Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT - FDP230016 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 7 - Drainage Related Document NORTHERN ENGINEERING FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO AUGUST 21ST, 2024 NORTHERN ENGINEERING.COM 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS GREELEY This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF.Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety. When a hard copy is necessary,we recommend double-sided printing. E � NORTHERN August 21st,2024 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins,CO 80526 RE: FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THE MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE(1971-001) Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for your review.This report accompanies the Final Development Review submittal for the Mason Street Infrastructure. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual(FCSCM)and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed Mason Street Infrastructure project. We understand the review by the City of Fort Collins is to ensure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM. If you should have any questions as you review this report,please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC. MASON RUEBEL,PE BLAINE MATHISEN,PE Project Engineer Project Manager NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET LNFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY COVER LETTER E � NORTHERN I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..........................................................2 II. DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS.....................................................................5 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA..........................................................................8 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN.........................................................................12 V. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................14 VI. REFERENCES..............................................................................................15 TABLES AND FIGURES FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP..................................................................................................2 FIGURE 2 -AERIAL PHOTO................................................................................................3 FIGURE 3 - FIRMETTE MAP 08069CO977G........................................................................4 TABLE 1 - INLET SUMMARY............................................................................................11 TABLE 2 - DETENTION &WQCV SUMMARY....................................................................14 APPENDICES APPENDIX A- HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS APPENDIX B - HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C -WATER QUALITY/LID COMPUTATIONS APPENDIX D - EROSION CONTROL REPORT APPENDIX E - EXCERPTS FROM PREVIOUS REPORTS AND USDA SOILS REPORT APPENDIX F- STORMWATER ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE/VARIANCE APPLICATION MAP POCKET DR1 - DRAINAGE EXHIBIT NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 1 Ill E � NORTHERN I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION 1. Vicinity Map N i tj w�z w Q GO ® w 2 1 o O 9 U TO Z �p HICKORYSTREET CONIFER STREET PROJECT ®®® EL�OCATION JOURMINMRSEMir Figure 1-Vicinity map 2. The Mason Street Infrastructure project site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 7 North,Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian,City of Fort Collins,County of Larimer,State of Colorado. 3. The project site(refer to Figure 1)is bordered to the west by residential homes,to the north and south by commercial businesses and to the east by a mixture of residential and commercial businesses. 4. This project includes N Mason Street from Hickory Street to Hibdon Court and the surrounding parcels.The nearest existing major streets are Hickory Street and N College Ave. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 2 1 11 � NORTHERN ENGINEERING B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY .I r Ot t - r 4 Figure 2-Aerial Photo 1. The Mason Street Infrastructure project is comprised of±13.13 acres.The project area consists of two existing parcels surrounding Mason Street and Hibdon Court.The current owners are N College 1311 LLC&the City of Fort Collins(refer to Figure 2). 2. The site is currently vacant with native grasses. 3. The project site is the regional drainage point for several upstream properties.The existing on- site runoff generally drains from north to south across flat grades(e.g.<1.00%) into adjacent properties to the south&east.There is an existing detention pond located on the Fort Collins property that is the drainage point for the offsite basins to the north.This pond has an existing volume of 4ac.ft.The outfall for the detention pond is conveyed through an 8"PVC pipe to the east side of Mason Street to an existing roadside ditch and conveyed to College Ave.The existing storm drain is currently blocked and does not connect to the storm infrastructure in College Ave.Storm runoff collects in the offsite storm drain and spills into College Ave from two offsite inlets in the property east of the project site.The Mason Street Infrastructure project will maintain historical drainage patterns by routing runoff to College Ave and repairing the connection to the existing infrastructure in College Ave.This development will provide the interim condition for the Hickory Regional Detention Pond and maintain the existing volume and provide any additional detention required with the development of Lot 2.The City of Fort Collins has performed regional drainage analysis for the North Mason drainage area and further refinement of the stormwater model will be done with the final design of the regional Hickory NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 3 1 11 E � NORTHERN detention pond.The ultimate regional pond will also include the realignment of the site outfall and discharge directly to the Cache La Poudre River. 4. According to the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)Soil Surveywebsite: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoi[Survey.aspx),83.3%of the site consists of Nunn Clay loam (Hydrologic Soil Group C)and 16.7%of the site consists of Caruso clay loam (Hydrologic Soil Group D).The calculations assume a Hydrologic Soil Group C. Hydrologic Soil Group C has a slow rate of water absorption and infiltration. 5. A subsurface exploration report was completed by CTL Thompson"Geotechnical Investigation Hibdon/Mason 24/7 Shelter SWC Hibdon Court and Mason Street Fort Collins,Colorado"on October 25,2022(Project No. FC10,520.000-125-R1). According to the report the site generally consists of Sandy Clay.The Geotech analysis provided an assumed elevation at 4'to 8'based on the cave in elevations.Ongoing monitoring will be provided on a regular basis through the construction of the Mason Street Infrastructure Project. 6. The site is currently zoned as Service Commercial District(CS) in Fort Collins. Developments to the north,south,and east are zoned as Service Commercial as well.The west properties are zoned as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District(L-M-N). 7. FLOODPLAIN The subject property is not located in a FEMA or City of Fort Collins regulatory floodplain. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette u FF.MA Legend �► e t wl ae E .uo le E, - nT�Maeei Enaxa nooenaeare ae - 71 arcm5es r4 aegn kuI d.11— fill ' �r 1 onenusa .,a.,mE�aaa,emEa.....,a noon xavno � � onax•nctis�-- am.a iademeeaee nom wse.n,.e aeamla- -� I smuttun[s 11.1.1 I..ee.m..a naae.r tea senlan..m>.s.aawl caaaM AREAOFMINIMALFLOOOHAZARU — m..sen.REl..aaa z`�k ---Beee ime ENvaum wie leEEl 17N RW1u Q 1 Rap•1 ems: .eaaw� ease Cary of Fort Collws ty of Fon colh- st rrN Rsmv Ci 080102 080102 »N Rsm sl - --- - _ runpas—�wmaao�nKM.e2 a�.aoana.anar � 4 ({ auvrua.5 �'„na�ala..auae � .a.evw„1 e aa.em wvuo.. r. ` � 1 ao sro« omw��an rcMns na+emw ..comer sw.ea aeamwloa n ee..ee a venM1 Imm me �'6 e,v'�'ua eves rol m" �� �Z - _ - - 1�a- "fie ",uen6eewaRammamenn eune.uem to ma mle em Af.10 4201.i .. eneawe aamalwn mq aua5ea i. ' elf.101y�2011 �a aecane sea e"'eeM.n.eau wn ume. MR 20W.1-0b"I F - ---- —_ ,,251vst1 . - ee+ea map n.e.enme oaa mxame ram.ine n�p -- � ~�� ie�m.ac 'ae'E'annmumea0ry nenNn.s m --_-= Feel 1:61000 .os azrww m:ea armsunnol x'1"usee1Taees ew 0 250 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 81sana0lmagery 5wrca:1/5G5Wtlarul Map 1033 Figure 3-FIRMette Map 08069CO977G NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 4 1 11 E � NORTHERN C. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1. The project site will include the widening of N Mason Street,Right of Way dedication and the two current parcels will be subdivided into three lots. Lot 1 (±8 acres)will be owned by the City of Fort Collins and will be the location of the Hickory Regional Detention Pond. Lot 2(±2.77 acres)&Lot 3(±1.39 acres)will remain undeveloped and additional drainage and WQ design will be required with future development. 2. The proposed infrastructure improvements will consist of the construction of the interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond,overlot grading of adjacent properties,and the ultimate alignment of Mason Street from the south property line to Hibdon Court.The road improvements include asphalt paving,sidewalks,and landscaping. II. DRAIN BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 1. The Mason Street Infrastructure project is located in the Dry Creek Major Basin. Dry Creek, which is tributary to the Poudre River,extends from near the Wyoming border to where it joins the river near Mulberry and Timberline.The Dry Creek Basin is approximately 23 miles long and six miles wide and encompasses approximately 62 square miles.The land use in the upper and middle portion of the basin is primarily rangeland and irrigated hay meadows and pastures. The majority of the lower basin is developed and includes commercial,industrial,and residential uses. 2. Detention requirements for this basin are to release at or below the allowable runoff rate of 0.20 cfs per acre.An existing storm line in N.College Ave will serve as the outfall for the proposed detention ponds. B. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION 1. The city has performed regional drainage analysis for the Lower Dry Creek Basin and the North Mason drainage area,west of College Avenue.This includes analysis of the upstream basins for the infrastructure project. Previous City drainage studies and summaries are listed below. a) Dry Creek Master Plan(URS Corporation,Inc.,2002) The Dry Creek Master Plan provided modeling and analysis of the Dry Creek Basin and improvements chosen to address potential flooding problems.The Lower Dry Creek Basin has an increased potential for flooding due to upstream basins and undersized conveyance facilities.College Ave and Hickory Street were mentioned as having inadequate drainage facilities and proposed stormwater conveyance systems to convey runoff generated south of the Larimer and Weld County Canal. Development criteria for the Dry Creek Basin are also detailed in this report. b) Dry Creek Master Plan Addendum,North College Drainage Improvements Design (NCDID)Alternative Analysis Report(Ayres Associates,2006) The purpose of this report was to provide workable alternatives for the North College Drainage Improvement Design (NCDID)and guide future development along the North College Ave Corridor.There were three alternatives considered for the west side of College Ave in the Lower Dry Creek Basin and after further analysis Alternative 2 was the recommended approach.The selected Alternative 2 would mitigate local flooding during the 100-yr storm.This alternative proposes 2 regional ponds,a water quality pond and a NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 5 1 11 E � NORTHERN connecting storm system.This would accommodate future developments and on-site detention would not be necessary north of the Anheuser-Busch water line. Flows would be eliminated over College Ave and improved water quality would be provided prior to conveyance to the Poudre River. c) Dry Creek Basin Water Quality Master Plan (Ayres Associates,2012) This report provided conceptual analysis of Water Quality improvements and selected plans for water quality improvements that should be implemented in the Dry Creek Basin. In the 2006 NCDID report by Ayres Associates,a water quality pond was recommended with Alternative 2 just north of the Poudre River and west of the railroad tracks. Alternative 2 from the 2006 NCDID report was selected,and this master plan further developed and evaluated the recommended water quality improvements and implementation. The NCDID and route from the Larimer and Weld Canal to College Ave was detailed as Flow Reach 1 and Sub Reach 7 in the report.Sub reach 7 daylights into a trailer park east of the Mason Street Infrastructure Project.This basin has been highly modified by irrigation canals. Due to the lack of yearly stream flows in Dry Creek,this section of the creek has lacked maintenance and has become less defined as development has increased in the area. d) West Side of North College Drainage Improvements Project(NCDID) Preliminary Design(Ayres Associates,2017) The purpose of this report was to analyze recent construction and update the analysis and modeling for Alternative 2 from the 2006 NCDID report by Ayres Associates. Conceptual plans for West Side of North College Drainage Improvements west of North College Avenue were also submitted alongside this report. The conceptual design consisted of two detention ponds and connecting storm sewer systems that future developments and adjacent parcels would ultimately discharge into. A conceptual design for Pond B(Conceptual Hickory Regional Pond)was detailed in the report and eliminated the need for on-site detention north of the Pond.The pond invert was shown as 4969.28 with a 100-yr water surface elevation of 4977.89 and 22.8 ac-ft volume.These conceptual inverts and volumes have been modified with further analysis provided in later reports. If Pond B is constructed prior to the other improvements,the implementation strategy developed with this report stated that the outlet for the pond would need to tie into the existing storm sewer system along North College Ave. e) Preliminary Design Report North Mason Area Drainage Improvements,Phase 1(HDR, April 29,2020) The purpose of this drainage memo was to provide drainage analysis for the 30%design of the North Mason storm outfall between Hickory Pond and the Poudre River.The memo accompanied the North Mason Storm Drainage Outfall Improvements 30%Design(HDR). Additional utility exploration,surveying and modeling was performed with this project. The CIP drainage analysis revised the Hickory Pond volume to 19.7 ac-ft volume with 100- yr water surface elevation of 4979.The pond invert was raised to 4972 to avoid NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 6 1 11 E � NORTHERN downstream utility conflicts without the installation of a siphon.These conceptual inverts and volumes have been modified with further analysis provided in later reports. f) North Mason Drainage Design-Technical Memorandum Design Addendum For 60 Percent Design(HDR,February 10,2022) The purpose of this drainage memo was to refine the 60%design of the North Mason storm outfall,between Hickory Pond and the Poudre River.The memo accompanied the North Mason Storm Drainage Outfall Improvements 60%Design (HDR).Additional utility exploration,surveying and modeling was performed with this project and further refined the Hickory Pond design.The CIP drainage analysis revised the volume to 19.8 ac-ft volume and the pond invert was raised to 4972.8 to provide positive drainage to the south,with 100-yr water surface elevation of 4979.8.These conceptual inverts and volumes have been modified with further analysis of the existing site. Summary The stormwater infrastructure proposed with the Mason Street Infrastructure project provides a design that is consistent with the improvements described in the 2020&2022 Technical Memorandums for the North Mason Area Stormwater Drainage Outfall and improves on the conceptual pond designs.The interim Hickory Pond and adjacent street infrastructure meets current city standards and allows for flexibility with the future connection of regional infrastructure and the development of adjacent properties.See Appendix E for references to the documents described above. Further refinement of the stormwater modeling will be done by the City of Fort Collins with the final design of the North Mason corridor drainage improvements and the final design of the regional Hickory detention pond. Design of Interim Hickory Pond with the North Mason Street Infrastructure Project The revised Hickory Pond footprint was developed by the City with the N Mason capital project analysis in February of 2022.This pond footprint,compared to previous studies,allows for a larger area that will connect directly to Dry Creek along the north property line and requires less storm infrastructure.The perimeter has been graded for a more naturalized look with varying slopes that meet city requirements and will also provide a better transition to adjacent natural areas that need to be protected. Due to the timing of the future Hickory Pond,interim pond elevations were designed as low and flat as possible to allow for options with future storm conveyance down N Mason Street. Elevations of the interim pond were modified from the previous studies due to several constraints.Top of pond elevations tie into existing elevations to ensure surface flows from adjacent properties are able to enter the pond with the lower elevations.The interim pond invert elevations were set by the available depth to outfall to the existing College Ave Storm System.The Hickory Pond bottom will be lowered by approximately 2-3 feet with the future city capital improvement projects. Further analysis and NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 7 1 11 E � NORTHERN design of the Hickory Pond and Mason Street Conveyance will be done by the City of Fort Collins. 