Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReports - Drainage - 12/04/2024 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT SWC Drake/College Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: KRF Drake, LLC 1509 York St, Suite 201 Denver, CO 80206 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 3325 South Timberline Road - Suite 130 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 822-7911 Ki Hey>>> Horn Project#:096315014 Prepared: December 4,2024 December 4, 2024 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Engineering 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: SWC Drake/College Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Dear Reviewer: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your review as part of the Basic Development Review (BDR) submittal for the above referenced project. This report and attached drainage plans have been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual ("FCSCM") and the latest Mile High Flood District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual ("USDCM"). These documents serve to document stormwater impacts associated with the proposed SWC Drake/College Project. We understand the review by the City of Fort Collins is to ensure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM and USDCM. Please contact us with any questions or concerns. Thank You, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Bryce Willaby, P.E. TimberlineCO 80525 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report SWC Drake/College — Fort Collins, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISITING SITE INFORMATION...............................1 II. MASTER DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION ......................................................2 IV. FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION .............................................................................3 V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................3 VII. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES..................................................................5 VIII. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA........................................................................7 IX. VARIANCE REQUESTS .......................................................................................8 X. EROSION CONTROL ...........................................................................................8 XI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................8 X. REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................9 APPENDIX A—REFERENCED CRITERIA.............................................................................. APPENDIX B—HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS AND EXHIBITS ................................................ APPENDIX C—HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS........................................................................ Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report SWC Drake/College — Fort Collins, Colorado I. GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISITING SITE INFORMATION SWC Drake/College (the "Project") is located in the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 67 North, Range 69 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, State of Colorado. The property is generally bounded by McClelland Drive to the West, West Thunderbird Drive to the South, West Drake Road to the North and South College Avenue to the East. A Vicinity Map is shown below in Figure 1. 0 SITE D . B ®B W.THUNDERBIRD DR. O Wy O Q U I Figure 1: Vicinity Map Surrounding properties include an existing furniture store to the southeast, offices to the west, and commercial retail developments to the south, east, and north. The King Soopers development to the north is currently under construction. The property currently consists of several buildings and a paved parking lot. The Project site is located within the General Commercial (GC) Zone District. The Project is located within the Foothills Basin, see copy of the City of Fort Collins Drainage Basins image included in Appendix A. The master basin is discussed in more detail below. The existing site drains from the west to the east to storm inlets located along S College Ave. The existing parking lot generally slopes from west to east with slopes ranging from 0 to 4 percent. There are no known existing irrigation facilities within the site. A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for the project area was obtained to determine the soil characteristics of the site. The results of this study show that the majority of the site consists of hydrologic soil group (HSG) Type C with soil that includes Nunn clay loam. Therefore, HSG Type C soils were assumed for the entirety of the site for hydrologic calculations. A copy of the Custom Soil Resource Report is provided in Appendix A. 1 1 P a g e Kimley>>>Horn Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report SWC Drake/College — Fort Collins, Colorado A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation dated July 27, 2018, was prepared by Soilogic, Inc. There are no known significant geologic features at this site. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 11'/z to 15 feet below the existing ground surface in the boring test holes. Groundwater levels will not likely affect planned development at this site. Additional information for the Geotechnical report can be found within Appendix A. II. MASTER DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION As noted above, the project is located in the City of Fort Collins Foothills Master Drainage Basin. This basin has a maximum allowable release rate of the 2-yr historic discharge rate. A map of the Foothills Basin is included in Appendix A. No detention is needed as a result. The Water Quality and low impact development(LID) requirements for the Foothills Basin follows FCSCM, which are outlined in the Drainage Design Criteria section of the report. No master drainage reports exist for the Project site. The Project proposes the removal of the existing buildings and paved parking lot. There are no known irrigation facilities that are influenced by the local drainage. The project is designed to provide LID and water quality treatment for the proposed roadway improvements. The drainage is planned to follow historic drainage patterns, where it will connect to a storm sewer located within S. College Avenue. There is a capital improvement project along W. Drake Road and S. College Ave currently in the design process and being completed by the City of Fort Collins. These improvements include improving an existing storm sewer that is currently undersized within S. College Avenue. III. EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE Historically, the site drains from west to east, towards an existing public storm inlet along S. College Avenue. The existing sub-basin descriptions are included below. The rational calculations within Appendix B include areas, imperviousness, and other applicable information. Sub-basin EX-A: The northwestern portion of the site, Sub-basin EX-A, slopes east from 1% to 5% and drains along W. Drake Road located north of the Project. The drainage follows the curb and gutter within W. Drake Road until it enters public storm sewer located along S. College Avenue. Basin EX-A is comprised of Type C soils as classified by the NRCS. Sub-basin EX-B: The southwestern portion of the site, Sub-basin EX-B, slopes east from 1% to 5% and drains along W. Thunderbird Road located south of the Project. The drainage follows the curb and gutter within W.Thunderbird Road until it enters public storm sewer located along S. College Avenue. Basin EX-B is comprised of Type C soils as classified by the NRCS. Sub-basin EX-C: The east portion of the site, Sub-basin EX-C, slopes northeast from 1% to 5% and drains to along S. College Avenue located to the east of the Project. The drainage follows the curb and gutter within S. College Avenue until it enters public storm sewer located along S. College Avenue. Basin EX-C is comprised of Type C