50
Southern FP Reach 3 12331 100yr 156.41 82.59 4.04 5064.04 5064.04
Southern FP Reach 3 12331 FW 124.00 108.63 5.20 5064.34 5064.04 0.29
Southern FP Reach 3 12422 100yr 137.20 165.38 2.02 5064.71 5064.71
Southern FP Reach 3 12422 FW 132.00 225.93 2.50 5065.17 5064.71 0.46
Southern FP Reach 3 12542 100yr 86.66 138.90 4.59 5065.20 5065.20
Southern FP Reach 3 12542 FW 86.90 99.29 5.69 5065.57 5065.20 0.37
Southern FP Reach 3 12676 100yr 132.22 227.04 4.04 5068.15 5068.15
Southern FP Reach 3 12676 FW 106.00 107.38 5.26 5068.56 5068.15 0.42
Southern FP Reach 3 12755 100yr 154.49 282.47 3.21 5068.97 5068.97
Southern FP Reach 3 12755 FW 110.16 116.87 4.83 5069.37 5068.97 0.40
Southern FP Reach 3 12819 100yr 141.65 260.06 3.58 5069.49 5069.49
Southern FP Reach 3 12819 FW 135.41 145.13 3.89 5069.92 5069.49 0.43
Southern FP Reach 3 12865 100yr 98.26 266.46 4.09 5069.99 5069.99
Southern FP Reach 3 12865 FW 95.23 99.20 5.09 5070.28 5069.99 0.29
Southern FP Reach 3 12952 100yr 96.71 288.39 4.15 5070.69 5070.69
Southern FP Reach 3 12952 FW 87.16 95.56 5.28 5070.99 5070.69 0.31
Southern FP Reach 3 13042 100yr 182.31 94.63 3.10 5071.39 5071.39
Southern FP Reach 3 13042 FW 114.00 112.52 4.49 5071.70 5071.39 0.30
Southern FP Reach 3 13290 100yr 184.74 80.00 3.66 5073.45 5073.45
Southern FP Reach 3 13290 FW 117.43 98.20 5.14 5073.79 5073.45 0.34
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report_Appendix_Covers.doc
Appendix F:
Comparison and Agreement Tables
Table 6.1: Water Surface Elevation Comparisons - West Vine Basin - Sanctuary Development - Southern Flowpath
ICON Engineering Inc.
Location Description Reach
Effective
Cross Section
Post-Project
Cross Section
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
Δ WSEL
vs. Pre-Project
North Taft Hill Road / downstream tie-in Southern FP - Reach 2 11111 11111 577 5057.31 577 5057.31 0.00 577 5057.31 0.0 577 5057.31 0.0 577 5057.31 0.0 0.0
Southern FP - Reach 2 11146 11146 577 5057.53 577 5057.53 0.00 577 5057.53 0.0 577 5057.53 0.0 577 5057.55 0.0 0.0
Southern FP - Reach 2 11200 11200 577 5057.53 577 5057.53 0.00 577 5057.53 0.0 577 5057.53 0.0 577 5057.57 0.0 0.0
Southern FP - Reach 2 11302 11302 577 5057.57 577 5057.57 0.00 577 5057.57 0.0 577 5057.57 0.0 577 5057.61 0.0 0.0
Southern FP - Reach 2 11405 11405 569 5057.61 569 5057.61 0.00 569 5057.61 0.0 569 5057.61 0.0 569 5057.64 0.0 0.0
Southern FP - Reach 2 11512 11512 569 5058.42 569 5058.42 0.00 569 5058.42 0.0 569 5058.42 0.0 569 5057.65 -0.8 -0.8
Southern FP - Reach 2 11646 11646 569 5059.85 569 5059.85 0.00 569 5059.85 0.0 569 5059.85 0.0 569 5058.97 -0.9 -0.9
Southern FP - Reach 2 11722 11722 569 5060.12 569 5060.12 0.00 569 5060.85 0.7 569 5060.85 0.7 569 5060.56 0.4 -0.3
downstream of New Mercer Canal Southern FP - Reach 2 11737 11737 569 5062.01 569 5062.01 0.00 569 5062.01 0.0 569 5062.01 0.0 569 5062.01 0.0 0.0
upstream of New Mercer Canal Southern FP - Reach 3 11977 11977 345 5062.89 345 5062.89 0.00 345 5062.89 0.0 345 5062.89 0.0 345 5062.89 0.0 0.0
upstream tie-in Southern FP - Reach 3 12209 12209 345 5063.03 345 5063.03 0.00 345 5063.03 0.0 345 5063.03 0.0 345 5063.03 0.0 0.0