2. The Mason Street Infrastructure project will maintain the interim connection to the existing North College Storm Sewer System which provides an outfall for adjacent developments and ultimately conveys runoff to the Poudre River. 3. The existing subject site can be defined with three(3) major sub-basins that encompass the entire project site. Historically runoff from the site overland flows to the south and east properties.There is an existing detention pond centrally located on the site that is the main drainage point for several upstream properties. 4. Runoff that is collected in the existing detention pond outfalls to an 8"PVC pipe that discharges to a roadside ditch on the east side of N Mason Street.This ditch discharges to an existing 21" RCP pipe that leaves the east side of the site towards N College Ave.This outfall pipe is connected to two additional inlets in the adjacent property to the east.This outfall is currently blocked and does not connect to the storm infrastructure in N College Ave.The Mason Street Infrastructure project will replace the connection to the existing storm infrastructure in College Ave and maintain the historic site outfall.An ultimate outfall for these lots and the Hickory Regional Detention Pond will be designed and constructed by the City of Fort Collins. 5. The project site does receive runoff from contiguous off-site properties.This project will propose an interim condition for the Hickory Regional Detention Pond to replace the existing detention pond.This interim pond will maintain the existing volume and provide any additional detention and standard water quality treatment required with the development of Lot 1,2,3& Tract A.An interim storm conveyance will be provided in Mason Street for Lot 3 and Tract A. 6. Amore detailed description of the project drainage patterns is provided below. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. ORIGINAL PROVISIONS AND PREVIOUS STUDIES There are no optional provisions outside the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual(FCSM) B. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the Mason Street Infrastructure project utilizes the"Four Step Process"to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters.The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each step. Step 1-Employ Runoff Reduction Practices. The existing property is being subdivided into 3 lots. Lot 1 will be the location of the Hickory Regional Detention Pond.This will remain vegetated and provide standard water quality and extended detention for the project site and surrounding properties.The 2 remining lots will remain undeveloped with the Mason Infrastructure project.With the future development of lots 2&3 additional methods will be required to reduce runoff peaks, volumes,and pollutant loads.This will be done mainly by implementing Low Impact Development(LID)strategies.These LID practices reduce the overall amount of impervious area,while at the same time minimizing directly connected impervious areas(MDCIA).The combined LID/MDCIA techniques will slow runoff and increase opportunities for infiltration. Runoff from the adjacent Mason Street Improvements will also be taken into account with NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 8 1 11 E � NORTHERN the future development of Lots 2&3. In the interim,vegetated open areas are provided throughout the site to reduce the overall impervious area. Step 2-Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)with Slow Release. The efforts taken in Step 1 will help to minimize excess runoff from frequently occurring storm events;however,urban development of this intensity will still have stormwater runoff leaving the site.The primary standard water quality treatment and volume control will occur in the Hickory Regional Detention Pond.The project will design the interim condition for the proposed properties.Additional design and analysis will be performed by the City of Fort Collins with the ultimate design of the regional pond. Step 3-Stabilize Drainageways. As stated in Section II.A. 1.above,the site will discharge to the storm infrastructure in N College Ave and ultimately the Cache La Poudre River.This project will improve the connection to the existing storm infrastructure and indirectly help achieve stabilized drainageways downstream. By providing water quality treatment,where none previously existed,sediment with erosion potential is removed from downstream drainage way systems.Furthermore,this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees and ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees,both of which help achieve Citywide drainageway stability. Step 4-Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs. This step typically applies to industrial and commercial developments. C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 1. The subject property is part of a Master Drainage Plan for the properties adjacent to N Mason Street.An Overall Development Plan(CDP)drainage study is also submitted concurrently with this project. However,stormwater from this site will generally follow historic patterns and discharge into storm drains established with previous surrounding developments. 2. This project proposes to utilize existing infrastructure as the site outfall.The existing outfall pipe is deficient and will be reconstructed with this project.The outfall will be replaced with a 24"storm drain and the connection with N College Avenue storm system will be maintained. Detention requirements for this basin are to release at or below the allowable runoff rate of 0.20 cfs per acre. Lots 1,2,3&Tract A will utilize the interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond and the interim release rate is calculated as 2.63 cfs(13.13ac x 0.2cfs/ac).This is a very conservative release rate due to the unaccounted flow from upstream properties.Additional volume will be provided to maintain the historic drainage point from these properties.As discussed further in this report,the total release rate from the detention pond will be designed with the ultimate Hickory Regional Detention Pond by the City of Fort Collins.This project will improve the existing drainage facilities and bring the interim site outfall up to compliance with the city code.There is a small amount of area that will not be detained and will be taken into account with future development per the Mason Street Infrastructure Master Drainage Plan. 3. The site plan is constrained on all sides by developed properties and public roads. Existing elevations along the property lines will be maintained. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 9 1 11 E � NORTHERN 4. Groundwater measurements have been taken by CTL Thompson"Geotechnical Investigation Hibdon/Mason 24/7 Shelter SWC Hibdon Court and Mason Street Fort Collins,Colorado"on October 25,2022(Project No. FC10,520.000-125-R1). According to this report groundwater is roughly 4'to 8'based on cave-in elevations(assumed groundwater elevation around 4973.5). Ongoing monitoring will be provided on a regular basis through construction.With the excavation of the Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond the pond bottom will be lowered around 2 to 4ft to an outlet elevation of 4974.75.Groundwater conflicts with the ultimate Hickory Pond elevations will be coordinated by the City of Fort Collins.A portion of the report and exhibit showing the boring locations and elevations are shown in appendix E. D. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 1. The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves,as depicted in Figure 3.4-1 of the FCSCM,serves as the source for all hydrologic computations associated with the Mason Street Infrastructure development.Tabulated data contained in Table 3.4-1 has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. 2. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing coefficients contained in Tables 3.2-1,3.2-2,and 3.2-3 of the FCSCM. 3. The Rational Method will be used to estimate peak developed stormwater runoff from drainage basins within the developed site for the 2-year,10-year,and 100-year design storms. Peak runoff discharges determined using this methodology have been used to check the street capacities,inlets,swales,and storm drain lines. 4. Three separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage scenarios.The first event analyzed is the"Minor"or"Initial"Storm,with a 2-year recurrence interval.The second event considered is the"Major Storm,"which has a 100-year recurrence interval.The final event analyzed was the 10-year recurrence interval for comparative analysis only. E. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 1. The hydraulic analyses of street capacities,inlets,storm drain lines,culverts,and swales are per the FCSM criteria and provided during Final Plan.The following computer programs and methods were utilized: • The storm drain lines were analyzed using Hydraflow Storm Sewer Extension for AutoCAD Civil3D. • The inlets were analyzed using the Urban Drainage Inlet and proprietary area inlet spreadsheets. • Swales and street capacities were analyzed using the Urban Drainage Channels spreadsheets. 2. Area Inlets Al&A2 are located offsite to the east of the project site.With the reconstruction of the 24"storm drain outfall pipe to N College Ave,these inlets will replace the existing area inlets on the adjacent property. No additional drainage analysis is included with this report. 3. Inlets B2-S2& B2-S3 are located in the N Mason Street Right-of-Way.These on-grade single combination inlets will collect runoff from the interim N Mason Street alignment and prevent any concentrated overflow to adjacent properties.These inlets are sized to intercept the majority of flows,but during major storm events 0.1-cfs will bypass the inlets.These inlets are NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 10 1 11 E � NORTHERN interim solutions to the flows along N Mason Street and additional storm infrastructure will be designed with the ultimate construction of N Mason Street.These bypass flows are very minor and will not have any impact on properties to the south.See Appendix B.2 for additional information and capacity calculations. 4. Inlet 64-1 is located in N Mason Street which is a Minor Collector. Runoff encroachments were verified to meet requirements set forth in Chapter 9 Section 2.1 of FCSCM. Per"Table 2.1- 1:Street Encroachment Standards for the Minor(2-year)Storm" the minor storm has a maximum encroachment of no-curb-overtopping and flow may spread to the crown of street. Per"Table 2.1-2:Street Encroachment Standards for the Major(100-year)"the most restrictive maximum encroachment is based on depth for Mason Street,which is 12"at flowline for the major event. For a detailed summary and comprehensive calculation see Appendix B.2. Additionally,elevation labels have been included on the Drainage Exhibit at Inlet B2,the crown, and the adjacent utility easement for additional clarity. During the minor event N Mason Street has a capacity of 1.5 cfs which is 4 times greater than the required 0.4 cfs. During the major event N Mason Street has a max capacity of 5.4 cfs which is 4 times greater than the required 1.3 cfs.Therefore,it has been shown that N Mason Street drainage design meets all the requirements set forth by the FCSCM. Refer to Appendix B.2 for additional information. Inlet ID Required 100-yr Designed capacity capacity(CFS) (cfs) Al Replacement of Existing Inlets A2 Replacement of Existing Inlets 132-52 0.6 0.5 132-S3 0.9 0.8 64-1 1.3 5.4 Table 1-Inlet Summary F. FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE As stated in Section I. B.9.above,the subject property is not located within a FEMA 100-year or a City of Fort Collins designated floodplain. G. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA No formal modifications are requested at this time. H. CONFORMANCE WITH WATER QUAILTY TREATMENT CRITERIA In the interim condition the Hickory Regional Detention Pond will provide standard water quality treatment for Lots 1,2,3,Tract A,and a portion of N Mason Street.An assumed 80% impervious was assumed for Lot 2 and 90%for Lot 3. Per city code,100%of runoff from the project site will be required to receive some sort of water quality treatment with the future development of Lots 2&3. I. CONFORMANCE WITH LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT(LID) LID will not be provided with the Mason Street Infrastructure project.The project site will provide standard water quality treatment for the added impervious area in the interim condition.The future development of Lots 2&3 will conform with the requirement to treat a minimum of 75%of newly or modified impervious area,including the Mason Street and Hibdon Court frontage,using an LID technique. Runoff from N Mason Street will be conveyed by swale to allow for flexibility with NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 11 1 11 E � NORTHERN future LID methods prior to discharging to the regional pond. Lot 1 wi[[rem ain the Hickory Regional Detention Pond and there will be no impervious area proposed with this lot. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT 1. The main objective of the Mason Street Infrastructure drainage design is to maintain existing drainage patterns and to not adversely impact downstream infrastructure. 2. There is notable off-site runoff that passes directly through the project site.This report does not quantify the flows from offsite basins discharging to the interim Hickory Regional Pond. Offsite flows will be routed through the Hickory Pond through the interim outfall pipe connection to N College Ave and excess flows will overtop the Hickory Pond towards N Mason Street.This project does improve the existing drainage facilities onsite,and the increased pond volume will be able to detain the offsite runoff in the interim.The City of Fort Collins has performed a reginal analysis of upstream flows.The peak inflow to the Hickory Pond is 700-cfs in future conditions and 390-cfs in existing conditions. 3. Due to flat slopes through the interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond an underdrain system is proposed along the flowline of the pond.This underdrain will connect to the proposed outfall structure and conveyed via the 24"storm drain to the existing N College Ave storm system. 4. Detention and water quality treatment for Lots 1,2,3,Tract A,and a portion of N Mason Street will be provided in the interim Hickory Detention Pond. Further drainage design will be required with the development of Lots 2 and 3. 5. The emergency overflow location will be located along N Mason Street at the southeast corner of the site.The interim overflow spillway has been sized to convey 390-cfs based on the analysis of flows performed by the Fort Collins Stormwater Department.The overflow crest will be 60-ft in width and 2-ft in flow depth.Calculations are provided in appendix B. Flows will be conveyed south towards Hickory Street.The ultimate location and size will be determined by the City of Fort Collins with the design of the Ultimate Hickory Regional Detention Pond. 6. A list of tables and figures used within this report can be found in the Table of Contents at the front of this document.The tables and figures are located within the sections to which the content best applies. 7. Drainage for the project site has been analyzed using four(4) Major Drainage Basins,designated as Basins A,B,&C.These basins have associated sub-basins.The drainage patterns anticipated for the basins are further described below. Major Basin A Major Basin A has 8 sub-basins(Al-A7)and has a total area of 10.17 acres.All sub-basins discharge to the interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond,located in basin Al.The detention pond will provide standard water quality for the Mason Street improvements and undeveloped Lot 2.An assumed impervious percentage will be used for Lot 2.After Detention and treatment,flows will discharge to the proposed 24"storm drain outfall.The City of Fort Collins will construct the ultimate outfall for these basins with the ultimate Hickory Regional Detention Pond.There is a further description of each sub-basin below. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 12 1 11 E � NORTHERN Sub-Basins A2-A5 include all of Lot 2 and have a total area of 2.77 acres. Lot 2 will remain undeveloped with this project.To size conveyance methods,detention,and water quality volumes an assumed 80%impervious value is used for future development.Swales are currently designed to convey runoff from N Mason Street through these sub-basins to the regional pond in the interim.See appendix B.2 for further analysis of swale A-A&Swale B-B. Lot 2 will be required to meet the City water quality and LID requirements with future development. Runoff from the N Mason Street frontage and swales will need to be treated prior to discharge into the regional pond.The designed swales will allow for more flexibility with the certain LID methods with future development of Lot 2. Sub-Basins A6-A7 include the Mason Street Improvements along the Lot 2 frontage and have a total area of 0.42 acres.These sub-basins primarily consist of asphalt paving, concrete,and landscaping associated with N Mason Street and discharges to the Hickory Regional Detention Pond via storm drain,curb cut,or Swale. Major Basin B Major Basin B has 7 sub-basins(131-137)and has a total area of 2.42 acres.All sub-basins will be conveyed via an interim storm drain in N Mason Street and discharge to the Hickory Regional Detention Pond.The detention pond will provide standard water quality and discharge directly to the proposed 24"RCP outfall pipe.There is a further description of each sub-basin below. Sub-Basin B1-B3 includes a portion of N Mason Street,the existing Hibdon Court and Lot 3.These sub-basins have a total area of 1.79 acres. Runoff is collected in an existing roadside ditch and FES south of Hibdon Court.An existing 12" RCP follows the perimeter of the property and discharges to the proposed storm drain in N Mason Street. Lot 3 will maintain the historic drainage path to the east,but a 90%impervious value is assumed for future development. LID for these basins will be provided with the future development of Lot 3. Sub-Basin B4 includes the existing roadside ditch along the east side of N Mason Street and has a total area of 0.35 acres.The access road will be maintained,but there will be no other improvements proposed in this area.The City of Fort Collins will remain as the owner of this tract.Any runoff to this tract will be conveyed to the Hickory Regional Detention Pond. Sub-Basin B5-B7 include the Mason Street Improvements along the Lot 1 frontage and have a total area of 0.28 acres.This sub-basin primarily consists of asphalt paving,concrete, and landscaping associated with N Mason Street and discharges directly to the proposed storm drain in N Mason Street and the Hickory Regional Pond.The Hickory Pond will provide standard water quality and detention for these basins. Major Basin C Major Basin C only has 1 sub-basins(Cl)and has a total area of 0.85 acres.This basin includes the area in between the south property line and the Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond.The majority of this basin will remain landscaped with a 12'gravel access road to service electric and water utilities along the south property line. Due to the elevation difference between the regional pond and the existing tie-in elevations this basin will drain offsite un-detained.This basin will generally maintain historic drainage paths and no additional flows will be discharged to the south properties. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 13 1 11 E � NORTHERN A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. In addition,excerpts from earlier drainage reports referenced in this Section can be found in Appendix E. B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 1. As mentioned in Section III.C.2 The detention requirements for this project site are to release at or below the allowable runoff rate of 0.20 cfs per acre,per the Dry Creek Master Plan. The table below summarizes the Interim Detention and release rates for the project site.The interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond will provide 100%standard water quality treatment and LID will be provided with the future development of Lots 2&3 as required in the overall development plan. Summary of Detention Volumes Required Provided Notes Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond 1.84 ac.ft. 9.99 ac.ft. Volumefor Mason Street Infrastructre project and development of Lott in the Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond Release rate for on-site flows per Dry Creek Basin Criteria Interim Hickory Pond Release Rate 2.63 cfs (13.13 acres'0.2 cfs/acre) Summary of Water QualityVolumes Volume Volume Description Required Provided Notes Interim Standard WaterQuailty 9,346 cu.ft. 9,346cu.ft. Standard water q uailty treatment for lots 1,2,3&Tract A Notes: 1)LID Treatment for Lot 2,3 and Mason Street will be provided with future development of lots. Table 2-Detention&WQCV Summary V. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 1. The design elements comply without the need for variances. 2. The drainage design proposed for the Mason Street Infrastructure project complies with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual as well as the associated master drainage plan. 3. There are no City or FEMA 100-year regulatory floodplains associated with the Mason Street Infrastructure development. 4. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the Mason Street Infrastructure project are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 1. The drainage design proposed with this project will ensure that all downstream infrastructure is not adversely impacted by this development.All existing downstream drainage facilities are expected to not be impacted negatively by this development. 2. The Mason Street Infrastructure project will not impact the Master Drainage Plan recommendations for the Dry Creek Major Drainage Basin and the Mason Street Infrastructure Overall Development Plan. 3. The drainage design will improve existing drainage facilities and bring immediate offsite storm infrastructure into compliance with the current Fort Collins. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 14 1 11 E � NORTHERN VI. REFERENCES 1. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual,City of Fort Collins,Colorado,adopted by Ordinance No. 159,2018,and referenced in Section 26-500 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 2. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area,Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 3. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual,Volumes 1-3,Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver,Colorado,Revised April 2008. 4. Geotechnical Investigation Hibdon/Mason 24/7 shelter SWC Hibdon Court and Mason Street Fort Collins.Colorado,CTL Thompson,Fort Collins,Colorado,October 2022 5. Dry Creek Master Plan, URS Corporation Inc.,Fort Collins,Colorado,2002 6. Dry Creek Master Plan Addendum,North College Drainage Improvements Design (NCDID) Alternative Analysis Report,Ayres Associates,Fort Collins,Colorado,2006 7. Dry Creek Basin Water Quality Master Plan,Ayres Associates, Fort Collins,Colorado, November 2012 8. West Side of North College Drainage Improvements Project(NCDID) Preliminary Design,Ayres Associates, Fort Collins,Colorado,June 2017 9. Preliminary Design Report,North Mason Area Drainage Improvements, Phase 1,HDR,Fort Collins, Colorado,April 2020 10. Technical Memorandum, Design Addendum For 60 Percent Design,HDR,Fort Collins,Colorado, February 2022 NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 15 1 11 E � NORTHERN APPENDIXA HYDROLOGIC • ' • J NORTH ERNENGINEERING.COM 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY APPENDIX ■� NORTHERN ENGINEERING DEVELOPED • • CALCULATIONS Percent Character of Surface: Runoff Coefficient' Impervious' Project: N Mason Street Infrastructure Streets,Parking Lots,Roofs,Alleys,and Drives: Location: Fort Collins Asphalt,Concrete 0.95 100%Calc.By: M.Ruebel Rooftop 0.95 90%Date: January 31,2024 Gravel 0.50 40% Lawns and Landscaping: Undeveloped:Greenbelts,Agriculture 0.20 2%: Composite Runoff Coefficient2 Lawns,Clayey Soil,Flat Slope<2% 0.20 2%2)Composite Runoff Coefficient adjusted per Table 3.2-3 of the Fort Collins USDA SOIL TYPE:C 1)Runoff coefficients per Tables 3.2-1&3.2 of the FCSM.Percent i mpervious per Tables 4.1-2&4.1-3 of the FCSM. Stormwater Manual(FCSM). Basin Area Basin Area Asphalt,Concrete Undeveloped: Basin 1 RooftopGreenbelts, ••e • •e • 11 11 11 Agriculture(acres) (acres) Al 304,260 6.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.98 2% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 A2 57,532 1.32 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.15 80% 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 A3 17,921 0.41 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.05 80% 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 A4 17,259 0.40 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.05 80% 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 A5 28,061 0.64 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.07 80% 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 A6 7,623 0.18 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 77% 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.96 A7 10,192 0.23 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 86% 0.84 0.84 0.84 1.00 Bl 60,638 1.39 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 90% 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 132 3,507 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 63 13,731 0.32 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 65% 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.86 B4 15,070 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.31 6% 0.23 1 0.23 0.23 0.29 B5 5,844 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 136 2,470 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100% 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 87 3,996 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 79% 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.98 Cl 37,654 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.61 13% 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 Combined Basins Hickory Pond 572,027 13.13 1.93 2.45 0.29 1 0.00 8.46 1 34%1 0.46 1 0.46 1 0.46 1 0.57 Total 585,758 13.45 2.13 2.45 0.29 1 0.00 1 8.57 34%1 0.46 1 0.46 1 0.46 1 0.58 Notes: 1)Basins A2,A3,A4,&AS use an assumed 80%impervious percentage for future development. 2)Basin 61 uses an assumed 90%impervious percentage for future development. 3)Hickory Pond Combined Basin includes all basin except Cl&B3 ■� NORTHERN ENGINEERING DEVELOPEDOF • •N COMPUTATIONS Overland Flow,Time of Concentration: Maximum Tc: Project: N Mason Street Infrastructure Location: Fort Collins 1.87(1.1-C*Cf)� (Equation 3.3-2 Tc-L+10 (Equation 3.3-5 per Fort Collins Ti = 1 per Fort Collins 180 Stormwater Manual) Calculations By: M.Ruebel S /3 Stormwater Manual) 5/18/2022 Date:January 31,2024 Channelized Flow,Velocity: Channelized Flow,Time of Concentration: 1.49 (Equation 5-4 per Fort Collins L (Equation 5-5 per Fort Collins _ V n *R2/3* Stormwater Manual) Tt V*60 Where: V=Velocity(ft/sec) WP=Wetted Perimeter(ft) n=Roughness Coeffi 1)Add 4900 to all elevations. channelized flow.Assume a water depth of 1',fixed side slopes,and a 2)Per Fort Collins Stormwater Manual,minimum Tc=5min. triangular swale section for grass channelized flow.Assume a water R=Hydraulic Radius 3)Assume a water depth of 6"and a typical curb and gutter per Larimer depth of V,4:1 side slopes,and a 2'wide valley pan for channelized S=Longitudinal SIoE County Urban Street Standard Detail701 for curb and gutter flow in a valley pan. Fri Overland Flow ChannelizedDesign Ti Ti Ti Flow Time of Concentration .. Tc Comp Tc Point Basin ID Length S .. Max Tc surface n •• al Al 250 1.00% 26.61 26.61 25.13 950 0.10%Swale(8:1) 0.03 8.00 16.12 0.50 0.98 16.08 16.67 42.69 16.67 42.69 16.67 41.21 16.67 a2 A2 150 4.00% 3.41 3.41 1.44 Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.83 3.41 5.00 3.41 5.00 1.44 5.00 a3 A3 80 6.00% 2.20 2.20 0.92 100 0.50%Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 0.59 4.92 0.34 11.00 2.54 5.00 2.54 5.00 1.26 5.00 a4 A4 100 2.50% 3.30 3.30 1.38 Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.56 3.30 5.00 3.30 5.00 1.38 5.00 a5 A5 100 2.50% 3.19 3.19 1.38 Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.56 3.19 5.00 3.19 5.00 1.38 5.00 a6 JA6 21 2.20%1 2.17 2.17 0.90 1 186 1.50%Gutter 0.02 3.61 1 19.18 0.19 1 4.00 0.78 1 11.15 2.95 1 5.00 2.95 1 5.00 1.68 1 5.00 a7 A7 21 2.20% 1.71 1.71 0.66 200 0.80%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 2.92 1.14 11.23 2.85 5.00 2.85 5.00 1.80 5.00 bl Bl 285 0.50% 8.99 8.99 3.98 Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 11.58 8.99 8.99 8.99 8.99 3.98 5.00 b2 B2 21 2.20% 0.99 0.99 0.66 155 1.75%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 3.24 0.80 10.98 1.79 5.00 1.79 5.00 1.46 5.00 b3 B3 30 2.50% 3.13 3.13 1.84 190 0.40%Swale(8:1) 0.03 8.00 16.12 0.50 1.97 1.61 11.22 4.74 5.00 4.74 5.00 3.44 5.00 b4 B4 20 25.00% 2.48 2.48 2.31 225 0.50%Swale(4:1) 0.03 4.00 8.25 0.48 2.17 1.73 11.36 4.21 5.00 4.21 5.00 4.04 5.00 b5 BS 21 2.20% 0.99 0.99 0.66 120 1.00%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 3.26 0.61 10.78 1.60 5.00 1.60 5.00 1.27 5.00 b6 66 21 2.20% 0.99 0.99 0.66 110 1.80%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 4.38 0.42 10.73 1.41 5.00 1.41 5.00 1.08 5.00 b7 B7 21 2.20% 2.06 2.06 0.76 110 1.80%Gutter 0.02 3.61 19.18 0.19 4.38 0.42 10.73 2.48 5.00 2.48 5.00 1.18 5.00 cl Cl 40 2.000%/o 7.61 7.61 6.94 Valley Pan 0.02 6.00 10.25 N/A N/A 0.00 10.22 7.61 7.61 7.61 7.61 6.94 6.94 NORTHERN ENGINEERING DEVELOPED DIRECT RUNOFF • • Project: N Mason Street Infrastructure Location: Fort Collins Calc. By: M. Ruebel Date: January 31,2024 Intensity, I from Fig.3.4.1 Fort Collins Stormwater Manual Rational Equation:Q=CiA(Equation 6-1 per MHFD) Tc(Min) Runoff C Intensity Flow (cfs) Design al Al 6.98 16.7 16.7 16.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.8 3.0 6.2 1.2 2.5 4.2 10.8 a2 A2 1.32 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 1.6 3.3 5.6 13.1 a3 A3 0.41 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.5 1.0 1.7 4.1 a4 A4 0.40 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.5 1.0 1.7 3.9 a5 A5 0.64 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.8 1.6 2.7 6.4 a6 A6 0.18 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.7 a7 A7 0.23 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 2.3 bl B1 1.39 9.0 9.0 5.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.4 4.0 10.0 1.4 2.9 4.9 13.9 b2 B2 0.08 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 b3 B3 0.32 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.3 0.6 1.1 2.7 b4 B4 0.35 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 b5 B5 0.13 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.3 b6 B6 0.06 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 b7 B7 0.09 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.9 4.9 10.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 cl C1 0.86 7.6 7.6 6.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 2.5 4.2 9.1 0.3 0.6 1.1 2.8 FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL Hydrology Standards(Ch. 5) 3.0 Rational Method Table 3.4-1. IDF Table for Rational Method Duration Intensity Intensity Intensity Duration Intensity Intensity Intensity 2-year 10-year 100-year 2-year 10-year 100-year (min) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (min) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 39 1.09 1.86 3.8 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 7 2.52 4.31 8.80 41 1.05 1.80 3.68 8 2.40 4.10 8.38 42 1.04 1.77 3.62 9 2.30 3.93 8.03 43 1.02 1.74 3.56 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 44 1.01 1.72 3.51 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 45 0.99 1.69 3.46 12 2.05 3.50 7.16 46 0.98 1.67 3.41 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 47 0.96 1.64 3.36 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 48 0.95 1.62 3.31 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 49 0.94 1.6 3.27 16 1.81 3.08 6.30 50 0.92 1.58 3.23 17 1.75 2.99 6.10 51 0.91 1.56 3.18 18 1.70 2.90 5.92 52 0.9 1.54 3.14 19 1.65 2.82 5.75 53 0.89 1.52 3.10 20 1.61 2.74 5.60 54 0.88 1.50 3.07 21 1.56 2.67 5.46 55 0.87 1.48 3.03 22 1.53 2.61 5.32 56 0.86 1.47 2.99 23 1.49 2.55 5.20 57 0.85 1.45 2.96 24 1.46 2.49 5.09 58 0.84 1.43 2.92 25 1.43 2.44 4.98 59 0.83 1.42 2.89 26 1.4 2.39 4.87 60 0.82 1.4 2.86 27 1.37 2.34 4.78 65 0.78 1.32 2.71 28 1.34 2.29 4.69 70 0.73 1.25 2.59 29 1.32 2.25 4.60 75 0.70 1.19 2.48 30 1.30 2.21 4.52 80 0.66 1.14 2.38 31 1.27 2.16 4.42 85 0.64 1.09 2.29 32 1.24 2.12 4.33 90 0.61 1.05 2.21 33 1.22 2.08 4.24 95 0.58 1.01 2.13 34 1.19 2.04 4.16 100 0.56 0.97 2.06 35 1.17 2.00 4.08 105 0.54 0.94 2.00 36 1.15 1.96 4.01 110 0.52 0.91 1.94 37 1.16 1.93 3.93 115 0.51 0.88 1.88 38 1.11 1.89 3.87 120 0.49 0.86 1.84 City of 3.4 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method Fort Collins Page 8 FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL Hydrology Standards (Ch. 5) 3.0 Rational Method Figure 3.4-1. Rainfall IDF Curve—Fort Collins 10.00 - 100-Year Storm 9.00 l 30-YearSform 2-Year Storm 8.00 7.00 9 0 6.00 a r c c � 4.00 `= 19 \ z \ - 3.00 1 \ a♦ ++ter++++ ++++ 1.0 ++++ 0 _ - — 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Storm Duration(minutes) City of 3.4 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method Fort Collins Page 9 E � NORTHERN DETENTIONAPPENDIX B • HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS a f Rcr�t�0 hrOR� t(iyf f litif b' '+tF v�/2q-vNoury MNO NORTH ERNENGINEERING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY APPENDIX E � NORTHERN DETENTIONAPPENDIX B.1 • � FgCy�R�O hr0*, F(�tiF CRC Of4,�,f Y W/2p•Wbc�ty Mw�O F(O� NORTH ERNENGINEERING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY APPENDIX NORTHERN ENGINEERING RELEASE RATE 1 SUMMARY OF DETENTION VOLUMES Project Number: 1971-001 1 Project: Mason Infrastructure Project Location: I Fort Colins I Date: lianuary 31,2024 DetentionSummary of Description Required Provided Notes Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond 1.84 ac.ft. 9.99 ac.ft.Volume for Mason Street Infrastructre project and development of Lot 2 in the Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond Release rate for on-site flows per Dry Creek Basin Criteria Interim Hickory Pond Release Rate 2.63 cfs (13.13 acres"0.2 cfs/acre) QualitySummary of Water Volume Volume Description Required Provided Notes Interim Standard Water Quailty 9,346 cu.ft. 9,346 cu.ft.Standard water quailty treatment for lots 1,2,3&Tract A Notes: 1)LID Treatment for Lot 2,3 and Mason Street will be provided with future development of lots. 1 NORTHERN ENGINEERING imp Detention Pond Calculation I FAA Method Project: Mason Street Infrastructure Project Location: Fort Collins,Colorado Calculations By: M.Ruebel Date: 01/31/24 Pond No.: Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond Input Variables Results Design Point Al Required Detention Volume Design Storm 100-yr WQCV 9346 ft3 Developed"C"= 0.57 Quantity Detention 80242 ft3 Area W= 13.13 acres Total Volume 89588 ft3 Max Release Rate= 2.63 cfs Total Volume ac-ft Ft.Collins Inflow Outflow Storage Time Time 1 00-yr Q , Detention Intensity Volume Volume Volume 5 300 9.95 74.5 22340 788 21552 10 600 7.72 57.8 34666 1576 33091 15 900 6.52 48.8 43917 2363 41553 20 1200 5.60 41.9 50293 3151 47142 25 1500 4.98 37.3 55906 3939 51967 30 1800 4.52 33.8 60891 4727 56164 35 2100 4.08 30.5 64124 5515 58609 40 2400 3.74 28.0 67177 6302 60875 45 2700 3.46 25.9 69916 7090 62826 50 3000 3.23 24.2 72521 7878 64643 55 3300 3.03 22.7 74834 8666 66168 60 3600 2.86 21.4 77056 9454 67603 65 3900 2.72 20.4 79391 10241 69150 70 4200 2.59 19.4 81412 11029 70383 75 4500 2.48 18.6 83523 11817 71706 80 4800 2.38 17.8 85498 12605 72894 85 5100 2.29 17.1 87407 13393 74014 90 5400 2.21 16.5 89315 14180 75135 95 5700 2.13 15.9 90864 14968 75896 100 6000 2.06 15.4 92503 15756 76747 105 6300 2.00 15.0 94300 16544 77756 110 6600 1.94 14.5 95826 17332 78495 115 6900 1.89 14.1 97600 18119 79481 120 7200 1.84 13.8 99149 18907 80242 1 ■� NORTHERN ENGINEERING STORAGESTAGE INTERIM HICKORY REGIONALDETENTION POND Project Number: 1971-001 Project: N Mason Street Infrastructure Project Location: Fort Collins,CO Date: January 31,2024 Calculations By: M. Ruebel Pond No.: Hickory Pond • . • Outlet and Volume Data Outlet Elevation: 4,974.75 Water Quality Volume: 9,346.00 cu.ft. Grate Elevation: 4,976.00 Elev at WQ Volume: 4,975.28 Volume at Grate: 32,313.50 cu.ft. Water Quality Depth: 0.53 ft. Crest of Pond Elev.: 4,978.40 100-yr Volume: 89,588 cu. ft. Elev at 100-yr Volume: 4,976.49 Pond Stage Storage Curve Contour Contour Incremental Volume Cummalitive Volume Surface Area Depth(ft) Max. Elev. Min.Elev. (ftZ) cu.ft. acre ft cu.ft. acre ft 4,974.80 N/A 125 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,975.00 4,974.80 3,010 0.20 313.50 0.01 313.50 0.01 4,976.00 4,975.00 60,990 1.00 32,000.00 0.73 32,313.50 0.74 4,977.00 4,976.00 171,880 1.00 116,435.00 2.67 148,748.50 3.41 4,978.00 4,977.00 221,264 1.00 196,572.00 4.51 345,320.50 7.93 4,978.40 4,978.00 226,940 0.40 89,640.80 2.06 434,961.30 9.9911 1 NORTHERN ENGINEERING HickoryORIFICE RATING CURVE Interim - • Detention Pond Project Number: 1971-001 Project Name: Mason Street Infrastructure Project Location: Fort Collins Pond No: Hickory Pond Calc. By: M. Ruebel Orifice Design Data Orifice Dia (in): 7 Orifice Area (sf): 0.26 Orifice invert(ft): 4,974.75 Orifice Coefficient: 0.65 Orifice Elevation Stage(ft) Velocity(ft/s) Flow Rate(cfs) Comments 4,974.