soils as classified by the NRCS. 2 1 P a g e Kimley>>>Horn Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report SWC Drake/College — Fort Collins, Colorado IV. FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION The SWC Drake/College site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 08069C0987G dated May 2, 2012, and lies within Zone X. Zone X is defined as areas of minimal flood hazard and determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. A copy of the FEMA FIRMette is included in Appendix A. Additionally, the Project is not located within any City of Fort Collins floodplains. A copy of the City of Fort Collins Flood Map is included in Appendix A. V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is proposing to develop the +/- 6.27 acre site to include road and utility improvements that will support four (4) future commercial pad sites. Note that the existing site consists almost entirely of impervious area. The project will provide LID and water quality treatment for the roadway improvements, while each respective future lot is anticipated to provide separate LID and water quality treatment. Vl. PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS The proposed sub-basin descriptions are included below. Note that the calculations of the future lots assume an imperviousness of 80%. The sub-basin R1 also include the anticipated 12' future sidewalk along the western side of Local Access Road B. The rational calculations within Appendix B include areas, imperviousness, and other applicable information. Sub-basin 1A: Sub-basin 1A is located at the northeastern corner of the site and consists of future commercial lot 1. At full buildout, the drainage is anticipated to flow east where it will be collected and routed to a future storm manhole within the private storm trunk line located at design point 1A. The drainage will be conveyed into the proposed private storm line before discharging into the existing public storm sewer within S. College Avenue. Sub-basin 1 B: Sub-basin 113 is located at the northeastern corner of the site and consists of future commercial lot 1. At full buildout, the drainage is anticipated to flow northeast where it will be drain off-site to curb and gutter along W. Drake Road. The drainage is then collected within existing public storm inlets along S. College Ave. Sub-basin 2A: Sub-basin 2A is located at the southeastern corner of the site and consists of future commercial lot 2. At full buildout, the drainage is anticipated to flow east where it will be collected and routed to a future storm manhole within the private storm trunk line located at design point 2A. The drainage will be conveyed into the proposed private storm line before discharging into the existing public storm sewer within S. College Avenue. Sub-basin 213: Sub-basin 213 is located at the southeastern corner of the site and consists of future commercial lot 2. At full buildout, the drainage is anticipated to flow southeast where it will drain off-site to curb and gutter along S. College Avenue. This drainage is then collected within existing public storm inlets along S. College Ave. 3 1 P a g e Kimley>>>Horn Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report SWC Drake/College — Fort Collins, Colorado Sub-basin 3A: Sub-basin 3A is located at the northwestern corner of the site and consists of future commercial lot 3. At full buildout, the drainage is anticipated to flow southeast where it will be collected and routed to a proposed storm manhole located at design point 3A. The drainage will be conveyed into the proposed private storm line before discharging into the existing public storm sewer within S. College Avenue. Sub-basin 3113: Sub-basin 3B is located at the northeastern corner of the site and consists of future commercial lot 3. At full buildout, the drainage is anticipated to flow northeast where it will be drain off-site to curb and gutter along W. Drake Road. The drainage is then collected within existing public storm inlets along S. College Ave. Sub-basin 4A: Sub-basin 4A is located at the southwestern corner of the site and consists of future commercial lot 4. At full buildout, the drainage is anticipated to flow northeast where it will be collected and routed to a proposed storm manhole located at design point 4A. The drainage will be conveyed into the proposed private storm line before discharging into the existing public storm sewer within S. College Avenue. Sub-basin 4113: Sub-basin 4B is located at the southwestern corner of the site and consists of future commercial lot 4. At full buildout, the drainage is anticipated to flow southeast where it will drain off-site to existing curb and gutter within W. Thunderbird Drive and then S. College Ave. This drainage is then collected within existing public storm inlets along S. College Ave. Sub-basin R1: Sub-basin R1 is located within the center of the site and consists of Local Access Road B and a portion of Local Access Road A. The drainage is conveyed via curb and gutter until it is collected at a proposed single combination inlet at design point R1. The drainage is then routed to the isolator rows within the underground system. The Water Quality Storm event will be treated, and the excess drainage will stage within a bypass structure where it will flow into the proposed private storm line located north of the chamber system before discharging into the existing public storm sewer within S. College Avenue. Sub-basin R2: Sub-basin R2 is located at the southeastern portion of the site and consists of Local Access Road A. The drainage is conveyed via curb and gutter until it is collected at a proposed single combination inlet at design point R2. The drainage is then routed to the isolator rows within the underground system. The Water Quality Storm event will be treated and runoff from larger storm events will stage within a bypass structure where it will flow into the proposed private storm line located north of the chamber system before discharging into the existing public storm sewer within S. College Avenue. Sub-basin OS-1: Sub-basin OS-1 is located at the north central portion of the site and consists of Local Access Road A. The drainage is conveyed via curb and gutter within the site until it is routed along existing curb and gutter within W. Drake Road. The drainage is then collected within existing public storm inlets along S. College Ave. 4 1 P a g e Kimley>>>Horn Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report SWC Drake/College — Fort Collins, Colorado Sub-basin OS-2: Sub-basin OS-2 is located at the south-central portion of the site and consists of Local Access Road A. The drainage is conveyed via curb and gutter within the site until it is routed along existing curb and gutter within W. Thunderbird Drive and then S. College Ave. This drainage is collected within existing public storm inlets along S. College Ave. Sub-basin OS-3: Sub-basin OS-3 is located at the southeastern corner of the site and consists of Local Access Road B. The drainage is conveyed via curb and gutter within the site until it is routed along existing curb and gutter within S. College Ave. This drainage is collected within existing public storm inlets along S. College Ave. Sub-basin OS-4: Sub-basin OS-4 is located at the eastern portion of the site existing landscape area. The drainage sheet flows east towards S. College Avenue until it is routed along existing curb and gutter within S. College Ave. This drainage is collected within existing public storm inlets along S. College Ave. VI I. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES Proposed Site Description Site grading is designed to convey the proposed roadway drainage to proposed storm inlets (located at design points R1 and R2) that discharge into the underground storm chamber system ("underground system") via private storm sewer. The Project proposes using ADS SC-800 Stormtech chambers, and an updated configuration will be provided in the next submittal once site layout has been reviewed by City Staff. Proposed Detention Facilities As noted above, the Foothills Basin limits the allowable release rate to the 2-yr historic discharge rate. City of Fort Collins policy also allows for existing impervious areas to be grandfathered into the allowable release rate when determining the required detention for a project. In the case of this project, the entire existing site is impervious, and the final development will actually see a reduction in overall imperviousness. As a result, no detention is required. Note that the proposed impervious areas assume 80% impervious for the future lots at full-build out. Existing and proposed impervious exhibits were used to calculate the impervious areas for each condition. These exhibits are included within Appendix B. This reduction is summarized in Table 1 below. Area Summary Project Area 6.27 AC Existing Impervious Area 6.18 AC Proposed Impervious Area 4.84 AC Change in Impervious Area 1.34 AC Reduction Table 1: Impervious Area Summary 5 1 P a g e Kimley>>>Horn Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report SWC Drake/College — Fort Collins, Colorado Proposed LID and Water Quality Treatment This LID system will also provide water quality treatment for the proposed roadway drainage. The underground system outflow discharges to a private storm trunk line that is aligned between the proposed property lines for Lots 1 and 2. This private storm sewer connects to the 15" public storm sewer along S College Ave located to the east of the Site. Each future lot will be responsible for LID and water quality treatment before being routed to the private storm sewer system that discharges into the public storm sewer along S College Ave. Additionally, a 5 minute time of concentration was utilized for the future lots to show the worst case scenario for peak runoff for storm sizing. The private storm sewer connection is limited to an 18" storm sewer due to existing grades within S. College Avenue. As a result, an overflow inlet structure upstream will be designed to allow the excess staging for overflow between the total flow required for the 100-YR event and the 18" storm sewer capacity. This flow will overflow through the overflow inlet structure opening towards S. College Avenue. The hydraulic calculations for the storm sewer, inlet, bypass structure, and the overflow inlet structure weir calculation will be as a part of Appendix C in the next submittal after site layout is verified with City staff. Minor flows and major flows within the proposed roadway will be conveyed via the street curb and gutter prior to entering storm inlets located in the roadway. Street conveyance will be minimized wherever possible and will be designed to maintain access for emergency vehicles. Meanwhile, the Minor and Major flows of the proposed future lots will be conveyed via the private storm sewer trunk line. A bypass storm structure is proposed prior to the underground system to provide overflow for the roadway drainage that exceeds the water quality event. LID is required to treat 75% of all newly added or modified impervious area based on FCSCM Section 2.3.7. These impervious areas are depicted within the Proposed Impervious Exhibit as a part of Appendix B. Note that the roadway drainage for sub-basins R1 and R2 will route to an underground system that will serve as a LID treatment and provide water quality treatment. This drainage area of 21,287 square feet exceeds the required LID amount. The Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for the developed site was calculated using equation 7-1 in the FCSCM. A 12-hour drain time based on Equation 7-1 and Table 5.1-1 was used to determine the minimum required WQCV for the area draining to the underground system. Table 2 shows the required and provided water quality and LID volumes for the proposed roadway improvements. See calculations included in Appendix B. 61 Kimley>Morn Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report SWC Drake/College — Fort Collins, Colorado Water Quality and LID Values Impervious Area for Proposed Roadway Improvements 26,709 SF Required LID 20,032 SF Impervious Area Provided LID Impervious Area 21,287 SF (Captured Area of Sub-basins R1 and 112 Required Water Quality Volume 948 CF Provided Water Quality Volume 972 CF Table 2: Water Quality and LID Summary The site consisted of predominately impervious surface that received no detention or water quality prior to leaving the site and entering the existing storm inlets within S. College Avenue. As a result, the drainage runoff for the proposed perimeter sidewalk, outside of the proposed right-of-way will not be attenuated but will receive water quality treatment through the vegetative buffer along the proposed parkway before entering the existing storm inlets within S. College Avenue. The underground system and isolator rows were sized according to the FCSTM and the associated calculations are included within Appendix B. Additionally, isolator rows will be installed where the private storm enters the underground system. A drainage easement encompassing the entire footprint of the underground system and private storm lines will be dedicated to the City of Fort Collins. The proposed underground system is placed in a location such that it is accessible for inspections and maintenance. Vill. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA The Project was designed to conform to the requirements outlined in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) and the latest Mile High Flood District (MHFD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM). A Four Step Process was implemented for the drainage design and protection of receiving water bodies: Step 1 - Runoff Reduction Practices Runoff is routed through vegetated buffers via sheet flow wherever reasonably possible to increase time of concentration and promote infiltration. By Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious Areas (MDCIA), peak runoff volumes and pollutant loads are reduced. Step 2— Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to treat the WQCV A LID underground system is proposed that will provide treatment for the WQCV with slow release and/or infiltration. Step 3— Stabilizing Streams Stream stabilization was considered but not implemented due to open channels being minimized for site accessibility. Step 4— Implementing Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs 7 1 P a g e Kimley>>>Horn Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report SWC Drake/College — Fort Collins, Colorado Site specific controls that will be implemented include locating material storage away from storm drainage facilities and installing construction fencing around the existing regional pond to protect areas that should not be compacted or disturbed. The Rational Method was used for all subbasins with areas less than 90 acres. Per the FCSCM, the storm frequencies used to analyze the drainage design were the 2-year and the 100-year storms.The FCSCM Tables 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3 were utilized to determine the stormwater runoff coefficients. Rainfall intensities used for the rational calculations were obtained from Table 3.4-1 in the FCSCM. Rainfall depths are shown in Table 3 below. One-Hour Rainfall Depths 2 YR 0.82 inches 100 YR 2.86 inches Table 3: One-hour Rainfall Depths Summary Hydraulic calculations will be included within Appendix C in the next submittal of the Final Drainage Report once the site layout is verified with City Staff. These calculations will include analysis of the storm sewer analysis, street capacity, inlet sizing, and the overflow inlet structure. Note that the rational calculations include the assumed "build-out' condition for the future lots so that the storm sewer may be adequately sized. IX. VARIANCE REQUESTS No variances are requested at this time. X. EROSION CONTROL During construction, temporary erosion and sediment control practices will be used to limit soil erosion and migration of sediment off site. An erosion control report will be included with the Final Drainage Report. XI. CONCLUSION The SWC Drake/College site is designed to conform to the criteria in the FCSCM and the USDCM. The proposed underground system provides LID and is designed to treat the water quality for the proposed roadways within the Project. Future lots will be responsible for their own respective LID and water quality treatment. 