5280.12 = Interpolated elevation
1 From effective 2020 West Vine Basin HEC-RAS Model (ICON Engineering Inc.)
2 (03) Effective model run in HEC-RAS 5.0.7
3 (04) Corrected Effective conditions - ineffective flow added to XS 11722 to reflect anticipated spill flow location
5 (08) Post-Project conditions (2021-03-11 revisions)
(08) Post-Project 5(04) Corrected Effective 3Effective Model 1 (03) Duplicate Effective Model 2 (05) Pre-Project 4
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Table_X_X_WSEL_Comparison.xlsx 2021-03-24
Table 6.2: Water Surface Elevation Comparisons - West Vine Basin - Sanctuary Development - Central Flowpath
ICON Engineering Inc.
Location Description Reach
Effective
Cross Section
Post-Project
Cross Section
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
Δ WSEL
vs. Pre-Project
upstream Larimer County Canal No. 2 /
downstream tie-in Central FP - Reach 5 242 243 333 5050.54 333 5050.54 0.00 333 5050.54 0.0 333 5050.54 0.0 333 5050.54 0.0 0.0
downstream North Taft Hill Road Central FP - Reach 5 270 275 333 5050.56 333 5050.56 0.00 333 5050.56 0.0 333 5050.56 0.0 333 5050.56 0.0 0.0
Central FP - Reach 5 --372 --5055.76 --5055.76 0.00 --5055.76 0.0 --5055.76 0.0 200 5055.65 -0.1 -0.1
upstream North Taft Hill Road Central FP - Reach 5 370 404 333 5055.76 333 5055.76 0.00 333 5055.76 0.0 333 5055.76 0.0 200 5055.65 -0.1 -0.1
downstream end Detention Pond 3 Central FP - Reach 5 437 --333 5055.76 333 5055.76 0.00 333 5055.76 0.0 333 5055.76 0.0 --5055.65 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - Reach 5 --488 --5055.76 --5055.76 0.00 --5055.76 0.0 --5055.76 0.0 333 5055.65 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - Reach 5 622 647 333 5055.76 333 5055.76 0.00 333 5055.76 0.0 333 5055.76 0.0 333 5055.68 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - Reach 5 925 946 333 5056.55 333 5056.55 0.00 333 5056.55 0.0 333 5056.55 0.0 333 5055.9 -0.7 -0.7
upstream end Detention Pond 3 Central FP - Reach 5 1189 1234 321 5059.42 321 5059.42 0.00 321 5059.42 0.0 321 5059.42 0.0 321 5056.16 -3.3 -3.3
Central FP - Reach 6 --1445 --5061.53 --5061.53 0.00 --5061.53 0.0 --5061.53 0.0 321 5056.3 -5.2 -5.2
downstream New Mercer Canal Central FP - Reach 5 1534 1602 321 5062.87 321 5062.87 0.00 321 5062.87 0.0 321 5062.87 0.0 321 5062.87 0.0 0.0
upstream New Mercer Canal Central FP - Reach 5 1645 1713 134 5063.07 134 5063.07 0.00 263 5063.08 0.0 263 5063.08 0.0 263 5063.09 0.0 0.0
Central FP - Reach 6 1707 1775 158 5063.07 158 5063.07 0.00 158 5063.07 0.0 158 5063.07 0.0 287 5063.07 0.0 0.0
downstream end Detention Pond 2 Central FP - Reach 6 --1796 --5063.06 --5063.06 0.00 --5063.06 0.0 --5063.06 0.0 287 5063.05 0.0 0.0