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,975.75 1.00 5.21 1.37 4,976.75 2.00 7.37 1.94 4,977.75 3.00 9.03 2.38 4,978.40 3.65 9.96 2.62 NORTHERN ENGINEERING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FORTCOLLINS I GREELEY E � NORTHERN HYDRAULICAPPENDIX B.2 � FgCy�R�O hr0*, F(�tiF CRC Of4,�,f Y W/2p•Wbc�ty Mw�O F(O� NORTH ERNENGINEERING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY APPENDIX INLET ICAPACITIES SUMMARY Project#:1971-001 Project Name:Mason Street Infrastructure Project Loc.:Fort Collins,Colorado Inlet and Area Drain Capacities 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year Inlet Basins/Design Notes Type Design Upstream Total Allowable Overflow Design Upstream Total Allowable Overflow Design Upstream Total Allowable Overflow Flowrate Flowrate Flowrate Flowrate Flowrate I Flowrate Flowrate Flowrate Flowrate Flowrate Flowrate Flowrate Inlet Al Offsite Basin CDOT Type REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AREA INLET Inlet A2 Offsite Basin CDOT Type REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AREA INLET Inlet 32-S2 Basin B6 Single Combo Inlet 0.20 cfs 0.00 cfsl 0.20 cfs 0.10 cfs 0.10 cfs 0.20 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.20 cfs 0.50 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.60 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.60 cfs 0.50 cfs 0.10 cfs Inlet B2-S3 Basin B7 ISingie Combo Inlet 0.20 cfs 0.00 cfsj 0.20 cfs 1 0.10 cfs 0.10 cfs 0.20 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.20 cfs 0.80 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.90 cfs 1 0.00 cfsl 0.90 cfs 0.80 cfs 1 0.10 cfs Inlet 34-1 1 Basin BS 1 CDOT 5'Type R 0.40 cfs 1 0.00 cfsl 0.40 cfs 1 1.50 cfs 1 0.00 cfs 1 0.40 cfs 1 0.00 cfs 1 0.40 cfsl 5.40 cfs 1 0.00 cfsl 1.30 cfs 1 0.00 cfsl 1.30 cfs 1 5.40 cfs 1 0.00 cfs STORM B4-1 MHFD-Inlet Version 5.01 A r1/2021 (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Mason Street Infrastructure Inlet ID:INLET 64-1 T T,T, � wT. -STREET 0. 0 CROWN o Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Tao,= 0.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nencK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRB= 6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN= 21.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nsrReET= 0.015 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TN x= 9.0 21.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dmm=1 6.0 1 6.0 linches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions I- r- Maximum Capacity or 1 Street based On Allowable Spread Minor Storm Major Storm Water Depth without Gutter Depression(Eq.ST-2) y- 2.16 5.04 inches Vertical Depth between Gutter Lip and Gutter Flowline(usually 2") do= 2.0 2.0 inches Gutter Depression(dc-(W*Sx*12)) a= 1.51 1.51 inches Water Depth at Gutter Flowline d= 3.67 6.55 inches Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W(T-W) Tx= 7.0 19.0 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method(Eq.ST-7) Eo= 0.629 0.282 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W,carried in Section Tx Qx= 0.0 0.0 cis Discharge within the Gutter Section W(QT-Qx) Qw= 0.0 0.0 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb(e.g.,sidewalk,driveways,&lawns) Qagx= 0,0 0.0 cis Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Spread QT= SUMP SUMP cfs Flow Velocity within the Gutter Section V= 0.0 0.0 fps V*d Product:Flow Velocity times Gutter Flowline Depth V*d= 0.0 0.0 Maximum Capacity for 1/2 Street based on Allowable Depth Minor Storm Major Storm Theoretical Water Spread TTH= 18.7 18.7 ft Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W(T-W) TXTH= 16.7 16.7 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method(Eq.ST-7) Eo- 0.318 0.318 Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W,carried in Section TXTH QxT = 0.0 0.0 cis Actual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W,(limited by distance TcROWN) Qx= 0.0 0.0 cis Discharge within the Gutter Section W(Qd-Q0 QW= 0.0 0.0 cis Discharge Behind the Curb(e.g.,sidewalk,driveways,&lawns) QRACK= 0.0 0.0 cis Total Discharge for Major&Minor Storm(Pre-Safety Factor) Q= 0.0 0.0 cis Average Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V= 0.0 0.0 fps V*d Product:Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth V*d= 0.0 0.0 Slope-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major&Minor(d>6")Storm R= SUMP SUMP Max Flow Based on Allowable Depth(Safety Factor Applied) %= SUMP SUMP cfe Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline(Safety Factor Applied) d= inches Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown(Safety Factor Applied) dCROWN= inches MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qanow= SUMP I SUMP cfs 1 STORM B4-1 INLET IN A • OR SAG LOCATION MHM-Inlet, Version 5.01(Apri12021) Lo(C) H-Curb H-Vert -- Wo W P W \ Lo(G) Design Information In ut MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet cpoTryye R Curb opening Type= CDOT T e R Curb Opening Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) a,,,,= 3.00 1 inches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 i Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 3.7 6.0 nches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR r Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate L.(G)- N/A N/A 1-1 Width of a Unit Grate W.- N/A N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Ara;e= N/A N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cr(G)- N/A N/A Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= N/A N/A Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Co(G)= N/A N/A Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo(C)= 5.00 5.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,= 6.00 6.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hth_t= 6.00 6.00 inches Angle of Throat(see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta= 63.40 63.40 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) Cw(C)= 3.60 3.GO Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) CQ(C)= 0.67 0.67 Grate Flow Analysis(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef- N/A N/A Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog= N/A N/A Grate Capacity as a Weir(based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Q.,=1 N/A N/A cis Interception with Clogging Q-=1 N/A N/A Cis Grate Capacity as a Orifice(based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qa-i N/A N/A cis Interception with Clogging Qea=1 N/A N/A cfs Grate Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qm;= N/A N/Acfs Interception with Clogging Q-= N/A cfs ResultingGrate Capacity assumes clogged condition Qsnm= N A cfs CurbOpening ow Analysis(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef= 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog= 0:10 0.10 Curb Opening as a Weir(based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Q„;=1 cfs Interception with Clogging Qwa= 1.5 5.4 cfs Curb Opening as an Orifice(based on Modified HEC22 Method) MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qd- 7.8 9.8 cis Interception with Clogging Q.= 7.0 8.8 cfs Curb Opening Capacity as Mixed Flow MINOR MAJOR Interception without Clogging Qm;-1 3.3 7.1 cfs Interception with Clogging Q-= 3.0 6.4 cis Resulting Curb Opening Ca aci assumes clogged condition Qart= 1.5 5.4 cis Resultant Street Conditions MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Length L= 5.00 5.00 feet Resultant Street Flow Spread(based on street geometry from above) T-1 9.0 18.7 ft Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown dCROWN= 0.0 0.0 inches Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth do ate= N/A N/A ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation c1m,,= 0.14 0.33 ft Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFc_b;aatba= 0.47 0.77 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFc,rb= 1.00 1.00 Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFG.a = N/A N/A MINOR MAJOR Total Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) Qe= 1.5 5.4 tfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms> PEAK Q PEAK REQUIRED 1 STORM B2-S2 MHFD-Inlet Version 5.01(April 2021 (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Mason Street Infrastructure Inlet ID:INLET B2-S2 T T T.T �a a= W T. STREET CROWN r � o / Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Tao,= 0.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nRACK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRR= 6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN= 21.0 It Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.025 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.018 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) ns,= 0.015 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 9.0 21.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dNm=1 6.0 1 6.0 inches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown(check box for yes,leave blank for no) r r MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Q,��o = 4.8 17.0 cfs Minor storm max.allowable capacity GOOD-greater than the design flow given on sheet'Inlet Management' Major storm max.allowable capacity GOOD-greater than the design flow given on sheet'Inlet Management' 1 STORM B2-S2 INLET ON • • GRADE -n e, ersron pn 4--Lo(C) H-Curb H-Vert Wo VV Lo(G) Design Information(Input) CD0T/Denver13Combination MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type= CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a') a�f= 2.0 2.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 Length of a Single Unit Inlet(Grate or Curb Opening) Lo= 3.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate(cannot be greater than W,Gutter Width) W.= 1.73 ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate(typical min.value=0.5) CFG= 0.50 0.50 Clo in Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening cal min.value=0.1 C= 0.10 0.10 Street Hydraulics:OK-O<Allowable Street Caoacity' MINOR MAJOR Design Discharge for Half of Street(from In/et Management) Q.= 0.2 0.6 cis Water Spread Width T= 1.4 2.2 ft Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) d= 1.4 2.0 inches Water Depth at Street Crown(or at Tm.) d€ROWN= 0.0 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow Eo= 1.008 1.003 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W,carried in Section T. Q.= 0.0 0.0 cis Discharge within the Gutter Section W QN,= 0.2 0.6 cis Discharge Behind the Curb Face Q�= 0.0 0.0 cis Flow Area within the Gutter Section W Aw= 0.07 0.17 sq ft Velocity within the Gutter Section W VW= 2.9 3.5 fps Water Depth for Design Condition d - 3.4 4.0 nches Grate Analysis(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L=1 3.00 3.00 ft Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eo.crsnTE= 0.865 0.979 Under No-Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Minimum Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins V.= 1.56 1.56 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rf= 0.93 6.83 Interception Rate of Side Flow R,= 0.30 0.18 Interception Capacity Q;= 0.2 0.5 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef= 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet GrateClog= 0.50 0.50 Effective(unclogged)Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet Le= 1.50 1.50 ft Minimum Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins V.= 0.89 0.89 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rf= 0.87 0.77 Interception Rate of Side Flow R.= 0.08 0.04 Actual Interception Capacity %= 0.2 0.5 CfS Carry-Over Flow= to be applied to curb opening or next d s inlet =1 0.0 0.1 CfS Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Equivalent Slope Se(based on grate carry-over) Se= 0.166 0.166 ft/ft Required Length LT to Have 1001%Interception LT= 1.01 1.79 Ift Under No-Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet(minimum of L,LT) L- 1.01 1.79 ft Interception Capacity Q;= 0.0 0.1 cis Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef= 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple-unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog= 0.17 0.17 Effective(Unclogged)Length Le= 2.70 2.70 ft Actual Interception Capacity %= 0.0 0.1 CfS Carry-Over Flow= = 0.0 0.1 cfs Summary MINOR MAJOR otal Inlet Interception Capacity Q= 0.2 0.5 CfS otal Inlet Carry-Over Flow(flow bypassing inlet) Qb= 0.0 0.1 cfs Capture Percentage= - C%= 90 89 % 1 STORM B2-S3 MHFD-Inlet Version 5.01(April 2021 (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Mason Street Infrastructure Inlet ID:INLET B2-S3 T T T.T �a a= W T. STREET CROWN r � o / Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb T-cx= 0.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�cK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRR= 6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN= 21.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.025 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.018 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nsrREET= 0.015 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 9.0 21.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dmm=1 6.0 1 6.0 linches Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown(check box for yes,leave blank for no) r r Maximum Capacity or 1 Street based On Allowable Spread Minor Storm Major Storm Water Depth without Gutter Depression(Eq.ST-2) y- 2.70 6.30 inches Vertical Depth between Gutter Lip and Gutter Flowline(usually 2") do= 2.0 2.0 inches Gutter Depression(dc-(W*Sx*12)) a= 1.39 1.39 inches Water Depth at Gutter Flowline d= 4.09 7.69 inches Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W(T-W) Tx= 7.0 19.0 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method(Eq.ST-7) EO= 0.597 0.269 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W,carried in Section Tx Qx= 1.9 27.5 cis Discharge within the Gutter Section W(Qr-Qx) QW= 2.8 jt7 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb(e.g.,sidewalk,driveways,&lawns) Qagx= 0,0 cis Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Spread Qr= 4.8 cfs Flow Velocity within the Gutter Section V= 55 fps V*d Product:Flow Velocity times Gutter Flowline Depth V*d= 1.9 Maximum Capacity for 1/2 Street based on Allowable Depth Minor Storm Major Storm Theoretical Water Spread TTN= 15.4 15.4 ft Theoretical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W(T-W) TX TM= 13.4 13.4 ft Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method(Eq.ST-7) Eo- 0.368 0.368 Theoretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W,carried in Section TXTH QxT = 10.8 10.8 cis Actual Discharge outside the Gutter Section W,(limited by distance TcROWN) Qx= 10.8 10.8 cis Discharge within the Gutter Section W(Qd-Q0 QW= 6.3 6.3 CIS Discharge Behind the Curb(e.g.,sidewalk,driveways,&lawns) QRAfx= 0.0 0.0 cis Total Discharge for Major&Minor Storm(Pre-Safety Factor) Q= 17.0 17.0 cis Average Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V= 7.5 7.5 fps V*d Product:Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth V*d= 3.8 3.8 Slope-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major&Minor(d>6")Storm R= 1.00 1.00 Max Flow Based on Allowable Depth(Safety Factor Applied) Qd= 17.0 17.0 cfs Resultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline(Safety Factor Applied) d= 6.00 6.00 inches Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown(Safety Factor Applied) dcROWN= 0.00 0.00 inches MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Spread Criterion Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is based on Depth Criterion Qanow= 4.8 17.0 cfs Minor storm max.allowable capacity GOOD-greater than the design flow given on sheet'Inlet Management' Major storm max.allowable capacity GOOD-greater than the design flow given on sheet'Inlet Management' 1 STORM B2-S3 INLET ON • • GRADE -n e, ersron pn Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo VV Lo(G) Design Information(Input) CD0T/Denver13Combination MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet Type= CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a') a�f= 2.0 2.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 Length of a Single Unit Inlet(Grate or Curb Opening) Lo= 3.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate(cannot be greater than W,Gutter Width) W.= 1.73 ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate(typical min.value=0.5) CFG= 0.50 0.50 Clo in Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening cal min.value=0.1 C= 0.10 0.10 Street Hydraulics:OK-O<Allowable Street Capacity' MINOR MAJOR Design Discharge for Half of Street(from In/et Management) Q.= 0.2 0.9 cis Water Spread Width T= 1.4 3.6 ft Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) d= 1.4 2.5 inches Water Depth at Street Crown(or at T,,.) d€RowN= 0.0 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow Eo= 1.008 0.965 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W,carried in Section T. Q.= 0.0 0.0 cis Discharge within the Gutter Section W Qw= 0.2 0.9 cis Discharge Behind the Curb Face Q = 0.0 0.0 cis Flow Area within the Gutter Section W AW= 0.07 0.24 sq ft Velocity within the Gutter Section W VW= 2.9 3.6 fps Water Depth for Design Condition d - 3.4 4.5 inches Grate Analysis(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L= 3.00 3.00 ft Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow Ea-GRATE= 0.865 0.923 Under No-Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Minimum Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins V.