8 1 P a g e Kimley>>>Horn Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report SWC Drake/College — Fort Collins, Colorado K REFERENCES City of Fort Collins Flood Maps, City of Fort Collins GIS, Accessed November 5, 2024, at <https://gisweb.fcgov.com/HTML5Viewer/Index.htmI?viewer=FCMaps&LayerTheme=flo odplains> Custom Soil Resource Report, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. November 5, 2024. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, December 2018. National Flood Hazard Laver Firmette, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Accessed November 5, 2024. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Mile High Flood District, Updated March 2024. 91 Page Kimley>>>Horn Final Drainage Report Drake and College Mixed-Use— Fort Collins, Colorado Appendix A — Referenced Criteria Kimley>)) Horn PDP and FP Drainage Report Checklist Project Name: Date: Included N/A Cover Letter Include name of project,date,name of design engineer Statement of compliance with the manual FP Final copies required to be stamped and signed by Colorado licensed PE General Location&Existing Site Info Section,Township, Range Vicinity Map Roadways within and adjacent to site Names of surrounding developments Master Drainage Basin where site is located Existing stormwater drainage facilities and drainage patterns Existing irrigation facilities(if applicable) Existing land uses Existing ground cover and/or vegetation type Existing soils info Master Drainage Basin Info Reference/discussion regarding pertinent Master Drainage Basin and any improvements planned for the area General basin characteristics Existing and planned land uses within the Master Drainage Basin Irrigation facilities that influence or are influenced by the local drainage(if applicable) Floodplain Information Refer to Floodplain Checklists for requirements Project Description Proposed land uses and/or project summary Site acreage Proposed Drainage Facilities Discussion of proposed drainage plan,specific details that may include drainage issues at specific design points Conveyance of minor and major stormwater systems to an existing stormwater conveyance Detention basin and outlet design;summary table for each detention basin WQCV design LID systems and design Maintenance access to the drainage facilities Easements/tracts for drainage purposes Drainage Design Criteria Reference to any previous drainage studies for the area Four-Step process outlined and discussed Using CoFC rainfall data for 2-yr and 100-yr recurrence intervals Using proper design storm recurrences(2-yr and 100-yr) Runoff calculation method Detention calculation method FP Street Capacity discussion FP Inlet Capacity discussion City of F rt Collins Page 1 of 2 PDP and FP Drainage Report Checklist Project Name: Date: Included N/A FP Pipe network models discussion FP Swale or channel sizing/capacity discussion FP Emergency spillway sizing discussion Variance Requests Included variance request form Erosion Control Statement of compliance with all erosion control materials that are to be provided with final plans FP Iseparate Erosion Control Report and Plans submitted Conclusion Statement of compliance with manual, master drainage plans,floodplain regs,other state/federal regs Summary conclusion of drainage concept and effectiveness of design References Referenced criteria, master plans,technical info Appendices Hydologic calculations: historic and developed runoff Detention basin volume calculations SDI data spreadsheet(meets detention drain time criteria) SWMM models(if applicable) LID exhibit and calculations Floodplain maps Soil survey information FP Street capacity FP Inlet sizing and capacity FP Storm pipe network models FP Erosion protection (i.e. riprap calculations) FP Swale or channel sizing FP Outlet structure design FP Spillway design Drainage map City of F rt Collins Page 2 of 2 FOOTHILLS BASIN 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 f I/ III Alt f r . F ,a 200 ft November 5, 2024 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 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................13 References............................................................................................................15 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 M 0 493200 493230 493260 493290 493320 493350 493380 493410 493440 493470 493500 40°33'9"N i = 40°33 9"N - _ D — s 4tr 41`4111111; t _- Orr 1 ! T 2117 ' �R •�• c j �owl AMN Mah may not be valid at this scale. I 1 1 40°33'2"N - u 'T � I �` 40°33 2"N 493200 493230 493260 493290 493320 493350 493380 493410 493440 493470 493500 3 3 b, v Map Scale:1:1,410 if printed on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet c IN Meters ° 0 20 40 80 120 0 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 Soil Map Unit Polygons Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Wet Spot �i 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 0 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 .+. 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 19,Aug 29,2024 Sandy Spot Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 4W Severely Eroded Spot 1:50,000 or larger. 0 Sinkhole Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Jul 2,2021—Aug 25, 3) 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 73 Nunn clay loam,0 to 1 percent 6.7 100.0% slopes Totals for Area of Interest 6.7 100.0% 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, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 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 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 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: 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 14 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 15 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 16 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette (.. FFMA Legend 105°5'1"W 4093'21"N II SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation(BFE) pq Zone A.V.A99 A SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE.AO.AH.VE,AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard,Areas i of 1%annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zonex �® Future Conditions 1%Annual A Chance Flood Hazard Zone logE+ • • a Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to � T7N R69W S23 ,� �� T7N R69W S24 OTHER AREAS OF Levee.See Notes.zone x AL Vr i FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Levee zone o • 7 NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x • ! Q Effective LOMRs ! OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o _ --GENERAL - - Channel,Culvert,or Storm Sewer y # _ STRUCTURES IIIIIII Levee,Dike,or Floodwall 46 �rr�ashJ0 I �F zo.z Cross Sections with 1%Annual Chance '� �7•5 Water Surface Elevation City of�Foit Collins ; AREA OF„N11111MAL�XLOOD HAZARDS �..r ` 1 5 a- Coastal Transect —5I3— Base Flood Elevation Line(BFE) 080102 I • Limit of Study w Jurisdiction Boundary r• ♦ —--- Coastal Transect Baseline • 1 : 1 . • 1 • ' OTHER _ � Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature - Digital Data Available N o ., . MAP PANELS No Digital Data Available _ I � � Unmapped 0 P = K« The pin displayed on the map is an approximate � point selected by the user and does not represent T I1 P '; an authoritative property location. 1 ( N This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of . digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the 4r i authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA.This map II • r * d y was exported on 11/5/2024 at 11:44 PM and does not A p F reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and AAAA 3 � time.The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. 