Central FP - Reach 6 --1807 --5063.05 --5063.05 0.00 --5063.06 0.0 --5063.06 0.0 287 5062.96 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - Reach 6 1758 --158 5063.04 158 5063.04 0.00 158 5063.05 0.0 158 5063.05 0.0 --5063.12 0.1 0.1
Central FP - Reach 6 --1854 --5063.04 --5063.04 0.00 --5063.05 0.0 --5063.05 0.0 287 5063.34 0.3 0.3
Central FP - Reach 6 1828 1896 171 5063.04 171 5063.04 0.00 171 5063.05 0.0 171 5063.05 0.0 287 5063.36 0.3 0.3
Central FP - Reach 6 1946 2014 171 5063.34 171 5063.34 0.00 171 5063.35 0.0 171 5063.35 0.0 287 5063.41 0.1 0.1
Central FP - Reach 6 2157 2225 234 5064.63 234 5064.63 0.00 234 5064.63 0.0 234 5064.63 0.0 287 5063.51 -1.1 -1.1
Central FP - Reach 6 2259 2328 285 5065.56 285 5065.56 0.00 285 5065.56 0.0 285 5065.56 0.0 287 5063.55 -2.0 -2.0
Central FP - Reach 6 2355 2423 287 5066.46 287 5066.46 0.00 287 5066.46 0.0 287 5066.46 0.0 287 5063.61 -2.9 -2.9
Central FP - Reach 6 2413 2490 287 5066.78 287 5066.78 0.00 287 5066.78 0.0 287 5066.78 0.0 287 5063.61 -3.2 -3.2
upstream end Detention Pond 2 / upstream tie-in Central FP - Reach 6 2439 2516 287 5066.42 287 5066.42 0.00 287 5066.42 0.0 287 5066.42 0.0 287 5066.42 0.0 0.0
5280.12 = Interpolated elevation
1 From effective 2020 West Vine Basin HEC-RAS Model (ICON Engineering Inc.)
2 (03) Effective model run in HEC-RAS 5.0.7
3 (04) Corrected Effective conditions - ineffective flow added to XS 11722 to reflect anticipated spill flow location
4 (05) Pre-Project conditions
5 (08) Post-Project conditions (2021-03-17 revisions)
(08) Post-Project 5Effective Model 1 (03) Duplicate Effective Model 2 (04) Corrected Effective 3 (05) Pre-Project 4
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Table_X_X_WSEL_Comparison.xlsx 2021-03-24
Table 6.3: Water Surface Elevation Comparisons - West Vine Basin - Sanctuary Development - PHS Split Flowpath
ICON Engineering Inc.
Location Description Reach
Effective
Cross Section
Post-Project
Cross Section
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
100-Year
Discharge
(cfs)
100- Year WSEL
(NAVD 88)
Δ WSEL
vs. Effective
Δ WSEL
vs. Pre-Project
Upstream of New Mercer Canal / downstream tie-in Central FP - PHS - Split 60 113 242 5062.59 242 5062.59 0.00 242 5062.58 0.0 242 5062.58 0.0 242 5062.55 0.0 0.0
Detention Pond 4 Central FP - PHS - Split --184 --5062.68 --5062.68 0.00 --5062.67 0.0 --5062.67 0.0 242 5062.58 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - PHS - Split --330 --5062.86 --5062.86 0.00 --5062.87 0.0 --5062.87 0.0 242 5062.39 -0.5 -0.5
Central FP - PHS - Split 301 409 242 5062.89 242 5062.89 0.00 242 5062.90 0.0 242 5062.90 0.0 242 5063.38 0.5 0.5