= 1.56 1.56 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rf= 0.93 0.84 Interception Rate of Side Flow R,= 0.30 0.20 Interception Capacity Q;= 0.2 0.7 cfs Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef= 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple-unit Grate Inlet GrateClog= 0.50 0.50 Effective(unclogged)Length of Multiple-unit Grate Inlet La= 1.50 1.50 ft Minimum Velocity Where Grate Splash-Over Begins V.= 0.89 0.89 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rf= 0.87 0.78 Interception Rate of Side Flow R.= 0.08 0.05 Actual Interception Capacity %= 0.2 0.7 CfS Carry-Over Flow= to be applied to curb opening or next d s inlet =1 0.0 0.2 cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Equivalent Slope Se(based on grate carry-over) Se= 0.166 0.161 ft/ft Required Length LT to Have 1000/a Interception LT= 1.01 2.35 ft Under No-Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet(minimum of L,LT) L- 1.01 2.35 Ift Interception Capacity Q;= 0.0 0.1 cis Under Clogging Condition MINOR MAJOR Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef= 1.00 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple-unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog= 0.17 0.17 Effective(Unclogged)Length Le= 2.70 2.70 ft Actual Interception Capacity %= 0.0 0.1 CfS Carry-Over Flow= = 0.0 0.1 cfs Summary MINOR MAJOR otal Inlet Interception Capacity Q= 0.2 0.8 CfS otal Inlet Carry-Over Flow(flow bypassing inlet) Qb= 0.0 0.1 cfs Capture Percentage= - C%= 90 86 0/0 1 Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® Plan STORM B a 5 4 6 3 2 7 1 9 10 11 Outfall Project File: Storm B.stm Number of lines: 11 Date: 1/29/2024 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file Storm B.stm STORM B N M V � w 3 7 7 3 Co 7 7 �M � Co C NOS C ^OE C NOs C qOS E NO O CM Co Co _Co Co M M _CD N _°o M `-M h Co 0M0) NN OCoO ' o)m .-(D OCo ' I� CO Cq W 00 0) N Co N M O 41 N o)� N W N 0o O M W rl- I� p)CD d' O)� O m W �1m r- �r-r- d. 70O ,D1m � �D701 �� Elev. (ft) o w � w M wva C) w�a ,, w Co waa Co w� O .6 W O .6WW .DWW N .OWW N .6WW M .6WW Co -6W � (j c U) 0-SE (n U.S.E U) V`r cc co tjcc Co 0c 4992.00 4992.00 4988.00 4988.00 4984.00 4984.00 4980.00 4980.00 4976.00 ° ° 4976.00 0 9A 99 5 OU-30"@ 0.51% 4972.00 4972.00 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 HGL----- EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file Storm B.stm STORM B2-E r Co C N O O Co M f�0 C� (O C� E lev. (ft) o Lo ui 0 oww o .ow � _ > > R E to C7 cn 0� 4988,00 4988.00 4985.00 4985+00 4982.00 4982.00 4979+00 4979.00 4976.00 4976.00 3.622Lf-1 4973.00 4973.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HGL------- EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: Storm B.stm STORM B2-S - 0 J coo S �O O �� ' 00�0� J 00— O O V V M Ic'; 6 �� p � I�ti Elev. (ft) po w oo LO w w o -0 w w o -aww o -6w ,'u E » @ E > cn0 Cn U) 4987.00 4987.00 4984.00 4984.00 4981.00 4981.00 4978.00 4978.00 4975.00 ° 4975.00 58.132Lf-2 "@ 0.21 4972.00 4972.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: Storm B.stm STORM B2-S1 (,) O s E coo O O J 00 0 0 O O,6 O r`ti CT ti Elev. (ft) o w l N w v o -0ww o -ow E > > @ E > 4988.00 4988.00 4985.00 4985.00 4982.00 4982.00 4979.00 4979.00 4976.00 4976 00 - o 4973.00 4973.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Storm Sewer Summary Report Pagel Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) N (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 Pipe-(65) 21.30 30 Cir 75.925 4974.83 4974.98 0.197 4976.40 4976.91 0.43 4977.34 End None 2 Pipe-(75) 18.80 30 Cir 59.800 4974.98 4975.28 0.501 4977.34 4976.75 n/a 4976.75 1 None 3 Pipe-(81) 18.80 30 Cir 70.765 4975.28 4975.63 0.495 4976.75 4977.10 n/a 4977.10 2 None 4 Pipe-(76) 17.50 30 Cir 65.041 4975.63 4975.96 0.507 4977.10 4977.38 n/a 4977.38 3 None 5 Pipe-(77) 17.50 30 Cir 65.041 4975.92 4976.18 0.400 4977.38 4977.60 0.57 4978.18 4 None 6 Pipe-(79) 1.30 18 Cir 21.008 4975.63 4975.84 0.999 4977.10 4976.27 0.15 4976.27 3 None 7 Pipe-(74) 1.00 15 Cir 53.622 4975.13 4976.00 1.623 4977.34' 4977.35' 0.01 4977.36 1 None 8 Pipe-(78) 17.50 30 Cir 29.550 4974.68 4974.83 0.507 4978.18* 4978.22" 0.20 4978.42 5 None 9 Pipe-(82) 1.50 24 Cir 58.132 4974.98 4975.10 0.207 4977.34' 4977.34' 0.00 4977.34 1 None 10 Pipe-(83) 0.60 15 Cir 20.979 4975.10 4975.18 0.382 4977.34* 4977.34' 0.00 4977.35 9 None 11 Pipe-(84) 0.90 15 Cir 21.000 4975.10 4975.18 0.381 4977.34' 4977.35` 0.01 4977.35 9 None Project File: Storm B.stm Number of lines: 11 Run Date:4/22/2024 NOTES: Return period= 100 Yrs. `Surcharged (HGL above crown). Storm Sewers v2023.00 MyReport Page 1 Line Area Area Byp Coeff Coeff Coeff Capac Crit Cross Cross Curb Defl Depth Depth DnStm Drng Easting EGL EGL Energy No. Dn Up Ln No C1 C2 C3 Full Depth SI,Sw SI,Sx Len Ang Dn Up Ln No Area X Dn Up Loss (sqft) (sqft) (C) (C) (C) (cfs) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (Deg) (ft) (ft) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 3.25 4.07 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 19.74 1.57 .... .... .... -41.268 1.57 1.93 Outfall 0.00 194407.51 4977.07 4977.34 0.267 2 3.00 3.00 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 31.46 1.47 .... .... .... -92.240 2.36 1.47`" 1 0.00 194366.34 4977.95 4977.36 0.000 3 3.00 3.00 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 31.25 1.47 .... .... .... 6.748 1.47 1.47* 2 0.00 194323.99 4977.36 4977.71 0.000 4 2.87 2.86 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 31.65 1.41 .... .... .... 7.635 1.47 1.41" 3 0.00 194292.33 4977.68 4977.96 0.000 5 2.87 2.88 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 28.10 1.41 .... .... 7.347 1.45 1.42" 4 0.00 194268.20 4977.92 4978.18 0.255 6 0.41 0.41 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 11.37 0.43 .... .... 95.514 1.47 0.43'" 3 0.00 194341.95 4977.25 4976.42 0.000 7 1.23 1.23 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 8.91 0.39 .... .... .... 21.704 1.25 1.25 1 0.00 194458.03 4977.35 4977.36 0.011 8 4.91 4.91 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 31.64 1.41 .... .... .... 88.590 2.50 2.50 5 0.00 194295.36 4978.37 4978.42 0.046 9 3.14 3.14 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 11.14 0.42 .... .... .... 86.625 2.00 2.00 1 0.00 194448.36 4977.34 4977.34 0.002 10 1.23 1.23 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 4.32 0.30 .... .... .... -90.000 1.25 1.25 9 0.00 194463.28 4977.35 4977.35 0.002 11 1.23 1.23 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 4.32 0.37 .... .... .... 90.000 1.25 1.25 9 0.00 194433.42 4977.35 4977.35 0.003 Project File: Storm B.stm Number of lines: 11 Date: 4/22/2024 NOTES: -Critical depth Storm Sewers MyReport Page 2 Flow Sf Sf Grate Grate Grate Gnd/Rim Gnd/Rim Gutter Gutter Gutter Gutter HGL HGL HGL HGL HGL Incr Incr Inlet Inlet Rate Ave Dn Area Len Width El Dn El Up Depth Slope Spread Width Dn Up Jnct Jmp Dn Jmp Up CxA Q Depth Eff (cfs) (ft/ft) (ft/ft) (sqft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ft) N 21.30 0.351 0.444 .... .... .... 4977.39 4980.58 .... .... .... .... 4976.40 4976.91 4977.34 .... 0.00 0.00 18.80 0.000 0.000 .... .... .... 4980.58 4981.28 .... .... .... .... 4977.34 4976.75 4976.75 .... 0.00 0.00 18.80 0.000 0.000 .... .... .... 4981.28 4980.77 .... .... .... .... 4976.75 4977.10 4977.10 0.00 0.00 17.50 0.000 0.000 .... .... .... 4980.77 4981.26 .... .... .... .... 4977.10 4977.38 4977.38 .... 0.00 0.00 17.50 0.393 0.378 .... .... .... 4981.26 4981.94 .... 4977.38 4977.60 4978.18 .... 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.000 0.000 .... .... .... 4980.77 4980.18 .... 4977.10 4976.27 4976.27 .... 0.00 1.30 1.00 0.020 0.020 .... .... .... 4980.58 4977.52 .... .... .... .... 4977.34 4977.35 4977.36 .... 0.00 1.00 17.50 0.155 0.155 .... .... .... 4981.94 4980.12 .... .... .... .... 4978.18 4978.22 4978.42 .... 0.00 17.50 1.50 0.004 0.004 .... .... .... 4980.58 4979.23 .... .... .... .... 4977.34 4977.34 4977.34 .... 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.007 0.007 .... .... .... 4979.23 4978.64 .... .... .... 4977.34 4977.34 4977.35 .... 0.00 0.60 0.90 0.017 0.017 .... .... .... 4979.23 4978.63 .... .... .... .... 4977.34 4977.35 4977.35 .... 0.00 0.90 Project File: Storm B.stm Number of lines: 11 Date: 4/22/2024 NOTES: -Critical depth Storm Sewers MyReport Page 3 Inlet Inlet Inlet i i Invert Invert Jump Jump Vel Hd Vel Hd J-Loss Junct Known Cost Cost Cost ID Loc Time Sys Inlet Dn Up Loc Len Jmp Dn Jmp Up Coeff Type Q RCP CMP PVC (ft) (min) (in/hr) (in/hr) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) STMH B2 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4974.83 4974.98 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.00 None 0.00 3,460 3,114 2,941 STMH B3 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4974.98 4975.28 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.15 z None 0.00 2,976 2,678 2,530 STMH B4 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4975.28 4975.63 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.00 z None 0.00 3,504 3,154 2,978 STMH B5 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4975.63 4975.96 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.16 z None 0.00 3,240 2,916 2,754 STMH B6 w/4-FT SUMP On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4975.92 4976.18 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.00 None 0.00 3,240 2,916 2,754 ILNET 134-1 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4975.63 4975.84 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.00 z None 1.30 960 864 816 FES B2-E1 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4975.13 4976.00 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.00 None 1.00 1,803 1,622 1,532 STMH B7 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4974.68 4974.83 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.00 None 17.50 1,684 1,516 1,431 STMH B2-S1 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4974.98 4975.10 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.00 None 0.00 2,672 2,405 2,271 INLET 132-S2 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4975.10 4975.18 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.00 None 0.60 735 662 625 INLET B2-S3 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4975.10 4975.18 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.00 None 0.90 750 675 638 Project File: Storm B.stm :E� ber of lines: 11 Date: 4/22/2024 NOTES: Intensity=127.16/(Inlet time+ 17.80)^0.82--Return period= 100 Yrs. "`Critical depth Storm Sewers MyReport Page 4 Line Line Line Line Line Local n-val n-val Minor Northing Pipe Q Q Q Line Runoff Line Area Area Area Tc ID Length Size Slope Type Depr Gutter Pipe Loss Y Travel Byp Capt Carry Rise Coeff Span Al A2 A3 (ft) (in) N (in) (ft) (ft) (min) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (in) (C) (in) (ac) (ac) (ac) (min) Pipe-(65) 75.925 30 0.20 Cir .... .... 0.012 0.43 137476.02 0.29 .... .... .... 30 0.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.7 Pipe-(75) 59.800 30 0.50 Cir .... .... 0.012 n/a 137519.39 0.26 .... .... .... 30 0.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.1 Pipe-(81) 70.765 30 0.49 Cir .... .... 0.012 n/a 137576.08 0.31 .... ... .... 30 0.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.7 Pipe-(76) 65.041 30 0.51 Cir .... .... 0.012 n/a 137632.90 0.30 .... .... .... 30 0.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.4 Pipe-(77) 65.041 30 0.40 Cir .... .... 0.012 0.57 137693.30 0.30 .... .... .... 30 0.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1 Pipe-(79) 21.008 18 1.00 Cir .... .... 0.012 0.15 137586.98 0.48 .... .... .... 18 0.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Pipe-(74) 53.622 15 1.62 Cir .... .... 0.012 0.01 137493.98 1.10 .... .... .... 15 0.00 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Pipe-(78) 29.550 30 0.51 Cir .... .... 0.012 0.20 137704.93 0.14 .... .... .... 30 0.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Pipe-(82) 58.132 24 0.21 Cir .... .... 0.012 0.00 137434.66 2.03 .... .... .... 24 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.7 Pipe-(83) 20.979 15 0.38 Cir .... .... 0.012 0.00 137449.40 0.72 .... .... .... 15 0.00 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Pipe-(84) 21.000 15 0.38 Cir .... .... 0.012 0.01 137419.90 0.48 .... .... .... 15 0.00 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Project File: Storm B.stm Number of lines: 11 Date: 4/22/2024 NOTES: -Critical depth Storm Sewers MyReport Page 5 Throat Total Total Total Vel Vel Vel Vel Vel Cover Cover Storage Ht Area CxA Runoff Ave Dn Hd Dn Hd Up Up Dn Up (in) (ac) (cfs) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (cft) .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.90 6.56 0.67 0.43 5.23 0.06 3.10 278.38 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10 3.92 0.61 0.61 6.27 3.10 3.50 238.36 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.27 6.27 0.61 0.61 6.27 3.50 2.64 212.03 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.97 5.84 0.58 0.58 6.11 2.64 2.80 190.63 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.99 5.91 0.54 0.57 6.08 2.84 3.26 190.07 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.94 0.74 0.15 0.15 3.14 3.64 2.84 24.08 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.82 0.01 0.01 0.81 4.20 0.27 65.79 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 3.57 0.20 0.20 3.57 4.76 2.79 145.03 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.48 3.60 2.13 182.59 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 2.88 2.21 25.74 .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.01 0.01 0.73 2.88 2.20 25.77 Project File: Storm B.stm Number of lines: 11 Date: 4/22/2024 NOTES: -Critical depth Storm Sewers Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Aut®desk® Civil 3Q® Plan STORM C Outfall 1 2 Project File: Storm C.stm Number of lines:2 Date: 3/12/2024 Storm Sewers v2023.00 Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: Storm C.stm STORM C CV 7 � Co OS 00 O 06 (D �hCN �N M _ Co CO O _ O CD CO M CO O CD DOj 00 O n C) �t-f'- CM -qIh Elev. (ft) o w w rm w o -o w o -o w w o -o w 4993.00 4993.00 4989.00 4989+00 4985.00 4985.00 4981.00 - 4981 00 4977.00 4977.00 % 0 4973.00 4973.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Storm Sewer Summary Report Pagel Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) N (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 Pipe-(67) 9.70 24 Cir 75.361 4976.36 4976.67 0.411 4977.47 4977.83 0.06 4977.89 End None 2 Pipe-(87) 9.70 24 Cir 12.000 4976.92 4978.12 10.002 4977.89 4979.23 n/a 4979.23 1 None Project File: Storm C.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date: 3/12/2024 NOTES: Return period= 100 Yrs. Storm Sewers v2023.00 MyReport Page 1 Line Area Area Byp Coeff Coeff Coeff Capac Crit Cross Cross Curb Defl Depth Depth DnStm Drng Easting EGL EGL Energy No. Dn Up Ln No C1 C2 C3 Full Depth SI,Sw SI,Sx Len Ang Dn Up Ln No Area X Dn Up Loss (sqft) (sqft) (C) (C) (C) (cfs) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (Deg) (ft) (ft) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 1.79 1.88 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 15.72 1.11 .... .... .... 0.634 1.11 1.16 Outfall 0.00 193990.58 4977.93 4978.24 0.313 2 1.51 1.79 n/a 0.20 0.50 0.90 77.49 1.11 .... .... .... 0.000 0.97 1.11" 1 0.00 194002.58 4978.34 4979.69 0.000 -T- Project File: Storm C.stm Number of lines:2 Date: 3/12/2024 NOTES: —Critical depth Storm Sewers MyReport Page 2 Flow Sf Sf Grate Grate Grate Gnd/Rim Gnd/Rim Gutter Gutter Gutter Gutter HGL HGL HGL HGL HGL Incr Incr Inlet Inlet Rate Ave Dn Area Len Width El Dn El Up Depth Slope Spread Width Dn Up Jnct Jmp Dn Jmp Up CxA Q Depth Eff (cfs) (ft/ft) (ft/ft) (sqft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ft) N 9.70 0.415 0.441 .... .... .... 4978.64 4980.98 .... 4977.47 4977.83 4977.89 .... 0.00 0.00 9.70 0.000 0.000 .... .... .... 4980.98 4980.40 .... .... .... .... 4977.89 4979.23 4979.23 .... 0.00 9.70 Project File: Storm C.stm Number of lines:2 Date: 3/12/2024 NOTES: **Critical depth Storm Sewers MyReport Page 3 Inlet Inlet Inlet i i Invert Invert Jump Jump Vel Hd Vel Hd J-Loss Junct Known Cost Cost Cost Line ID Loc Time Sys Inlet Dn Up Loc Len Jmp Dn Jmp Up Coeff Type Q RCP CMP PVC ID (ft) (min) (in/hr) (in/hr) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (cfs) BASIN C2 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4976.36 4976.67 .... 0.00 0.00 0.15 None 0.00 2,912 2,621 2.475 Pipe-(67) FES C3 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4976.92 4978.12 _ .... 0.00 0.00 1.00 z None 9.70 532 479 452 Pipe-(87) -- Project File: Storm C.stm Number of lines:2 Date: 3/12/2024 NOTES: Intensity=127.16/(Inlet time+ 17.80)^0.82--Return period=100 Yrs. ; Critical depth Storm Sewers MyReport Page 4 Line Line Line Line Local n-val n-val Minor Northing Pipe Q Q Q Line Runoff Line Area Area Area Tc Throat Total Total Length Size Slope Type Depr Gutter Pipe Loss Y Travel Byp Capt Carry Rise Coeff Span Al A2 A3 Ht Area CxA (ft) (in) (%) (in) (ft) (ft) (min) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (in) (C) (in) (ac) (ac) (ac) (min) (in) (ac) 75.361 24 0.41 Cir .... 0.012 0.06 137957.60 0.41 ... .... .... 24 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1 000 0.00 12.000 24 10.00 Cir .... .... 0.012 n/a 137957.47 0.06 .... .... 24 000 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 Project File: Storm C.stm Number of lines:2 Date: 3/12/2024 NOTES: —Critical depth Storm Sewers MyReport Page 5 Total Vel Vel Vel Vel Vel Cover Cover Storage Runoff Ave Dn Hd Dn Hd Up Up Dn Up (cfs) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) (cft) 0.00 5.28 5.40 0.45 0.41 5.15 0.28 2.31 138.61 0.00 5.92 6.43 0.45 0.45 540 2.06 0.28 19.82 Project File: Storm C.stm Number of lines:2 Date: 3/12/2024 NOTES: —Critical depth Storm Sewers Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Thursday, Dec 14 2023 SWALE A-A Trapezoidal Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 2.00 Depth (ft) = 0.95 Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Q (cfs) = 12.93 Total Depth (ft) = 1.00 Area (sqft) = 5.51 Invert Elev (ft) = 78.18 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.35 Slope (%) = 0.50 Wetted Perim (ft) = 9.83 N-Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.71 Top Width (ft) = 9.60 Calculations EGL (ft) = 1.04 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 12.93 100-YR Q = 9.7 X 1.33 (Freeboard) = 12.93 cfs Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 80.00 1.82 79.50 1.32 79.00 0.82 78.50 0.32 78.00 -0.18 77.50 -0.68 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Reach (ft) Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Monday,Jan 29 2024 Swale B-B Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Depth (ft) = 0.87 Total Depth (ft) = 1.00 Q (cfs) = 11.62 Area (sqft) = 3.03 Invert Elev (ft) = 80.18 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.84 Slope (%) = 2.