4 IF This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear:basemap imagery,flood zone labels, legend,scale bar,map creation date,community identifiers, 1.6,000 10504'23"W 40°32'S4"N FIRM panel number,and FIRM effective date.Map images for Feet unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 regulatory purposes. Basemap Imagery Source:USGS National Map 2023 even citytJarc�nal 176 r n� City of Fort Collins Flood Map F,r3Y' AL L_rnl n-i•an t .sa Legend rc��€ � ' - — Street Names _ -b� .rr —4nkr-' FEMA Floodplain . top*60 FEMAHighRisk-Floodway r *o t r � FEMA High Risk-100 Year N Awmi w �A F FEMA Moderate Risk-100/500 Yi � P City Floodplains OP City High Risk-Floodway Ow kill1v L 4W N+ I City High Risk-100 Year 9 F- City Moderate Risk-100 Year rw L City Limits J El 1- r r 1+1 inide - M J AAL Notes 286.0 0 143.00 286.0 Feet This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. City of Fort Collins-GIS GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS,COLORADO SOILOGIC#18-1206 July 27,2018 v SOILOCSIC, v_ SO LOGIC July 27, 2018 Brinkman Development, LLC 3528 Precision Drive, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80528 Attn: Ms. Tina Hippeli Re: Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins, Colorado Soilogic Project# 18-1206 Ms. Hippeli: Soilogic, Inc. (Soilogic) personnel have completed the geotechnical subsurface exploration you requested for the proposed Spradley Barr redevelopment to be completed southwest of the intersection of South College Avenue and Drake Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. The results of our subsurface exploration and pertinent geotechnical engineering recommendations are included with this report. In summary, the subsurface materials encountered in the completed site borings consisted of existing pavement materials underlain by light to dark brown/reddish brown lean clay with varying amounts of silt, sand and scattered gravel. A portion of the near-surface soils appeared to be fill soils which may have been placed to develop finish site grades. The lean clay varied from very soft to very stiff in terms of consistency, contained sand and gravel seams with depth, exhibited no to low swell potential at in-situ moisture and density conditions and extended to the bottom of borings B-I through B-4, B-6, B-7, B- 10, B-12 through B-19, B-21 and B-23 at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 15 feet below present site grade. At the locations of borings B-5, B-8, B-11 and B-20, the lean clay extended to depths ranging from approximately 14 to 27 feet below ground surface and was underlain by reddish brown sand and gravel. The sand and gravel varied from loose to medium dense in terms of relative density, would be expected to be non" expansive based on the material's physical properties and engineering characteristics and extended to the bottom of boring B-5 at a depth of approximately 30 feet below ground surface and to a depth of approximately 25 feet below ground surface in boring B-8, where it transitioned back into medium stiff lean clay which extended to the bottom of Soilogic, Inc. 3522 Draft Horse Court• Loveland, CO 80538• (970) 535-6144 P.O. Box 1121 9 Hayden, CO 81639• (970) 276-2087 Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 2 this boring at a depth of approximately 30 feet. At boring locations B-9, B-11, B-20 and B-22, the lean clay and sand and gravel extended to depths ranging from approximately 28 to 34 feet below ground surface and was underlain by grey sandstone bedrock with interbedded siltstone/claystone bedrock. The bedrock varied from medium hard to very hard in terms of relative hardness, exhibited now swell potential when inundated with water at a 500 psf confining pressure and extended to the bottom of these borings at depths ranging from approximately 45 to 50 feet below present site grade. Groundwater was not encountered in borings B-12, B-15 through B-17 and B-23 at the time of drilling (terminated at a depth of approximately 10 feet below ground surface) and these borings were backfilled after completion. Groundwater was encountered in the remainder of the completed site borings when checked immediately after completion of drilling. When checked between 1 and 4 days after drilling, groundwater was measured at depths ranging from approximately 111/Z to 15 feet below present site grades. Groundwater level information is indicated in the upper right-hand corner of the attached boring logs. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the completed site borings, type of construction proposed, and results of laboratory testing, we recommend the proposed residential buildings be supported on drilled pier foundations extended into sandstone bedrock underlying the site in order to limit the amount of total and differential post- construction settlement of these structures. The hotel building could be constructed with conventional footing foundations bearing on a suitable thickness of essentially-granular overexcavation/replacement soils. Overexcavation/replacement procedures are recommended for this structure to develop higher strength foundation bearing and reduce the amount of anticipated post construction settlement. Conventional slab-on-grade floor construction could be utilized for this structure. The lightly-loaded retail buildings could also be constructed with conventional spread footing foundations and floor slabs bearing directly on natural undisturbed site lean clay with suitable strength and low volume- change potential. The natural site lean clay soils and/or properly placed and compacted fill could be used for support of exterior flatwork and site pavements. Other opinions and recommendations concerning design criteria and construction details for the proposed site improvements are included with this report. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 3 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed information or if we can be of further service to you in any way,please do not hesitate to contact us. Very Truly Yours, Soilogic, Inc. Reviewed by: Y p0 REG/ 0 REG/ST OvOv�yvoNc�o�t�' Qr-tLJ'D1Cv, t �• 674 0��. �SS�ONAL���` Wolf von Carlowitz,P.E. Darrel DiCarlo, P.E. Principal Engineer Senior Project Engineer GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS,COLORADO SOILOGIC# 18-1206 July 27,2018 INTRODUCTION This report contains the results of the completed geotechnical subsurface exploration for the Spradley Barr redevelopment to be completed in Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of our exploration was to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the completed site borings and develop the test data necessary to provide recommendations concerning design and construction of the building foundations and support of floor slabs, exterior flatwork and site pavements. Pavement section design recommendations are also included. The conclusions and recommendations outlined in this report are based on results of the completed field and laboratory testing and our experience with subsurface conditions in this area. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understand this project involves the construction of three (3) retail buildings, two (2) residential structures and a hotel building on a parcel of land located southwest of the intersection of South College Avenue and Drake Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. The residential buildings are expected to include full podium construction with five (5) above- grade floors. The first above-grade floor will be constructed with a post-tensioned concrete slab, supporting four (4) stories of wood frame construction above. The hotel building is expected to be a five-story structure constructed as slab-on-grade and containing an indoor pool. The retail buildings are expected to be one or two-story (mezzanine) structures also constructed as slab-on-grade. Foundation loads for the residential buildings are expected to be moderate, with individual column loads less than 600 kips. Foundation loads for the hotel building are expected to be light to moderate, with continuous wall loads less than 4 kips per lineal foot and individual column loads less than 175 kips. Foundations loads for one and two-story retail structures are expected to be light, with continuous wall loads less than 3.5 kips per lineal foot and individual column loads less than 75 kips. Floor loads are expected to be light, less than 100 psf. If the assumed construction and loading conditions vary substantially from those