Central FP - PHS - Split 557 521 231 5064.97 231 5064.97 0.00 231 5064.96 0.0 231 5064.96 0.0 231 5064.11 -0.9 -0.9
Central FP - PHS - Split --600 --5065.74 --5065.74 0.00 --5065.74 0.0 --5065.74 0.0 231 5064.55 -1.2 -1.2
Start of proposed channel Central FP - PHS - Split 693 707 231 5066.30 231 5066.30 0.00 231 5066.30 0.0 231 5066.30 0.0 231 5064.78 -1.5 -1.5
Central FP - PHS - Split --834 --5067.44 --5067.44 0.00 --5067.44 0.0 --5067.44 0.0 231 5066.99 -0.4 -0.4
Central FP - PHS - Split --869 --5067.75 --5067.75 0.00 --5067.75 0.0 --5067.75 0.0 231 5067.67 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - PHS - Split 922 940 231 5068.35 231 5068.35 0.00 231 5068.35 0.0 231 5068.35 0.0 231 5068.22 -0.1 -0.1
Central FP - PHS - Split 1048 1066 244 5069.48 244 5069.48 0.00 244 5069.48 0.0 244 5069.48 0.0 244 5069.51 0.0 0.0
Central FP - PHS - Split 1221 1239 255 5070.98 255 5070.98 0.00 255 5070.98 0.0 255 5070.98 0.0 255 5070.96 0.0 0.0
Laporte Avenue Central FP - PHS - Split 1358 1376 212 5073.22 212 5073.22 0.00 212 5073.22 0.0 212 5073.22 0.0 212 5073.22 0.0 0.0
upstream tie-in Central FP - PHS - Split 1459 1477 212 5074.00 212 5074.00 0.00 212 5074.00 0.0 212 5074.00 0.0 212 5074 0.0 0.0
5280.12 = Interpolated elevation
1 From effective 2020 West Vine Basin HEC-RAS Model (ICON Engineering Inc.)
2 (03) Effective model run in HEC-RAS 5.0.7
3 (04) Corrected Effective conditions - ineffective flow added to XS 11722 to reflect anticipated spill flow location
4 (05) Pre-Project conditions
5 (08) Post-Project conditions (2021-03-11 revisions)
(08) Post-Project 6Effective Model 1 (03) Duplicate Effective Model 2 (04) Corrected Effective 3 (05) Pre-Project 4
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\Archive\SAN_Table_X_X_WSEL_Comparison.xlsx 2021-03-24
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report_Appendix_Covers.doc
Appendix G:
Digital Data
ICON
Sanctuary on the Greens – Initial Floodplain Report
P:\P\21-002_Sanctuary\10_Reports\01_Initial_Floodplain_Report\SAN_Initial_Floodplain_Report_Appendix_Covers.doc
Appendix H:
Correspondence
Page 1
City of Fort Collins
Floodplain Modeling Report Submittal Checklist
Instructions:
1. Applicant shall submit a completed copy of this checklist with all draft and final submittals.
2. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the requestor without review.
3. Clearly label all sections and subsections in the report text. Sections and subsections are shown in bold text in this checklist.
Section/subsection numbering may require modifications based on the type of request.
4. For any additional comment or notes, include a separate sheet with the numbered comments corresponding to the number
filled in the “Comment #” column.