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 7.17 N-Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.88 Top Width (ft) = 6.96 Calculations EGL (ft) = 1.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 11.62 100-YR Q = 8.74 X 1.33 (Freeboard) = 11.62 cfs Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 82.00 1.82 81.50 1.32 81.00 0.82 80.50 00or 0.32 80.00 -0.18 79.50 -0.68 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Reach (ft) Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Monday,Jan 29 2024 Curb Cut - Swale B-B Rectangular Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 4.00 Depth (ft) = 0.48 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Q (cfs) = 11.62 Area (sqft) = 1.92 Invert Elev (ft) = 80.18 Velocity (ft/s) = 6.05 Slope (%) = 1.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 4.96 N-Value = 0.013 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.50 Top Width (ft) = 4.00 Calculations EGL (ft) = 1.05 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 11.62 100-YR Q = 8.74 X 1.33 (Freeboard) = 11.62 cfs Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 81.00 0.82 80.75 0.57 80.50 0.32 80.25 0.07 80.00 -0.18 79.75 -0.43 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Reach (ft) Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Thursday, Feb 12024 Spillway Trapezoidal Weir Highlighted Crest = Sharp Depth (ft) = 1.56 Bottom Length (ft) = 60.00 Q (cfs) = 390.00 Total Depth (ft) = 1.60 Area (sqft) = 103.33 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.77 Top Width (ft) = 72.48 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 390.00 Depth (ft) Spillway Depth (ft) 2.00 2.00 VIP 1.50 11.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 -0.50 -0.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Weir W.S. Length (ft) E � NORTHERN 1 i 1 i NORTH ERNENGINEERING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY APPENDIX NORTHERN ENGINEERING WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS Water Quality for • • Detention Pond Project: N Mason Street Infrastructure Calc. By: M. Ruebel Date: March 13,2024 Required Storage&Outlet Works Basin Area(acres)= 13.13 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs Basin Percent Imperviousness= 34% <-- INPUT from impervious calcs Basin Imperviousness Ratio= 0.34 <--CALCULATED Drain Time= 40 hours <--from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 Drain Time Coefficient= 1.00 <--from FCSM Figure 5.4-1 WQCV(watershed inches)= 0.16 <-- MHFD Vol.3 Equation 3-1 WQCV(ac-ft)= 0.21 <-- FCSCM Equation 7-2 WQCV(cu.ft.)= 9,346 <--Calculated from above WQ Depth(ft)= 0.53 <-- INPUT from stage-storage table Area Required Per Row,a(in2)= 1.06 <--CALCULATED from Equation EDB-3 Circular Perforation Sizing dia (in)= 1 1/8 number of columns= 1.00 number of rows= 3.00 number of holes= 3.00 Area Per Row= 1.06 Total Outlet Area (in')= 3.17 < CALCULATED from total number of holes NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FORT COLLINS I GREELEY 100 0 100 Feet FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (IN FEET) LEGEND: 1 inch 00ft. L PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED INLET HIBDON COURT' PROPOSED CURB&GUTTER B3 PROPERTY BOUNDARY A3 . . . 0.32 ac. `_ 0.41 ac. ° — DESIGN POINT A ` BASIN A6 ~ DESIGNAT10N *BASIN 62 DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL \ 0.18 ac. 0.08 ac. B AREA (AC) \ \ ♦� 1 1.39 ac. �, I DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY T I o.oa c. I � I \ LOT 2 ' I o 1 LOT 3 - AREA OF WATER QUALITY RESPONSIBILITY - 1' 000 ' LOT 1 (BASINS Al-A7, 131-137) m \ • STANDARD WATER QUALITY Al 6.98 ac. 1.32 ao A5 \ a LOT 2(BASINS A2-A7) ' 0.64 ac. B5 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ` � 0.13 ac. A7 B4 LOT 1 ` \ / 0.23 ac. \ 0.35 ac. HICKORY REGIONAL •OT LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT �C�� \ DETENTION POND ` / `TRACT A B6 0.06 ac. B7 0.09 ac. 4 '� Cl4mm° AA1 °M XAL — — 0.86 ac. �H 47 A- OH SITE OUTFACE LOCATION Q NORTHERN MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE WQ EXHIBIT ENGINEERING FORT COLLINS DRAWN BY: MCR SHEET NO: N COLORADO SCALE:1"= l0o LID 1 FORT COLLINS:301 North Howes Street,Suite 100,80521 9M221.4158 GREELEY:820 8th Street,80631 northernengineering.com DATE:01/31/2024 EXISTING PROPOSED IF L -1 0 N \ \ �. rl SURFACE IMPERV. IMPERV. SURFACE IMPERV. IMPERV. AREA(SF) AREA(SF) AREA(SF) AREA(SF) ROOFTOP 0 100% 0 ROOFTOP 0 100% 0 ASPHALT OR 21,848 100% 21,848 ASPHALT OR 37,329 100% 37,329 CONCRETE CONCRETE 150 0 150 GRAVEL 0 40% 0 150 0 150 GRAVEL 11,936 40% 4,774 ( IN FEET) LANDSCAPING 563,944 0% 0 ( IN FEET) LANDSCAPING 536,527 0% 0 1 INCH= 150 FEET TOTAL= 21,848 1 INCH= 150 FEET TOTAL= 42,103 EXISTING VS PROPOSED NORTHERN MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE IMPERVIOUS AREA ENGINEERING FORT COLLINS DRAWN BY: MCR SHEET NO: FORT COLLINS:301 North Howes Street,Suite 100,80521 970.221.4158 COLORADO SCALE:1"=150' IMP 1 GREELEY:820 8th Street,80631 northernengineering.com DATE:9/29/2023 E � NORTHERN APPENDIX EROSION CONTROL REPORT ': \ \ •—--- �! eoo�SeV.War �" fEL.scv„w NORTH ERNENGINEERING.COM 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY APPENDIX E � NORTHERN EROSION CONTROL REPORT A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details)will be included with the final construction drawings. It should be noted;however,any such Erosion and Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor.Staging and/or phasing of the BMPs depicted,and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during construction,or as required by the authorities having jurisdiction. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly maintained and followed.The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living document,constantly adapting to site conditions and needs.The Contractor shall update the location of BMPs as they are installed,removed,or modified in conjunction with construction activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented during construction,as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices from the Volume 3, Chapter 7-Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include,but are not limited to,silt fencing and/or wattles along the disturbed perimeter,gutter protection in the adjacent roadways,and inlet protection at existing and proposed storm inlets.Vehicle tracking control pads,spill containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas,dumpsters,and job site restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor. Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on Sheet CS2 of the Utility Plans.The Final Utility Plans will also contain a full-size Erosion Control Plan as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets,the Contractor shall be aware of,and adhere to,the applicable requirements outlined in any existing Development Agreement(s)of record,as well as the Development Agreement,to be recorded prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit.Also,the Site Contractor for this project may be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE),Water Quality Control Division-Stormwater Program,before commencing any earth disturbing activities. Prior to securing said permit,the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines.The SWMP will further describe and document the ongoing activities,inspections,and maintenance of construction BMPs. NORTHERNENGINEERING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY EROSION CONTROL REPORT i ROLLMAXTM ROLLED EROSION CONTROL Specification Sheet TMaxT' High-Performance Turf Reinforcement Mat DESCRIPTION Index Property Test Method Typical The TMaxT'high-performance turf reinforcement mat(HP-TRM) Thickness ASTM D6525 0.4 in(10 mm) shall be a machine-produced mat of 100%LIV-stabilized,high Resiliency ASTM D6524 75% denier polypropylene monofilament yarns woven into permanent, high-strength,three-dimensional turf reinforcement matting. Mass/Unit Area ASTM D6566 11.3 oz/ydz(382 g/m2) Available in either a green/black or a tan/black coloring,the mat Tensile Strength shall be composed of polypropylene yarns woven into a uniform MD ASTM D6818 4,400 Ibs/ft(64 I<N/m) configuration of resilient,pyramid-like projections.The mat provides sufficient thickness,optimum open area,and three- Elongation-MD ASTM D6818 3S% dimensionality for effective erosion control and vegetation Tensile Strength 3,300 Ibs/ft reinforcement against high flow induced shear forces.The mat -TD ASTM D6818 has high tensile strength for excellent damage resistance and for increasing the bearing capacity of vegetated soils subject to heavy Elongation-TD ASTM D6818 30% loads from maintenance equipment and other vehicular traffic. Light Penetration ASTM D6567 7S%coverage The material has very high interlock and reinforcement capacities with both soil and root systems,and is designed for erosion UV Stability ASTM D4355 >90%@ 3000 hr control applications on steep slopes and vegetated waterways. ,-sign sign Permissible Shear Stress* Material Content Vegetated Shear 16 psf(766 Pa) 100%UV stable Vegetated Velocity 25 fps(7.6 m/s) Polypropylene Black/Green or Woven Structure +Minimum Average Roll VAlue Monofilament Black/Tan 'Design values extrapolated.from large scale ASTM D6460 testing yarns Standard Roll Sizes Width 11.5 ft(3.5 m) 11.5 ft(3.5 m) Length 78 ft(23.8 m) 156 ft(47.5 m) Weight±10% 72 Ibs(32.7 kg) 143.5 Ibs(65.1 kg) Area 100 ydz(83.6 mz) 200 ydz(167 mz) Disclaimer:The Information contained herein may represent product Index data,performance ratings,bench scale testing or other material utility quantifications.Each representation may have unique utility and limitations.Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy,however,no warranty is claimed and no liability shall be assumed by North American Green(NAG)or its affiliates regarding the completeness,accurracy or fitness of these values for any particular application or interpretation.While testing methods are provided for reference, values shown may be derived from intrpolation or adjustment to be representatvie of intended use.For further information,please feel free to contact NAG. NORTH Western Green ©2019,North American Green Is a registered trademark from Western Green.Certain 4609 E.Boonville-New Harmony Rd. products and/or applications described or illustrated herein are protected under one AM E R I CAN or more U.S.patents.otherU.S.patents are pending,and certain foreign patents and Evansville,IN 47725 ei patent applications may also xst.Trademark rights also apply as indicated herein. Final determination of the suitability of any information or material for the use GREEN nagreen.com contemplated,and its manner of use,is the sole responsibility ofthe user.Printed in D800-772-2040 the U.S.A. RMX MPDS TMAX 1.19 4609 E Boonville-New Harmony Rd M0110 Evansville, IN 47725 IM 866-540-9810 NORTH AMERICAN 12/7/21 GREEN Technical Bulletin: Comparison of TRM Design Life Estimates In the process of design, a relative frame of reference for the estimation of design life for Turf Reinforcement Mats (TRMs) and High Performance TRMS(HPTRMs) is often desired. To that end,this document has been developed to provide context and recommendations for a series of Western Excelsior and North American Green materials. Specifically, the longevity of a TRM in the field is a function of factors that are intrinsic to the material and many factors that are site specific. TRMs are typically constructed of any variety of filaments that maybe bonded,woven or bound to create a cohesive matrix that is formed into a rolled product. The base synthetic product(ie polyester, nylon or polypropylene),chemical additives and dimensions can all, among other factors, influence the longevity of the material. Once installed in the field, degradation is a function of: • Exposure to ultra-violet (UV) radiation (sunlight) • Moisture • Mechanical Loading • Temperature • Exposure to chemicals and/or pollution • Definition of acceptable performance (i.e. tensile strength, coverage, etc.) Further, exposure to UV radiation naturally varies by: • Location • Facing Direction (North, East, West, South) • Elevation • Inclination (slope angle) • Coverage by soil, debris,foliage, vegetation or other shade Based on these factors, any material will degrade at different rates, depending on the field-specific situation. Even within a given project, the direction and inclination of one area compared to another may reduce the lifespan by fifty percent. Thus, it is important to realize that, absent a detailed, site-specific analysis, any design life estimate should be considered an estimate for informational purposes. With this background, general guidance for North American Green (NAG) and Western Excelsior (WEC) produced TRMs are provided for consideration in product selection: • S200, SC250, C350—Up to ten years (synthetic portion) • PP5-8, PP5-10, PP5-12, P300—Up to ten years • P550—Up to fifteen years • PP5-Pro,TMax 3k—Up to fifty years • PP5-Xtreme,TMax—Up to seventy-five years These estimates may or may not be reasonable for any specific condition or location and represent a maximum duration where it would be reasonable to expect acceptable performance. This estimation is exclusive of fastener performance. Consult Western Green or NAG directly for more specific recommendations. 77 negrewwom ECMDS 7.0 https://ecmds.com/project/158196/channel-analysis/252764/show NORTH North American Green AMERICAN 5401 St. Wendel-Cynthiana Rd. Poseyville, Indiana 47633 GREEN Tel. 800.772.2040 >Fax 812.867.0247 www.nagreen.com ECMDS v7.0 CHANNEL ANALYSIS >>>Swale B-B Name Swale B-B Discharge 10.84 Channel Slope 0.02 Channel Bottom Width 0 Left Side Slope 4 Right Side Slope 4 Low Flow Liner Retardence Class C 6-12 in Vegetation Type Sod Former Vegetation Density Good 65-79% Soil Type Clay Loam(CL) TMax Normal Permissible Calculated Safety Staple Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Depth Mannings N Shear Stress Shear Stress Factor Remarks Pattern TMax Straight 10.84 cfs 3.85 ft/s 0.84 ft 0.03 2.3 Ibs/ft2 1.05 Ibs/ft2 2.2 STABLE E U nveg etated Underlying Straight 10.84 cfs 3.85 ft/s 0.84 ft 0.03 2.51 Ibs/ft2 0.51 Ibs/ft2 4.93 STABLE E Substrate TMax Reinforced Straight 10.84 cfs 3.85 ft/s 0.84 ft 0.03 16 Ibs/ft2 1.05 Ibs/ft2 15.28 STABLE E Vegetation Underlying Straight 10.84 cfs 3.85 ft/s 0.84 ft 0.03 8.86 Ibs/ft2 0.51 Ibs/ft2 17.44 STABLE E Substrate 1 of 1 10/2/2023, 12:05 PM NORTH North American Green AMERICAN 5401 St. Wendel-Cynthia na Rd. Poseyville, Indiana 47633 GREEN Tel. 800.772.2040 >Fax 812.867.0247 www.nagreen.com ECMDS v7.0 SPILLWAY ANALYSIS >>>Interim Spillway Name Interim Spillway Discharge 500 Peak Flow Period 2 Channel Slope 0.02 Channel Bottom Width 50 Low Flow Liner Retardence Class C 6-12 in Vegetation Type Sod Former Vegetation Density Good 65-79% Soil Type Clay Loam(CL) TMax - Class C - Sod Former - Good 65-79% Normal Permissible Calculated Safety Staple Phase Reach Discharge Velocity Mannings N Remarks Depth Shear Stress Shear Stress Factor Pattern Underlying Straight 500 cfs 6.8 ft/s 1.43 ft 0.038 14.16 Ibs/ft2 1.7 Ibs/ft2 8.35 STABLE E Substrate TMax Reinforced Straight 500 cfs 6.8 ft/s 1.43 ft 0.038 16 Ibs/ft2 1.78 Ibs/ft2 8.98 STABLE E Vegetation Underlying Straight 500 cfs 8.05 ft/s 1.21 ft 0.029 2.51 Ibs/ft2 1.45 Ibs/ft2 1.73 STABLE E Substrate TMax Straight 500 cfs 8.05 ft/s 1.21 ft 0.029 2.3 Ibs/ft2 1.51 Ibs/ft2 1.52 STABLE E Unvegetated NORTHERN E N G I N E E R I N G Scourstop Summary FES ID W (FT) I L(FT) lQuantity of Mats lVelocity(ft/s) FES Cl (18" HDPE) 1 81 81 41 9.70 Notes: 1. Refer to Scourstop design brochure for sizing requirments ScourStop® - - DESIGN GUIDE Circular Culvert Outlet Protection 1 1 ' ............... ................ ................ ................. .•.••••••.•••••••.•. . .. ................. ••w••••••••••••••wo •i i01 ••••••• •• 1•• • •• 100000 000 •• • 001 900000 0 ••41•• to • 1001 10000000' ••• •• ����.� -,. �.. "tea ••' ♦••••••••••� 1••• ••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••• • 1 1 ••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••• 1 1 1 1 00000000000i••00i0ii• ••••••••••••••••••• PIPE •••••••••••••••••••• DIAMETER 1 TRANSITION QUANTITY TRANSITION QUANTITY OF MATS MAT W x L OF MATS I i i / i • •• • • • • • • • • - r • as • •• • • the green solution to riprap PERFORMANCE o AESTHETICS scourstop® NPDES-COMPLIANT o COST-EFFECTIVE — scourstop.com �0 I ScourStople, Installation Recommendations 1.ScourStop mats must be installed over a soil cover:sod,seeded turf reinforcement mat(TRM),geotextile,or a combination thereof. 2.For steep slopes(>10%)or higher velocities(>10 ft/sec),sod is the recommended soil cover. 3.Follow manufacturer's ScourStop Installation Guidelines to ensure proper installation. 4.Install ScourStop mats at maximum 1-2"below flowline of culvert or culvert apron. (No waterfall impacts onto ScourStop mats.) 5.Performance of protected area assumes stable downstream conditions. LENGTH OF PROTECTION WIDTH OF PROTECTION* TRANSITION MAT APRON LENGTH 4-11 A Transition mat apron protects 000000000 000000000 00000 000 culvert outlet. O O O O O 000000000000 O O O O O 00000000 0 00000 000Width of protection: 0000000000 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 Bottom width of channel and up O O O 0 O O O O O 000 000000000 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 MCC O both side slopes to a depth at 000000000 000000000 000 0 0000 000 0OO least half the culvert diameter. 000000000 000000 000 O O O O O�00O OM09 000000000 O 00000 000 Protect bare/disturbed downstream 00000000 00000 00soils from erosion with a ro riate OO O O O O PP POO O 00 0 0 0 0 0 O�Q� 0�-000000 0000O O00 soil cover. 