assumed, Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 2 Soilogic should be contacted to reevaluate the recommendations in this report. Paved drive and parking areas are also anticipated as part of the proposed site improvements. Small grade changes are anticipated to develop finish site grades in the building and pavement areas. SITE DESCRIPTION The development property includes an approximate 7-acre parcel located southwest of the intersection of South College Avenue and Drake Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. At the time of our site exploration, the property was serving as an automobile dealership and contained several buildings, concrete and asphalt pavements and various limited landscape improvements. The site was observed to be relatively level, with a gentle overall slope downward to the northeast and a maximum difference in ground surface elevation across the project site estimated to be less than 10 feet based on review of available USGS topographic maps of the area. SITE EXPLORATION Field Exploration To develop subsurface information for the proposed construction, a total of 23 soil borings were completed. Two (2) borings were advanced in each of the retail building footprints and four (4) borings advanced in the hotel building area. Eight (8) borings were advanced in the residential building areas, with five (5) additional borings advanced in site drive and parking areas. The structure borings were extended to depths ranging from approximately 15 to 50 feet below present site grades and pavement borings were advanced to a depth of approximately 10 feet below ground surface. The boring locations were established in the field by Soilogic personnel based on a provided site plan, using a mechanical surveyor's wheel and estimating angles from identifiable site references. A diagram indicating the approximate boring locations is included with this report. The boring locations outlined on the attached diagram should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. Graphic logs of each of the auger borings are also included. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 3 The test holes were advanced using 4-inch diameter continuous-flight auger, powered by a truck-mounted CME-45 drill rig. Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained at regular intervals using California and split-barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM specification D-1586. As part of the D-1586 sampling procedure, standard sampling barrels are driven into the substrata using a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a distance of 12 inches is recorded and helpful in estimating the consistency, relative density or hardness of the soils or bedrock encountered. In the California barrel sampling procedure, lesser disturbed samples are obtained in removable brass liners. Samples of the subsurface materials obtained in the field were sealed and returned to the laboratory for further evaluation, classification and testing. Laboratory Testing The samples collected were tested in the laboratory to measure natural moisture content and visually and/or manually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS group symbols are indicated on the attached boring logs. An outline of the USCS classification system is included with this report. Classification of bedrock was completed through visual and tactual observation of disturbed samples. Other bedrock types could be revealed through petrographic analysis. As part of the laboratory testing, a calibrated hand penetrometer (CHP) was used to estimate the unconfined compressive strength of essentially cohesive specimens. The CHP also provides a more reliable estimate of soil consistency than tactual observation alone. Dry density, Atterberg limits, -200 wash and swell/consolidation tests were completed on selected samples to help establish specific soil characteristics. Atterberg limits tests are used to determine soil plasticity. The percent passing the #200 size sieve (-200 wash test) is used to determine the percentage of fine grained soils (clay and silt) in a sample. Swell/consolidation tests are performed to evaluate soil and bedrock volume change potential with variation in moisture content. The results of the completed laboratory tests are outlined on the attached boring logs and swell/consolidation test summaries. Water-soluble sulfate (WSS) content tests are currently being completed on four (4) selected samples to help evaluate corrosive soil characteristics with respect to buried concrete and results will be provided as they become available. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface materials encountered in the completed site borings can be summarized as follows. Approximately 4 to 5 inches of asphaltic concrete overlying approximately 2 to 6 inches of aggregate base course was encountered at the surface at a majority of the boring locations. Pavement materials were not encountered at the surface at the location of borings B-1 and B-16. Approximately three (3) feet of reddish brown/grey apparent sand and gravel fill was encountered underlying the pavement materials at the location of boring B-4. Light to dark brown/reddish brown lean clay with varying amounts of silt, sand and scattered gravel was encountered at the surface at boring locations B-1 and B- 16, underlying the sand and gravel fill at the location of boring B-4 and underlying the pavement materials at the remainder of the completed site borings. A portion of the near surface lean clay appeared to be fill soils which may have been placed to develop finish site grades. The lean clay varied from very soft to very stiff in terms of consistency, contained sand and gravel seams with depth and exhibited no to low swell potential at in- situ moisture and density conditions and extended to the bottom of borings B-1 through B-4, B-6, B-7, B-10, B-12 through B-19, B-21 and B-23 at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 15 feet below present site grade. At the locations of borings B-5, B- 8, B-11 and B-20, the lean clay extended to depths ranging from approximately 14 to 27 feet below ground surface and was underlain by reddish brown sand and gravel. The sand and gravel varied from loose to medium dense in terms of relative density, would be expected to be non-expansive based on the material's physical properties and engineering characteristics and extended to the bottom of boring B-5 at a depth of approximately 30 feet below ground surface and to a depth of approximately 25 feet below ground surface in boring B-8 where it transitioned back into medium stiff lean clay which extended to the bottom of this boring at a depth of approximately 30 feet. At boring locations B-9, B- 11, B-20 and B-22, the lean clay and sand and gravel extended to depths ranging from approximately 28 to 34 feet below ground surface and was underlain by grey sandstone bedrock with interbedded siltstone/claystone. The bedrock varied from medium hard to very hard in terms of relative hardness, exhibited now swell potential when inundated with water at a 500 psf confining pressure and extended to the bottom of these borings at depths ranging from approximately 45 to 50 feet below present site grade. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 5 The stratigraphy indicated on the included boring logs represents the approximate location of changes in soil and bedrock types. Actual changes may be more gradual than those indicated. Groundwater was not encountered in borings B-12, B-15 through B-17 and B-23 at the time of drilling (terminated at a depth of approximately 10 feet below ground surface) and these borings were backfilled after completion. Groundwater was encountered in the remainder of the completed site borings when checked immediately after completion of drilling. When checked between 1 and 4 days after drilling, groundwater was measured at depths ranging from approximately 11'/z to 15 feet below present site grades. Groundwater level information is indicated in the upper right-hand corner of the attached boring logs. Groundwater levels will vary seasonally and over time based on weather conditions, site development, irrigation practices and other hydrologic conditions. Perched and/or trapped groundwater conditions may also be encountered at times throughout the year. Perched water is commonly encountered in soils overlying less permeable soil layers and/or bedrock. Trapped water is typically encountered within more permeable zones of layered soil and bedrock systems. The location and amount of perched and/or trapped water can also vary over time. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Site Development All existing foundations, floor slabs, concrete/asphalt pavements and other site improvements should be completely removed from the site. Care will be needed to ensure all in-place fill/backfill materials associated with the existing site improvements are also completely removed. The depth and extent of required removal can best be established at the time of excavation through openhole observation. The excavated/removed materials should be replaced as controlled and compacted fill as outlined below. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 6 After stripping and completing all cuts and removal procedures and prior to the placement of any new fill or overlying improvements, Soilogic recommends the exposed subgrade soils be scarified to a depth of 9 inches, adjusted in moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the materials standard Proctor maximum dry density. The moisture content of the scarified subgrade soils/bedrock should be adjusted to within the range of f2% or standard Proctor optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. At current moisture levels the subgrade soils would be easily disturbed by the construction activities. Care should be taken at the time of site development to avoid disturbance to the exposed subgrade soils and the need for corrective action prior to placement of any overlying fill and site improvements. Fill and removal area backfill soils required to develop the site should consist of approved LVC soils free from organic matter, debris and other objectionable materials. Based on results of the completed laboratory testing, it is our opinion the existing aggregate base course and site lean clay/clayey sand and gravel could be used as fill and backfill to develop the site. If it is necessary to import additional material to the site for use as fill and removal area backfill, those materials should consist of approved LVC materials with a maximum liquid limit of 40 and maximum plasticity index of 18. It may be prudent to utilize an essentially cohesive import soil for use as fill and removal area backfill in the residential building area so that the upper shaft diameter of drilled piers can be more easily maintained. Suitable fill and backfill soils should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted in moisture content and compacted as recommended for the scarified soils above. Slopes steeper than 4:1 should be continuously benched during fill/backfill placement in order to reduce the potential for development of a shear plane between the existing site soils and placed fill/backfill. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing the reconditioned subgrade soils and placed fill materials prior to placement of any overlying improvements. Soils which are allowed to dry or out or become wet and softened or disturbed by the construction activities should be removed and replaced or reworked in place prior to concrete placement and/or paving. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 7 Residential Building Drilled Pier Foundations With the moderate foundation loads anticipated for the residential structures and to reduce the potential for excessive total and differential settlement of the buildings subsequent to construction, we recommend these buildings be supported on drilled pier foundations. Drilled piers should be extended a minimum of ten (10) feet into competent bedrock which underlies the site. For design of drilled piers extended into competent bedrock, we recommend using a maximum allowable end bearing pressure of 30 kips per square foot (ksf). An allowable skin friction value of 3,000 psf could be used for that portion of the pier extended into competent bedrock. Credit for skin friction should be neglected for the top 2 feet of bedrock penetration. Piers should be designed with a length/diameter ratio of 30 or less and full length steel reinforcement. If grade beams will be constructed, we recommend a minimum 4-inch void be developed between the bottom of the grade beam and exposed earth to help fully transfer building loads to the drilled piers. For design of drilled piers to resist lateral loading, the horizontal modulus for varying pier diameters are outlined below in Table I. The values provided do not include a factor of safety. TABLE I—HORIZONTAL MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION (tons/ft) Pier Diameter(in) Overburden Sandy Native Sand and Sandstone Lean Clay Soils Gravel (Below GW) Bedrock 18 17 35 167 24 13 26 125 30 10 21 100 36 1 9 1 17 1 83 When the lateral capacity of drilled piers/driven piles is evaluated by the L-Pile/Com64 design program, we recommend that internally generated load-deformation (p-y) curves be used. Piers or piles may be designed using the following lateral load criteria. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 8 Parameters Overburden Sandy Native Sand and Sandstone Lean Clay Soils Gravel Bedrock In-Situ Unit Weight(pcf) 120 * 145 * 135 Angle of Internal Friction 0 35 20 Cohesion(psf) 300 0 5000 Strain at 50% .02 - .005 * Reduce values by 62.4 pcf below groundwater table Group reductions would apply if piers are spaced within three (3) pier diameters of each other. Piers in line with the direction of lateral load should be spaced a minimum of six (6) pier diameters center-to-center based on the largest diameter pier in the series. The horizontal modulus for initial and trailing piers should be reduced if spacing less than six (6)pier diameters is required. Based on the materials encountered in the completed site borings, we expect the drilled caissons could be excavated using conventional power auger equipment. If zones of well cemented bedrock are encountered at the time of caisson construction, specialized rock augers or core barrels may be required to fully penetrate these materials. Based on the depth to groundwater observed and presence of cleaner granular soils with depth, we expect temporary casing sealed into the sandstone bedrock underlying the site would be required during construction of the drilled shafts to prevent soils and groundwater from entering the pier excavations prior to concrete placement. The zone of cleaner granular soils overlying the bedrock surface in some areas will require care by the contractor during drilling and setting of the temporary casing to develop a proper seal. A maximum 3-inch depth of groundwater is acceptable in the pier excavations prior to concrete placement. If excessive depths of free water develop in the pier excavations prior to concrete placement, dewatering of the pier excavations should be completed or a tremie used for concrete placement. Pier concrete should have a slump in the range of 5 to 7 inches and be placed in the pier excavations immediately after the completion of drilling, cleaning, and placement of reinforcing steel. Casing should be pulled in a slow and continuous manner while Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 9 maintaining sufficient concrete head to prevent the infiltration of soil and water and the formation of voids within the shaft concrete. We estimate long term settlement of the drilled caisson foundations designed and constructed as outlined above and resulting from the assumed structural loads would be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement between piers could approach the amount of total settlement estimated above. Hotel Building Spread Footing Foundations Relatively soft lean clay soils were encountered at anticipated foundation bearing levels within the hotel building area. Excessive consolidation of the overburden clay soils and foundation settlement would be expected subsequent to construction