Submittal Number: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ Submittal Date:
Date Received: City Response Date:
REPORT REQUIREMENTS YES NO N/A COMMENT #
SUBMITTALS
Draft Submittal
One (1) hard copy for review ☐ ☐ ☐
One (1) CD or DVD containing full digital submittal ☐ ☐ ☐
MT-2 application forms ☐ ☐ ☐
City Review Fee ☐ ☐ ☐
Final Submittal
One (1) hard copy incorporating all comments/revisions ☐ ☐ ☐
One (1) CD or DVD containing full digital submittal ☐ ☐ ☐
MT-2 Forms (all signatures except community official) ☐ ☐ ☐
GENERAL
Transmittal Letter ☐ ☐ ☐
Report Cover/Title Page
Project Title ☐ ☐ ☐
Owner (prepared for) ☐ ☐ ☐
Engineer (include P.E. Stamp) ☐ ☐ ☐
Submittal Date or revision date as applicable ☐ ☐ ☐
Table of Contents
Report section titles and page numbers ☐ ☐ ☐
List of Figures ☐ ☐ ☐
List of Tables ☐ ☐ ☐
List of Appendices ☐ ☐ ☐
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a detailed description of the proposed project ☐ ☐ ☐
1.1 Purpose
Describe the purpose of the request ☐ ☐ ☐
1.2 Site Description
Provide a detailed description of the project site ☐ ☐ ☐
Include a project vicinity/location map ☐ ☐ ☐
1.3 Project Participants
Page 2
REPORT REQUIREMENTS YES NO N/A COMMENT #
List stakeholders and/or requestors ☐ ☐ ☐
1.4 Special Considerations
Describe special requirements pertinent to the project ☐ ☐ ☐
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Flooding Source and History
Identify if the project falls within a FEMA or City-regulated floodplain ☐ ☐ ☐
Describe the background of the flooding source and any pertinent history ☐ ☐ ☐
2.2 Previous Studies
List previous studies ☐ ☐ ☐
Describe any LOMR’s or CLOMR’s which impact the project reach ☐ ☐ ☐
3.0 STUDY LIMITS
List impacted FIRM panels and the effective dates ☐ ☐ ☐
Provide a description of the study reach ☐ ☐ ☐
List effective cross-sections and stations for the u/s and d/s limits in the model ☐ ☐ ☐
4.0 MAPPING
Provide the source of any topographic mapping or survey data ☐ ☐ ☐
Describe the horizontal and vertical datum used for the project ☐ ☐ ☐
List the control point(s) used by the project ☐ ☐ ☐
5.0 HYDROLOGY
5.1 Flood Discharges and Modeled Recurrence Intervals
Identify source of discharges used in the hydraulic analysis ☐ ☐ ☐
Provide a table showing discharges for each modeled recurrence interval ☐ ☐ ☐
5.2 Revised Hydrologic Analysis (if applicable)
5.2.1 Methodology ☐ ☐ ☐
5.2.2 Details ☐ ☐ ☐
5.2.3 Results ☐ ☐ ☐
Basin Overview Map(s) – Include in Appendix ☐ ☐ ☐
Routing Schematic(s) – Include in Appendix ☐ ☐ ☐
6.0 HYDRAULICS
6.1 Methods and Approach
List the hydraulic model used in the analysis including the version ☐ ☐ ☐
Provide a description of the source of the effective hydraulic model ☐ ☐ ☐
Describe the flow condition (unsteady/steady) and flow regime ☐ ☐ ☐
6.1.1 Hydraulic Cross-Sections
Provide a summary of cross-sections contained in the effective and revised
models ☐ ☐ ☐
Include a table summarizing cross-section stationing for all models ☐ ☐ ☐
Describe any discrepancies identified in the effective stream stationing and
cross-section lengths ☐ ☐ ☐
Describe any changes to the effective cross-sections (i.e. added or removed) ☐ ☐ ☐
6.1.2 Roughness Coefficients
Discuss Manning’s n-values used in the analysis ☐ ☐ ☐
Explain any deviation from the range of n-values used in the effective model as
part of the revised analysis ☐ ☐ ☐
6.1.3 Structures
Describe low flow and high flow methods used in the modeling approach ☐ ☐ ☐
Page 3
REPORT REQUIREMENTS YES NO N/A COMMENT #
Describe contraction and expansions coefficients ☐ ☐ ☐
6.1.4 Boundary Conditions
Discuss boundary conditions used in the analysis ☐ ☐ ☐
6.1.5 Floodway Modeling
List regulatory floodway(s) present in the revision reach ☐ ☐ ☐