00 O 00 000000000 00000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 000000000 000000000 0000 000 Use normal depth calculator to D=CULVERT DIAMETER compute for downstream protection. A CULVERT OUTLET PROTECTION -PLAN VIEW MAX. 1"-2" DROP OUTLET AND CHANNEL SCOUR PROTECTION FROM CULVERT FLOWLINE (TRANSITION MATS) CULVERT FLOWLINE ONTO SCOURSTOP MATS ti4 PROFILE VIEW SECTION VIEW AA SOIL COVER RECESSED ,1QOQQ0 0Qr,'� C'_ �00000000000, r- LOCK •1,0 O O C' • • 00000 0 C''9: '0000000�- C00000GU �� WASHER 0 0 0 �. -) 0 0 0 0 0 00000�OG.L 0000000000-0,1C C0�0�OCn0r` 0000000000 000�0�OQ00,- DIRECTION C O C 0 0 0 0 0 TRANSITION MAT O,.0 O O C- • • G O 0 0 C, • OF FLOW ✓000000Cr_ C000000000C: O o O O ( O O o 0 O (- ( 36"ANCHOR STRAP ,O, O C C C 0 0 0 0 o V1- - 0 o • 0 C O O o • 00 C ;C00000000n D,.10000000000� BULLET ANCHOR O000 0 C 70000 000 0 0` O 0,0 C, 0" • 'J0000000000 - O o O C _ ANCHOR PATTERN ANCHOR ILLUSTRATION Abut transition mats to end of culvert or culvert apron. Adjacent mats abut together laterally and longitudinally. Install anchors per ScourStop Installation Guidelines. Minimum 8 anchors per mat. Minimum depth 24" in compacted, cohesive soil. Extra anchors as needed for loose or wet soils. Minimum depth 30" in loose,sandy,or wet soil. Extra anchors as needed for uneven soil surface. Extra anchors as needed to secure mat tightly over soil cover. the green solution to riprap �HANES'GEO COMPONENTS` A LEADER in the GEOSYNTHETIC and EROSION CONTROL industries scourstop° A ,COMPANY Learn more about our products at:HanesGeo.com 1888.239.4539 ©2014 Leggett&Platt,Incorporated 116959_1114 E � NORTHERN EXCERPTSAPPENDIX E PREVIOUSREPORTS REPORTAND USDASOILS N NORTH ERNENGINEERING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY APPENDIX LJ � , I �, l z L - _..�. I I 1 s I M AIL f 31 1 \ _ - — - ► - v ' ' =— v `' ELEVATION [FT] DEPTH [FT] VOLUME [AC-FT] %! I \ I/ 4972 0 0.0 CONCEPTUALHICKORYREGIONAL / 4973 1.23 0.0 DETENTION POND ��— � �/ ,v 4974 2.23 0.3 y III y y I v v / 4975 3.23 0.8 . I \ > > \ PARCEL No.9 702 1 0095,4 _ J / I I (c) ( \ C OWNER:C/TY OF FORT COLLINS / / �I' I I r z } A S — — f 4976 4.23 2.2 - t 1 / 4977 5.23 6.5 \ \� � 4978 6.23 11.4 _ Z— t— _ • r`. � �`' ( \ / 4979 7.23 16.6 I ( J 4980 8.23 22.3 r I I V ASx� - - ar _ -- - l 4Win. x001 RCEL:9 702 1 00 022\ R O R:WOO�RONALD \ a — \ G/J /FER L/W/LLAR E PARCEL NO.970210006 1 \ OWNER:WANK/ER LANCE L \ °o \ \ - \ PARCEL:9702>00022 OWNER. WOOD RONALD -_---_-_---_-_ --��_ G/JENN/FERL/WLL.�R E ' am om - I` / \ �1\ .- - �— \ � 1� � i i I I `, l � 'r/ ;�✓ � ��. I �.� J I I I^I f :. t " 41 t — / AL N7 X1 OWNER.NCOL970210007 LC Y�CPARCEL _ - THE BREW,PA TRIC/A A x QO / H/BDON, VIRGINIA L FA MIL Y TRUST —- 1 ! \ \ V� ' \ REC.NO.2002O f 5477 X \ - � f 5FF ac .8ac 00 1 \ I STONCRESTINC. I I I A \ J REC.NO.99097888 \ / nTORTH COL LEGF L OIL \ I / REC.NO.98079957 1' c J VA\\/ v I v I� , \ ° r / — �\ L I 4 - _ - ------------------------- -- -f-----\--\� --------- - \ ��- \-----����- ,I I vv Cv l ` v i M \ v LEGEND \ / V /� \ \ \ EXISTING CONTOURS X � - v 5+00 ._ I \\\\\\ ` — - - —. — - - — \ , - - - f / PROPOSED CONTOURS / I PARCEL NO.9 702 1 009 1 8 _� _ \ \ \ m - PARCEL BOUNDARIES 0 A d \ OWNER.'C/TYOFFORTCOLL/NS 4+� ! \ \ /. _ _-_ \I A l - ! I \ MART/NSF 4�DD/TI¢/V\ C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EASEMENT BOUNDARIES T S /�! EST LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION I AKA MU$TANGSUBDIV/ O � / 0+00 � \ '�� BOOK 1429PAGE7�� \� � � � . 100-YR HWL M � v CENTERLINE OF DRY CREEK AND POND TRICKLE CHANNEL --------------- ✓ � \ REC.N0.960,532046 - - - - / HARO DA.FAS/CJC.///,� v ' - I 1 \ FILL OVEREXISTING36 P WATERLINE WILL NEED J \ PCC A N LL TO k 1 \ k \ VALLEYSSZ'EEL&WIRESUBDIVIS/ON BE EVALUATED FURTHER DURING DESIGN RESULTING IN R/N RE /1/O.2006 C -0015 f 05 - - POND AND GRADING SHIFTING NORTH APPROXIMATELY 15 - - r � \ FINAL West Side of North College Drainage Improvements Project (NCDID) Preliminary Design Prepared for City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 AVMS ASSOCIATES 3665 JFK Parkway, Bldg. 2, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 223-5556 June 2017 JA I F LEGEND �I ' v DRAINS TO POND C NO WQ REQUIRED DRAINS TO POND B NO WQ REQUIRED DRAINS TO POND A = =NO WQ REQUIRED 1 DRAINS TO THE NORTH } COLLEGE STORM SEWER SYSTEM -Y I ; A 36"RCP VN �Y o . t POND R N � 21.8 AC-ET r- J STORM B w " b 60"RCP POND C PONDA m 48„RCp STORM C oa a & g0c , I m n 60"RCP I8'RCP AX9 72"RCP 66"RCP 'tl ALTERNATE l T AIRC 60"RCP 14 RCP 4F RCP(ALT A)ND A �i 46"RCP(ALT A) 36"RCP(ALT A) .3 24"RCP- = LOCATION P (AL A) (ALT A) oa z ti�'/ - r a SIPHON r STORM A LAKE ANAL ^ x o �ro SIPHON: SIP AS 30]PITON WA�U E UNDER: SIPHON: - REELEY �.� — TERLINE 3 z y r WATERLINE WATERLINE a COLLEGE AVENUE =' `` COLLEGE AVENUE a Nor w r z I" q F- � 0 1 z o Figure 3.1 _ . Pr oposed Storm E ,� I �'' 1' „"' ' "'w" en"� NOT TO SCALE Sewer Layout 3 ASSOCIATES CTLITHOMPSON Founded in I 9� GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER SWC HIBDON COURT AND MASON STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Prepared for: DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE 301 West 4511 Avenue Denver, Colorado 80216 Attention: Chad Holtzinger Project No. FC10,520.000-125-R1 November 20, 2023 CTLIThompson, Inc. Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Glenwood Springs, Pueblo, Summit County— Colorado Cheyenne, Wyoming and Bozeman, Montana 1-11 B DO N CT. E.WILLOX LN. SITE HIBDON CT ui a w cD Lu F J (n J z O O U Q HICKORY ST. 2 ➢n VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE A LEGEND: TH-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING P-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF o PAVEMENT BORING D-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DETENTION POND BORING 0 30 60 SCALE: 1" = 60' D-2 Locations of • •* 4 Exploratory DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITETURE Borings on HIBDON/MASON 24/h SHELTER CTLIT Project No. FC10520-125-R1 oogle Image Fig. 1A —�-i HIBDON CT. P-1 P-2 O (8.5) (8.5) [4973] [4971.5] TH-2 (8) D-3 LEGEND: 973.5 [4972] ] • � TH1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF €7 5� 1 • EXPLORATORY BORING 4974 P-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PLL TH- o PAVEMENT BORING 3 • D-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF �y (8) ➢ • DETENTION POND BORING 9 TH-1 [4972] No (g) INDICATES MEASURED DEPTH OF [4971.5J • Z GROUNDWATER (FEET) €8J [4971.5] INDICATES APPROXIMATE ELEVATION 4972.5 P-; OF GROUNDWATER (FEET) (9 5) €7J INDICATES DEPTH WHERE HOLE CAVED [4971] \ 4973.5 INDICATES APPROXIMATE ELEVATION WHERE HOLE CAVED \ NOTE: THIS ESTIMATE WAS BASED UPON A SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF DRILL HOLE DATA AND MAY NOT REFLECT LOCAL VARIATIONS AND 00 SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONS. 0 [4969.5] D-1 • D 4973.5 0 30 60 SCALE: 1" = 60' (8) D-2 [4968.5] • €4.51 Groundwater 4972 DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITETURE Depth and HODONWSON 24/�SHELTER CTLIT Project No. FC10520-125-R1 Elevation Fig. 2 El. 4980.4 El. 4976.3 EI.4981.6 LEGEND: 4,985------------------------------------------------ 4,985 CLAY,SANDY AND/OR SILTY,SLIGHTLY MOIST TO WET,MEDIUM STIFF TO VERY STIFF,BROWN Fl (CL) SAND,GRAVELLY,CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY,WET,MEDIUM DENSE TO VERY DENSE,BROWN 00, -- (SP) 4,980 25/12-4,980 14/12 W=1osC=10.0 CLAYSTONE,MOIST,VERY HARD,GREY W C=7.0 -200=84 DD=98 -200=73 00, 10/12 19/12 DRIVE SAMPLE.THE SYMBOL 10/12 INDICATES 10 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 00, W C=14.5 4,975 LDLD=44 PI=24 4,975 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.5-INCH O.D.SAMPLER 12 INCHES. ol 200=91 7/12 00, .00 op W C=15.0 401 DD=97 -200=82 .00 op 24/12 BULK SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS. 9/12 WC=4.9 op 30/12 Zoo 4 zoo=s SZ WATER LEVEL MEASURED AT TIME OF DRILLING. 4,97017 4,970 1 WATER LEVEL MEASURED AFTER DRILLING ON AUGUST 31,2022. INDICATES DEPTH WHERE HOLE CAVED. 44/12 50/8 ———— FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. 44/12 FOUNDATION ELEVATION. W C=3.1 F 4,965 200=7 4,965 w w U NOTES: z z O O 1. THE BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON AUGUST 18TH,2022 USING 4-INCH DIAMETER r H > Lj ; CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT AUGERS AND A TRUCK-MOUNTED DRILL RIG. w w 2. BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND WERE DETERMINED BY A "' 4,960 4,960 w REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR FIRM USING A LEICA GS18 GPS UNITREFERENCINGTHENORTHAMERICAN DATUM OF 1983(NAD 83). 3. WC - INDICATES MOISTURE CONTENT(%). DD - INDICATES DRY DENSITY(PCF). SW - INDICATES SWELL WHEN WETTED UNDER APPROXIMATE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE(%). COM- INDICATES COMPRESSION WHEN WETTED UNDER APPROXIMATE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE(%). 4,955 4,955 LL INDICATES LIQUID LIMIT. PI INDICATES PLASTICITY INDEX. -200 - INDICATES PASSING NO.200 SIEVE(%). UC - INDICATES UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH(psf). SS INDICATES WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT(%). 4. THESE LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS,LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS 4,950 4,950 REPORT. 4,945 4,945 4,940 SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 4,940 DENVER RESCUE MISSION C/O SHOPWORKS ARCHITECTURE HIBDON/MASON 24/7 SHELTER FIG.A-3 CTLIT PROJECT NO.FC10520-125-R1 I \ I 23) — \ I — 7_ — — — — — _ — — _ 80 0 80 160 240 Feet tz� I ( IN FLEET) 1 \D-3 1 J $ I I I �IQ 1 inch= 80 ft. � I( I \ —OBSERVED GWEL = 4973.5 ~\� CAV IN ELEV.=4974\ \` � \ i\\A \\� > 00 U 411 CID co U) I I I \ \ \ ( \ \\ I < ., OBSERVED GWEL = 4969.50 CAVE IN ELEV.= 4973.50 \ / / \\\ \ 98 / 9a L 198o D-2 \ I =OBSERVED GWEL = 4968.5 — ____— CAVE INELEV 4973.5 MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE xx.xx.xx FORT COLLINS, CO NORTHERN GROUNDWATER EXHIBIT ENGINEERING C:\USERS\MASON\DESKTOP\GROUNDWATER UHIBIT.DWG USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource -r Department of Cooperative Soil- Survey,Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for N ��� States Department of Agriculture and other Larimer County Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Area, Colorado Conservation Stations, and local Service participants r. Vft •. r i 300 ft September 27, 2023 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres)or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice)or(202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11 MapUnit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado...................................................................... 13 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope............................................... 13 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................14 References............................................................................................................16 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 0 493090 493130 493170 493210 493250 493290 493330 493370 493410 493450 40'36 22"N 40°36 22"N ,y rr A s � _ ao;•s� Soil Map mdy not be valid at this scale. 400 36 14"N ,1._-•_. "..1. �" '� "- -— 40'36 14"N 493090 493130 493170 493210 493250 493290 493330 493370 493410 493450 3 3 Map Scale:1:1,730 if printed on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet a McL-rs N 0 25 50 100 150 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Map projection:Web Mercator Comer coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 13N WGS84 9 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) 1:24,000. Q Stony Spot Soils Very Stony Spot I Soil Map Unit Polygons � Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 1. Wet Spot �s Soil Map Unit Lines Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Other misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil ® Soil Map Unit Points g pp g y Special Line Features line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of Special Point Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed V Blowout Water Features scale. Streams and Canals Borrow Pit Clay Spot Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map x .+. Rails measurements. J Closed Depression ti Interstate Highways Gravel Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service US Routes Web Soil Survey URL: Gravelly Spot Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) O Landfill Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator A Lava Flow Background projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more Mine or Quarry accurate calculations of distance or area are required. O Miscellaneous Water This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as O Perennial Water of the version date(s)listed below. V Rock Outcrop Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area,Colorado + Saline Spot Survey Area Data: Version 17,Sep 7,2022 Sandy Spot Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales Severely Eroded Spot 1:50,000 or larger. 0 Sinkhole Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Jul 2,2021—Aug 25, Slide or Slip 2021 Sodic Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 22 Caruso clay loam,0 to 1 2.4 16.7% percent slope 73 Nunn clay loam,0 to 1 percent 11.9 83.3% slopes Totals for Area of Interest 14.2 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, 11 Custom Soil Resource Report onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Larimer County Area, Colorado 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpvt Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Caruso and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Caruso Setting Landform: Flood-plain steps, stream terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 35 inches: clay loam H2-35 to 44 inches: fine sandy loam H3-44 to 60 inches: gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 48 inches Frequency of flooding: NoneOccasional Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 5w Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: R067BY036CO - Overflow Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Loveland Percent of map unit: 9 percent 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Landform:Terraces Ecological site: R067BY036CO- Overflow Hydric soil rating: Yes Fluvaquents Percent of map unit: 6 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ting Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period. 135 to 152 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2- 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk-26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bk1 -31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2-47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 7 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY042CO- Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Wages Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO- Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 15 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 16 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=n res 142 p 2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf 17 E � NORTHERN APPENDIX STORMWATER ALTERNATIVE COM PLIANCE/VARIANCEAPPLICATION f`\ NORTHERN ENGINEER ING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY APPENDIX DocuSign Envelope ID:5BCA3566-770A-4B9B-BD53-A750F6647E73 Stormwater Alternative Compl ianceNariance Application City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Engineering Section • • Engineer Name Fort Collins Stormwater Engineering and Development Review Phone Street Address 700 Wood Street City Fort Collins State CO Zip 80521 Owner Name City of Fort Collins Phone Street Address City State Zip Section B: Proposed Project Information Project Name Mason Street Infrastructure Project Project/Application Number from Development Review (i.e. FDP123456) FDP230016 Legal description and/or address of property Mason Street Infrastructure subdivision, Lot 1 City Hickory Detention Pond Description of Project Project will expand and enlarge the existing Hickory Pond to an improved interim condition. This will include a formal outlet structure and overflow. Existing Use (check one): F residential (" non-residential (' mixed-use (-0' vacant ground Proposed Use (check one): C-'' residential r non-residential (' mixed-use (- other If non-residential or mixed use, describe in detail City regional detention pond (interim) Section • • State the requirement from which alternative compliance/variance is sought. (Please include applicable Drainage Criteria Manual volume, chapter and section.) Pond overflow spillway sizing - depth and freeboard requirements. (FCSCM Ch 8. Section 3.5) What hardship prevents this site from meeting the requirement? Available space at the downstream end of this pond, adjacent to the ROW, limits the overflow width of the upgraded, but interim, detention pond. The peak inflow rate of 390 cfs (existing condition) or 700-cfs (master plan future condition) would require an excessively long overflow based on the 6-inch flow depth requirement. This pond is also a retro-fit condition to an already developed area. Attach separate sheet if necessary What alternative is proposed for the site? The interim overflow has been sized to convey 390-cfs (exist. condition). Crest will be 60-ft width x 1.6-ft flow depth. There will be zero freeboard above the spillway WSEL within the detention facility. Overflow is not bermed and directs flows to N Mason ROW. Interim detention improvements will reduce the existing flood risk and frequency until the ultimate detention pond is constructed. Attach separate sheet if necessary DocuSign Envelope ID:5BCA3566-770A-4B9B-BD53-A750F6647E73 page 2 The owner agrees to comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance, building code and all other applicable sections of the City Code, Land Use Code, City Plan and all other laws and ordinances affecting the construction and occupancy of the proposed building that are not directly approved by this variance. The owner understands that if this variance is approved, the structure and its occupants may be more susceptible to flood or runoff damage as well as other adverse drainage issues. Signature of owner: City of Fort Collins Stormwater Dept Date: The engineer hereby certifies that the above information, along with the reference plans and project descriptions is correct. Signature of engineer: City of Fort Collins Stormwater Dept. Date: 0 PE STAMP Date complete application submitted: 6/27/24 Date of approval/denial: July 9, 2024 Variance: ❑ approved ❑ denied Staff justification/notes/conditions: Staff Engineer, Matt Simpson, agrees with this variance and has composed this document for approval. The interim pond volume greatly increases protection from flooding in this area. The basin hydrology already bring much of this water here. The overflow is an improvment from existing situation and existing properties on all sides of this facility should have more protection once this is installed. • f1nr ,�jgp-rl�t• Approved L AMA d Entered in UFili�yfileWa&base? Qyes ❑no If you have questions or need assistance filling out forms, contact Fort Collins Utilities at: - • •I v.comlstormwater .il: WaterUtilitiesEng@fcgov.co E � NORTHERN MAP POCKET PROPOSED DRAINAGE EXHIBIT ��� mow!��� ,,�/ :�� ,�,.,,► NORTH ERNENGINEERING.COM 1 970.221.4158 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT:MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTRE FORT COLLINS I GREELEY APPENDIX _1 \ WOOD RONALD G/JENNIFER _ - NORTH104-4 e %_01 WANKIER LANCE L/WILLARD E l \i\I THOMPSON PROPERTIES LLC \ D AND S MOTELS INC T \ 1401 N. COLLEGE AVENUE 122 HIBDON COURT \ 1319 N. COLLEGE AVENUE ) \ 10'UTILITY 1405 N. COLLEGE AVENUE 50 0 50 100 150 Feet ( i FORT COLLINS, CO STORM DRAIN C ' 1 2'CONCRETE ( \ FORT COLLINS, CO _ - 10'UTILITY \ EASEMENT - \ \ I - PAN FORT COLLINS, CO S \ \ EASEMENT BK 1572 PG 321 _ ( IN FEET SEE SHEET 18 i S I �-/ � \4 - / FORT COLLINS, CO ) BK 1572 PG 322 `� - / �w w - - - - - - `� finch= 50ft. G G G G - - - - - - - - - m m G �- 'OTC - - � CTV 4g8 � 8� / I I 30' STORMWATER - 45'ROW _ B3 _ 4978 �� \ I a3 J7 EASEMENT _ / I 45'ROW Ss -498� \ a6 - -BK 1743 PG 632 - 0.32 ac. - - - BK 1743 PG 632 - - I 1 - .. . . .�. .. -. . . b3 HIBDON C-OURT - _HIB ON CT. ONSITE 100-YR 1 - - 97 REQUIRED WSEL o L - Q L _ _ I / (4976.47) � o `0 / r 49g � - 0.41 ac. O / 1 ` o > ±°) I DRAINAGE / I / / ��00D o ) N \ EASEMENT 4983 , ��. 6'UTILITY EASEMENT l 1311 N. COLLEGE LLC \ \ o / 1311 N. COLLEGE VENUE I -/ A`j �� I � PER PLAT OF BREW I -`� / SUB. FIRST FILING l� 00 N l FORT COLLINS, CO -4g8� 4980�\ / \\ / \\ (\ �� II\I\\` - , , �` 0.068ac. ` _ ` \ w00 - - 0.8Gac. `\ I 11311 N. COLLEGE LLC I l l - - s�, g80 \ I I I \ x \ HIBON CT. FORT COLLINS, CO > �- f IF / \ / A4 I I 6'UTILITY / , , I EASEMENT I HICKORY ST. z / 0.40 ac. / I BK 1658 PG 746 y \ ROW AGREEMENT WITH UNION (. •\ \ \ / LOT 3 _ PACIFIC RAILROAD FOR THE \ / , J I 497� - \ - / W PURPOSE OF IRRIGATION DITCH \ f V \ o NTS KEYMAP T I U O C U &IRRIGATION WATER- -_ \ \ \ W O UNSPECIFIED WIDTH BK 813 PG � I \ \ \ I I \ 1 1 QT 2 - - -- 27 TO BE VACATED PER ( / E 6 N W > U LANGUAGE FOUND ON PAGE28 // 1\\ \ \� 1 - - - - -- - - - LEGEND: CTV ATV � I a� � c '� o -o E c W z OF SAID DOCUMENT \\\ \ , - --/ 1 o Z o o o Q U Q U J 1 \\ \- - - - - -- - \ 20'DRAINAGE ' W .I _ \ \ / \ \ 1 -4980 '� F EASEMENT } j O v,W �f ' ~ H YT JOHN R PROPOSED INPROPOSED LET SEWER N oon '` fn T cn O U to R O N 2 ,5; W � i _ \ EASEMENT \ � o o Y = O U / '� L / - - �- J� \ J xF 1307 N. COLLEGE AVENUE 0 `° N - ub b a'�o� � CL 01� �Tv- cT\r r 2 FORT COLLINS, CO W R W PROPOSED CONTOUR 93 _ E2 Z O _� y� 979= _ z - EXISTING CONTOUR - -- -4953- -- - - W _ \� / 4978 _ - � // \4g80 3'POWER LINE EASEMENT TO ��l I � � � PROPOSED SWALE 497�"_ - - _ _ �.�` -�. � � ` \ � Z .> � / ` PROPOSED CURB&GUTTER / < / CITY OF FORT COLLINS 9j _ -- f ` -- - _ \ , \ F I - \ / J \ ¢ _ � � 1 'UTILITY EASEMENT BK 1475 PG 941 i \\ - - _ ALU \\ (f) BK 1658 PG 746 z AZJj ^\ \\\ \ O \\ ✓ \ I / PROPOSED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE / A� / a2 - \ \\\� Z \ \ \ / ( - PROPERTY BOUNDARY _ I 1.32 ac. ,u DESIGN POINT LLI \ / LL1 -W A5 \ B5 / / FLOW ARROW 4a \ I LOT / / / �,� Z 0.13 ac. I / , 0.64 ac. / \� I PROPOSED NATURAL / I I / I / \ % STORM DRAIN B �\ GRATITUDE LLC BASIN Z / I HABITAT BUFFER ZONE / HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND I I A7 \\\ / SEE SHEET 19 DESIGNATION ( I (INTERIM) I 0.23 ac. \ \ \ \ 1303 N. COLLEGE AVENUE DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL (j4BASIN FORT COLLINS, CO AREA (AC) �t J REQUIRED VOLUME= 2.06 AC.FT. n / \ \ b5 _ \ / < \/ REQUIRED WSEL =4976.47 �7 * \ 19 �� `` 4'CURB CUT& _ I / DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY b' 1 1 SIDEWALK CHASE a7 B4 j WATER QUALITY VOLUME = 9,346 CU.FT. \ 1 \\ \ \ 0.35 ac. _ _ - - \ / z PROPOSED SWALE SECTION A WATER QUALITY WSEL =4975.27 ` �\ � � \\ SWALE _ / -./\ \- __ IE PROVIDED VOLUME = 9.99 C.FT. \� \ // J I / B 98 / I / �\ EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PATH z 60' DRAINAGE \ 0.06 ac. \ / / EASEMENT / / GRAVEL GEOGRID 000000- $ / 9 \ 0.09 ac. TURF REINFORCEMENT (TMAX) � ONSITE 100-YR ` 4g79- 8 \ z 4978 1030 GQ. FT.of \ \ \ _ \I N i REQUIRED WSEL \ ( x \ _ - \ z F (4976.47) -4977, �9 TMAX \ v` / / \ any. 4976\ a1 \ b6 \` �_ \ NOTES: N wL0 z_ / \ WATER QUALITY OUTLET pa b7 \ \ \ \ �I / 1. REFER TO THE FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT,DATED AUGUST 21,2024 FOR ADDITIONAL Q 00 v- - STRUCTURE WITH is.aa \ \ \ \\ I / INFORMATION. N m RESTRICTOR PLATE / \ \ I HAINES BRANDON KUHRT95 2. THE VOLUME SHOWN FOR THE INTERIM HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND DO 60'EMERGENCY \ NOT ACCOUNT FOR OFFSITE RUNOFF.THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS IS RESPONSIBLE m 4978 o°o°° SPILLWAY / \ I N. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT 1 FOR THE ANALYSIS OF OFFSITE BASINS AND THE ULTIMATE DESIGN OF THE o w m w 4979 10'UTILITY �8 \ \� COLLINS, CO - HICKORY REGIONAL DETENTION POND. -o w m Co 498 4980UJ ALIGNMENT 8o pp Qp� , o \\ 1 / _ // W z z - - - - - - \ - - - - - - - - _ _ - 9 ° � _- - - i LL O� NW Q� C1 - - - - _ ° ° ° o°ono ° ` \ ► \ _ _ SWALE SECTIONS o\ O / J 0.86ac• 1- -- o.epo 0 000000 1 \ - \- - -- - - - 0 \� - / \� � i I\ - � - �- - 'Em MIN. TW (FT) i 7 O i EXISTING 20' _ \ -\ - - / - W OH r - 53.5'PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR WATERLINE - LU ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION LINE I I ALIGNMENT 4222 SQ. FT.of - T RM DRAIN A - _ SEE SHEET 16 -� S� MIN. D TMAX \ - �� \_ L - W S7 I (FT) BK 923 PG 282 - 20'UTILITY EASEMENT \ \� II �\ \ z � 3-- - - - - PER VALLEY STEEL& \ \ \ �� - - - -- - _ - o �- --i - -- --- --- �_ WIRE SUBDIVISION PLAT \ -- �_ /� xl I \ U MIN. BW (FT) _ � � W UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD I - -�\\, I LDINGS < 1235N. COLLE AND S GE AVENUE E NCFS LLC I I ___,\/ FORT COLLINS, CO SWALE SUMMARY TABLE 0 300 HICKORY STREET 30'UPRR TRACK EASEMENT `� ��/ I SWALE ID MIN D MIN TW MIN BW S1 S2 U BK 2027 PG 988 17 I 1 I x A 1 10 2 4 4 FORT COLLINS, CO / a � REC. NO.98091992 � I B 1 8 0 4 4 M N REC.NO.20060019203 I W Cq Q 0 o QR INC. _ - _ - - _ _ in p \ QR INC. 200 HICKORY STREET I \ Q X 280 HICKORY STREET FORT COLLINS, CO I j I J/ W w FORT COLLINS, CO Interim Hickory Regional Detention Pond Volume (\ U_ Z �.�..� Contour Contour Surface Area Cummalitive Volume /� I ` (A I I I Z 15 �, E I Elev. I `- (ft2) cu. ft. acre ft I Z 3 0 4,974.80 125 0 0.0 , - _ -�/ \d 0 4,975.00 3,010 313 0.0 " I W Q N 4,976.00 60,990 32313 0.7 - W Z g 4,977.00 171,880 148749 3.4 ` w 4,978.00 221,264 345321 7.9 4,978.40 226,940 434961 10.0 a DEVELOPED DRAINAGE SUMMARY �I I x Z 0 Total 2-Yr Tc 100-Yr Q2 Q100 N Design Basin ID Area C2 C100 >5 Point (acres) (min) Tc (min) (cfs) (cfs) - _ /_ � FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION N o a1 Al 6.985 0.20 0.25 16.67 16.67 2.49 10.83 - - - x x x J - - - a3 A3 0.411 0.86 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.01 14.09 �- _ ii s o a A4 0.396 0.86 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.97 3.94 HICKORY STREET STORM DRAIN A a5 A5 0.644 0.87 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.59 6.41 0 - I CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF a6 A6 0.175 0.77 0.96 5.00 5.00 0.38 1.68 - - - - - ft" - COLORADO SEE SHEET 16 a A7 0.234 0.84 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.56 2.33 jz a 30'EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES O I b1 B1 1.392 0.87 1.00 8.99 8.99 286 13.85 i i BK 1143 PG 187 _ b2 B 2 0.081 0.95 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.22 0.80 - - - - - - -�- - _ w�/ W Z (EXCEPTION PARCEL PIB FCIF25205400) `` / \ - - - -- U) /- Q a b3 B3 0.315 0.69 0.86 5.00 5.00 0.62 2.69 - - - / b4 B4 0.346 0.23 0.29 5,00 5.00 0.23 1.00 W Sheet J W Z b5 B5 0.134 0.95 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.36 1.33 z I Knowwhat'sbelOW. a _ b6 B6 0.057 1 0.95 1 1.00 5.00 5.00 0.15 0.56 = \ 1 EXISTING J Call before you dig. DR1 b 7 37 0.092 0.79 D.9 8 5.00 5.00 0.21 0.90 I L 36"PIPE J CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU c 1 C 1 0.864 0.29 0.36 7.61 7.61 0.61 2.83 Q / � O DIG,GRADE,OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF - �" I U UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. �I ' 41 of 42 I � i , WOOD RONALD G/JENNIFER THOMPSON PROPERTIES LLC WANKIER LANCE U WILLARD E D AND S MOTELS INC 1401 N. COLLEGE AVENUE 122 HIBDON COURT PROPOSED 1319 N. COLLEGE AVENUE 1405 N. COLLEGE AVENUE j FORT COLLINS, CO 5 1 FORT COLLINS CO WATER CAP FORT COLLINS, CO 10'UTILITY SS I EASEMENT FORT COLLINS, CO I BK 1572 PG 322 NORTH O RTH — � SSMH A7(5'fll)— � vd — x — �— (' G G G ® ® CTV—CT - 50 0 50 100 150 Feet 30'STORMWATER& STUB A8 — — — - - - UTILITY EASEMENT (IN FEET) x SS 12"SS _ 45'ROW TmElo.,cc 1 inch= 50 ft. 81 W BK 1743 PG 632 a N HIBDON COURT i R.O.W AGREEMENT WITH UNION PACIFIC - I RAILROAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF IRRIGATION I _ DITCH&IRRIGATION WATER UNSPECIFIED , EXISTING STORM —� - I WIDTH BK 813 PG 27 INLET x TO BE VACATED PER LANGUAGE FOUND - 20 EMERGENCY 8 EXISTING EXISTING FIRE I —HIBDON ON PAGE 28 OF SAID DOCUMENT CT. l J DRAINAGE ACCESS EASEMENT I HYDRANT I Io EASEMENT ~ SANITARY SEWER i I _ STREET LIGHT m. 6' 6'UTILITY EASEMENT - w CONNECT TO > 1311 N. COLLEGE LLC i &SINGLE PHASE TRANSFORMER EXISTING 8" � PER PLAT OF BREW WATER LINE EXISTING SUB. FIRST FILING I 1311 N. COLLEGE AVENUE 2"FL-FL WATERLINE I' FORT COLLINS, CO _ x - 9'UTILITY EASEMENT L 1311 N. COLLEGE LLC \ LOT 2 71'Row HIBON CT. o .� I FORT COLLINS, CO �-10 J I w I LOT 3 I —� \ -9 UTILITY EASEMENT 20'UTILITY E — — I I I -� EASEMENT PER 6'UTILITY Tlt x \ N PLAT OF BREW SUB. SSMH A6 EASEMENT BK 1658 PG 746 I I FIRST FILING 2"METER PIT I I =p / W w ULTIMATE MASON STREET ww \ I EXISTING STORM - CONVEYANCE PIPE W OU \ ' (CONCEPTUAL 91"X58"HERCP) DRAIN Cam - - HICKORY ST. 1 - - - - Q � J x 1 LL N - 1 I I x RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT ®NTS KEYMAP _ TIE INTO EXISTING \ 6"FIRE SERVICE `-' BK 929 PG 30 J J ELECTRIC LINE Z N \ 10'UTILITY EASEMENT 20'DRAINAGE WIDTH VARIES W J O \ EASEMENT ( ) HOYT JOHN R U I_ 3 PHASE ELECTRIC BOX -1 x 1307 N. COLLEGE AVENUE LEGEND: FORT COLLINS, CO z - \ m 3 ATV 3 r� 3 C. z_ � 3 PROPOSED WATER MAIN F�I � LL — ern —_ MONITORING WELL - - - - - - - - - EXISTING WATER MAIN W CO 3'POWER LINE EASEMENT TO SSMH A5 EXISTING 10' CITY OF FORT COLLINS j STREET LIGHT PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER m BK 1475 PG 941 &SINGLE PHASE TRANSFORMER \ ` y 9 ," U BIKI 58 PG 746EASEMENT EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SS 5.32' 10' CID ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE S \ \ (BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT) U) EXISTING 12" PROPOSED WATER SERVICE W d, SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT Ak I 110'UTILITY \ EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT -m -_-10'UTILITY ALIGNMENT I EASEMENT o � I r'= SSMH A4 PROPOSED STORM SEWER LOT 1 o NcA EXISTING STORM SEWER HICKORY REGIONAL EXISTING TELEPHONE T DETENTION POND ✓ GRATITUDE LLC EXISTING GAS G I 1 6"SANITARY 5 1303 N. COLLEGE AVENUE SERVICE R RA TA G, 31 FORT COLLINS, CO EXISTING CABLE CTV ml I I MI I I=I I=I I=I I=I I=I I=I I=I I=I IIMI I I=III IIINI I= IIIM I I MI 1 1IMI I I=I I 1 I I t I I 11 t I I w// 1� ��P PROPOSED CURB &GUTTER 061 �P PROPERTY BOUNDARY RELOCATED ELECTRIC LINE 'r ` STREET LIGHT, J) PROPOSED LOT LINE - - - - PROPOSED NATURAL &SINGLE PHASE TRANSFORMER EXISTING LOT LINE - - - - i HABITAT BUFFER ZONE " lz \ PROPOSED ROW — — m 24'EMERGENCY CURB CUT AND SSMHlA33 ^\ ACCESS EASEMENT 60'DRAINAGE SIDEWALK CHASE � \ `� q EXISTING EXISTING ROW — — EASEMENT � / `Ss CULVERT n PROPOSED NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE �/ 3/4"IRRIGATION 20'IRRIGATION DITCH M I lz METER \ \ EASEMENT LINE EASEMENT / 42"FL-FL BK 1429 PG 750 PROPOSED STORM INLET PROPOSED STREET LIGHT # 71'ROW ��, 30'NON-EXCLUSIVE ROADWAY/ACCESS EASEMENT EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ss \ LOT LINE — — \\ BK 2125 PG 1500 n \ \ 10'ROW PSC EASEMENT HAINES BRANDON KUHRT ULTIMATE MASON STREET BK 1430 PG 930 MONITORING WELL 1295 N. COLLEGE AVENUE CONVEYANCE PIPE FIRE HYDRANT MmI n — (CONCEPTUAL 91"X58"HERCP) � � ss � FORT COLLINS, co FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW ONLY n n 10'UTILITY n n n n n \ \ EASEMENT SWITCH CABINET If\ BK 1429 PG 750 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (TO BE COORDINATED WITH CITY OF �8 18.5'SANITARY SEWER ��,, " SANITARY SEWER AND FORT COLLINS LIGHT AND POWER) EXISTING 6'UTILITY I I s AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY m EXISTING AIR RELEASE ALIGNMENT —� �- \ \ `S BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT VALVE EXISTING 36"WATER EXISTING 20'WATERLINE 15'GRAVEL \ \I I SEPARATE DOCUMENT —LINE 10'UTILITY ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT GEOGRID ROAD \ L ACCESS ROAD � 20'UTILITY EASEMENT E E E E E E E I I X PER MUSTANG E E E 12'GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD E E E E E \�\ 12" SUBDIVISION SSMH A2 _SSMH Al sc / — — �� _ W _ 1�y� _ ® W W vv N N yy yy \ / OH OH OHl STREET LIGHT EX SSMH AO \gyp OH 53.5'PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR I I &SINGLE PHASE TRANSFORMER — ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION LINE BK 923 PG 282 I 10' NY \— I— �— SWITCH CABINET EASEMEEMENTT B BY \ SEPARATE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD \ DOCUMENT 20'UTILITY EASEMENT — PER VALLEY STEEL& \ �, 1 10'UTILITY WIRE SUBDIVISION PLAT EASEMENT PER 30'UPRR TRACK EASEMENT TRI-CO SUBDIVISION BK 2027 PG 988 I REC. NO.98091992 x REC.NO.20060019203 I EXISTING 12" QR INC. I I I SANITARY SEWER 1 QR INC. 200 HICKORY STREET °° I - - - - - - - \ NCFS LLC I FORT COLLINS, CO 71'Row 280 HICKORY STREET � 300 HICKORY STREET FORT COLLINS, Co (DOCUMENT)BY E I FORT COLLINS, CO R AND S HOLDINGS 8' I 17' 1235 N. COLLEGE AVENUE I FORT COLLINS, CO FUTURE 42UJI ' x W ULTIMATE HICKORY POND OUTFALL PIPE U) (CONCEPTUAL 60"X38"HERCP) O I x Z - - - - - - _ x x x SS . — — HICKORY STREET . — 30'EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES BK 1143 PG 187 (EXCEPTION PARCEL PIB FCIF25205400) EXISTING 8"WATER CONNECT TO MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTING 8" WATER LINE I FORT COLLINS , CO m j / I I - NORTH 30 0 30 60 90 Feet 6"FIRE SERVICE I I (IN FEET) i I LOT 2 2"WATER SERVICE \ I 1 inch- 30 ft. m ,� j I 11.25° BEND 1 F \ I WOOD RONALD G/JENNIFER STA 14+05.09 L/WILLARD E - _ _ - I N: 137791.57 \ 122 HIBDON COURT ' / F w E: 194244.64 I FORT COLLINS, CO \ 179.75 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.20% HI bQN CT. 104.20 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.209/ JUNCTION1E I \ \ \ STA 13+00.89 `�� N: 137690.01 X -E-- E E L� \ E: 194267.98 �i ' E -� ` O Q�o m LOT 1 \ \ E . . . 98.95 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.20% `� 8„W 8"W 8"W 8"W 8^ - - - E - - - - - - i 11.25° BEND 1 D \ \ \ / . - 71'Row 10.0' STA 12+01.94 . . a"`N + 15+00 16+00 16+39 N: 137599.65 \ I E: 194308.31 \ 6"SANITARY SERVICE �� � �- $„ 10.0' m \ i' 8.0' 29.68 LF 91"X58"HERCP 0 20% s J s IZ� SS„z S.,ZI SS..Z[ Ss„ t _ @ N - ` JUNCTION1C .. -. . . - . .. -. . . - . .. -. . . \ STA 11+72.25 9.5 ss"zv _ - HICKORY ST. - - N: 137575.39 $\ / `N - - - - - E: 194325.41 ,- 10.0' ♦ SS„Zb E - \ ® KEYMAP I N S m I I 27.18 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.20°/ 72.05 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.20°/ \�\ $ 5 ,� € I vi EXISTING FIRE I y I� LEGEND. .i ,Lx 8.7' ss 2 AP.SO p / HYDRANT m � HEADWALL 1A � � Q PROPOSED WATER MAIN 41 w / 31.18 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.40% EXISTING WATER MAIN STA 10+ 3 N: 137482.182.18 / <c" .• 10.0' 10.4' c,1'� STMH 1 E-1 � N PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER 00 E: 194328.75 / g / ' / INV.OUT=4976.68(SW) EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ss I- + 0 / / o FG=4980.12 /'/ /.•• � I � ® PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT � EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 55 w I PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER 4.0' :r I� I -PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY cc, �. / ENCROACHMENT I 45'ROW EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY - - / B 1743 PG 632 EASEMENT(BY K PROPOSED CURB&GUTTER 71'ROW SEPARATE DOCUMENT) - f THOMPSON PROPERTIES LLC PROJECT BOUNDARY = PROPOSED LOT LINE LOT 3 i I W 1319 N. COLLEGE AVENUE - - - - FORT COLLINS, CO EASEMENT LINE EXISTING I / • / / CULVERT 20.20 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 1.00% z PROPOSED STORM INLET INLET 1C-1 I w EXISTING 0 �I �I • / / / INV.OUT=4975.86(SW) WATERLINE O g FG=4980.18 / I FOR REVIEW ONLY 26'ACCESS k / .• � EASEMENT 45° BEND 16 I� SANITARY SEWER STA 11+45.08 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION N: 137553.17 w E: 194341.06 I / z C, j i ULTIMATE STORM DRAIN 1 PROFILE SCALE: HORIZ. 1"=30' VERT. 1"=5' �� a §.0 W.� in 4990 _ Z Z Z.o Z-� Z Z-� Z 4990 _M .V _W _C' { _O Q Z � c� rncflM � M MCD _4 � c�i M 0] W -M-� CO r c W -M l0 P. ..� O.� J.O.O � tI M.d7 N +bM � W +I M-m W +I- co-D) +I N-m J.(h.(V lt)CD-I� V Z N N I� � V Z c- CD I� V Z O D)(- - V Z..� °D�.V QtiM ❑ �o6 O + ornrn � W o6rn.zT � �orrnrn � Wo �rn � �.o rn W..�rn.Z. H 01 Z. N rn.Z. H< rn.Z Z. rn.Z o -� m �_ o � � �_ _ o �, � �_ o �� �_ _ o �, � �- o EXISTING GROUND Q.Q.> Qom__> > ZQ �> > > �! Q._ 2 ZQ �_> >_> NQ �_>_> W ~Z I,_ ZZ � ~ ZZZ ~ ZZ �~ ZZZ ~ ZZ 4985 � v,�__ � u, �_ __ - v,�_ _ �u, �_ __ �u, �__ @PIPE CENTERLINE 4985 PROPOSED GROUND @ PIPE CENTERLINE 4980 2-FT COVER 1.5-FT COVER - 4980 2-FT COVER - 98.95 LF 91"X58"H RCP @ 0.20% 4975 72.05 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.20% 4975 104.20 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.20% 179.75 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.20% 0.48-FT 4970 27.18 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.20°/ 6"PVC SANITARY 4970 w/12"STEEL CASING PIPE 10FT EACH SIDE OF CROSSING STA.=12+14.69 FUTURE GROUND 29.68 LF 91"X58"HERCP @ 0.20°/ INV.=4972.25 @ PIPE CENTERLINE 4965 4965 49601 4960 9+50 10+00 11 +00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 16+50 MASON STREET INFRASTRUCTURE FORT COLLINS , CO win NORTH ERN ENGINEERING P:\1971-001\DWG\SHEETS-MASON STREET\DRAI NAG E\1971-001 ULT STRM 1 EXHIBIT MASON STREET.DWG