Describe any anticipated impacts to the regulatory floodway ☐ ☐ ☐
6.2 Hydraulic Model Description
6.2.1 Duplicate Effective (DE) Model
Describe the DE model used in the analysis ☐ ☐ ☐
6.2.2 Corrected Effective (CE) Model
Describe preparation of the CE model ☐ ☐ ☐
Provide a summary of any revisions included in the CE model ☐ ☐ ☐
6.2.3 Existing Condition (EX-COND) Model
Describe preparation of the EX-COND model ☐ ☐ ☐
Provide a summary of any revisions included in the EX-COND model ☐ ☐ ☐
6.2.4 Proposed or Post-Project Condition (PP-COND) Model
Describe preparation of the PP-COND condition model ☐ ☐ ☐
Provide a summary of any revisions included in the PP-COND model ☐ ☐ ☐
7.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
7.1 Hydrologic Analysis (include only if revised analysis submitted)
Provide a general summary of the revised peak discharges ☐ ☐ ☐
Provide a comparison of the revised flow and effective discharges ☐ ☐ ☐
Describe any benefits, issues, or adverse impacts which may result from the
revised hydrology ☐ ☐ ☐
7.2 Hydraulic Analysis
7.2.1 Summary of Water-Surface Elevations
Provide a table comparing modeled water-surface elevations from the effective,
DE, CE, EX-COND, and PP-COND models ☐ ☐ ☐
Duplicate Effective Model
Discuss results of the DE model and compare to the effective model ☐ ☐ ☐
Corrected Effective Model
Discuss results of the CE model and compare to the DE model ☐ ☐ ☐
Existing Conditions Model
Discuss results of the EX-COND model and compare the CE model ☐ ☐ ☐
Proposed or Post-Project Model
Discuss results of the PP-COND model and compare to the EX-COND model
and effective water-surface elevations ☐ ☐ ☐
7.2.2 Downstream and Upstream Tie-In
Provide a brief discussion of the horizontal and vertical tie-in at the upstream
and downstream limits of the analysis. ☐ ☐ ☐
7.2.3 Floodway Modeling
Provide a brief discussion of the floodway modeling results ☐ ☐ ☐
Describe any revisions to the effective floodway ☐ ☐ ☐
7.2.4 Impacts
Discuss any impact to structures or upstream/downstream private property ☐ ☐ ☐
7.2.5 Mitigation Measures
Discuss any mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the design (i.e.
channel grading or stabilization, flood proofing, etc.) ☐ ☐ ☐
Page 4
REQUIREMENTS YES NO N/A COMMENT #
8.0 REGULATION COMPLIANCE
8.1 NFIP Regulations
Describe NFIP regulations required to be met by the proposed project and how
they were satisfied. ☐ ☐ ☐
8.2 City Code
Discuss applicable sections of City Code required to be met by the proposed
project and how they were satisfied. ☐ ☐ ☐
9.0 REFERENCES
Provide a list of references for the analysis and report ☐ ☐ ☐
APPENDICES (INCLUDE AS APPLICABLE)
Appendix A – MT-2 Forms (FEMA LOMC Submittals Only)
MT-2 Forms (FEMA Basins only) ☐ ☐ ☐
Appendix B – ESA Compliance (FEMA CLOMR Submittals Only)
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compliance Documentation ☐ ☐ ☐
Appendix C - Notifications
Property owner notifications ☐ ☐ ☐
Insurable structure certification letter ☐ ☐ ☐
Appendix D – Project Design Information
Proposed Project Design Plans (or As-built for LOMR) ☐ ☐ ☐
Site Photographs ☐ ☐ ☐
Appendix E – Proposed Project Hydraulic Data
Hydraulic Work Maps ☐ ☐ ☐
Annotated FIRM or City Flood Risk Map ☐ ☐ ☐
Annotated Floodway Data Table ☐ ☐ ☐
Flood Profiles ☐ ☐ ☐
Appendix F – Comparison and Agreement Tables
BFE Comparison Tables ☐ ☐ ☐
Map-Model Agreement Tables ☐ ☐ ☐
Appendix G – Digital Data (CD or DVD Only)
Hydrologic model ☐ ☐ ☐
Hydraulic model ☐ ☐ ☐
HEC-RAS Reports ☐ ☐ ☐
CHECK-2 or CHECK-RAS Reports ☐ ☐ ☐
Cross-Section Plots ☐ ☐ ☐
Shapefiles ☐ ☐ ☐
AutoCAD Files ☐ ☐ ☐
Appendix H - Correspondence
Correspondence ☐ ☐ ☐
Meeting Minutes ☐ ☐ ☐