as a result of the moderate foundation loads. In order to develop suitable strength foundation bearing and reduce the amount of anticipated post-construction foundation settlement to an acceptable level, we recommend a portion of the lean clay foundation bearing soils be overexcavated and replaced with properly placed and compacted, essentially-granular imported structural fill. The removal/replacement procedures will provide a zone of material immediately beneath hotel building footing foundations which will have higher strength and lower settlement potential than the site lean clay subsequent to construction. The overexcavation zone should extend to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below continuous strip footing foundations and five (5) feet below column pad foundations and a minimum of 8 inches laterally past the interior and exterior perimeter of the strip footings and all four (4) sides of column pad foundations for every 12 inches of overexcavation depth. Soils used as overexcavation/replacement below foundations should consist of approved select granular fill free from organic matter, debris and other objectionable materials. Imported structural fill consistent with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Class 6 or 7 Aggregate Base Course specifications could be used as overexcavation/ replacement. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 10 After completing all overexcavation, we recommend the exposed subgrades be scarified to a depth of 9 inches, adjusted in moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the materials standard Proctor maximum dry density. The moisture content of the scarified soils should be adjusted to within the range of f2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Essentially-granular structural fill soils placed below foundations should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, moisture conditioned to within f2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 98% of the materials standard Proctor maximum dry density. The subgrade soils exposed at the base of the overexcavation zone are high in moisture content and would be easily disturbed by the construction activities. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing the exposed subgrade soils prior to placement of the select granular fill. If very soft clay soils are encountered at bottom of overexcavation levels, it may be necessary to develop a stable working platform suitable for fill placement. Screened and crushed aggregate used in conjunction with a separation fabric could be considered if working platform construction becomes warranted. Care should also be taken to avoid disturbing the overexcavation/replacement soils prior to foundation construction. Foundation bearing soils which are disturbed by the construction activities or allowed to become wet and softened or dry and desiccated should be removed and replaced or reworked in-place prior to placement of foundation concrete. For design of the hotel building continuous spread footing and isolated column pad foundations bearing on the zone of essentially-granular imported structural fill described above and compacted to at least 98% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density, we recommend using a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. For design of footing foundations and foundation walls to resist lateral movement, a passive equivalent fluid pressure value of 250 pcf could be used for the site lean clay or similar soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 could be used between floor slab concrete and the bearing/subgrade soils to resist sliding for the on-site clays. A coefficient of friction of 0.55 could be used between foundation concrete and select granular import fill. The recommended passive equivalent fluid pressure values and coefficients of friction do not include a factor of safety. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 11 Exterior footings should bear a minimum of 30 inches below finished adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed strip footings have a minimum width of 12 inches and isolated pad foundations have a minimum width of 24 inches in order to facilitate construction and reduce the potential for development of eccentrically loaded footings. Actual footing widths should be designed by a structural engineer. We estimate settlement of footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined above and resulting from the assumed structural loads would be on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement could approach the amount of total settlement estimated above. Retail/Office Building Spread Footing Foundations Based on the materials encountered in the completed site borings and results of laboratory testing, it is our opinion the proposed lightly-loaded retail/restaurant and medical/office buildings could be supported by continuous spread footing and isolated pad foundations bearing directly on natural, undisturbed lean clay with suitable strength and low swell potential. For design of the footing foundations bearing on medium stiff to very stiff lean clay, we recommend using a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Exterior footings should bear a minimum of 30 inches below finished adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed strip footings have a minimum width of 12 inches and isolated pad foundations have a minimum width of 24 inches in order to facilitate construction and reduce the potential for development of eccentrically loaded footings. Actual footing widths should be designed by a structural engineer. For design of footing foundations and foundation walls to resist lateral movement, a passive equivalent fluid pressure value of 250 pcf could be used. The top 30 inches of subgrade could be considered a surcharge load but should not be used in the passive resistance calculations. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 could be used between foundation and floor slab concrete and the bearing soils to resist sliding. The recommended passive equivalent fluid pressure value and coefficient of friction do not include a factor of safety. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 12 We estimate settlement of footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined above and resulting from the assumed structural loads would be on the order of 1 inch or less. Differential settlement could approach the amount of total settlement estimated above. If water from any source is allowed to infiltrate the foundation bearing soils, additional movement of the foundations could occur. Zones of soft clay were encountered in the completed site borings at anticipated foundation bearing levels. The soft lean clay would be easily disturbed by the construction activities. Care should be taken at the time of construction to avoid disturbing the foundation bearing soils and the need for corrective action. To reduce the potential disturbance the foundation bearing soils, consideration should be given to completing foundations excavations remotely. Careful observation of the exposed foundation bearing materials should be completed at the time of construction to ensure all footing foundations will be supported on like natural materials with suitable strength. If extensive zones of soft, high moisture content soils are encountered at that time, some overexcavation/backfill or other approved stabilization procedures may be required prior to foundation construction. Seismicity Based on our review of the International Building Code (2003), a soil profile type D could be used for the site strata. Based on our review of United States Geologic Survey (USGS) mapped information, design spectral response acceleration values of SDs = .218 (21.8%) and SDI = .092 (9.2%) could be used. Below-Grade Construction Basement construction is not anticipated at this time. If below grade improvements will be constructed, we recommend a perimeter drain system be installed around the below- grade areas to help reduce the potential for development of hydrostatic pressures behind the below-grade walls and water infiltration into the below grade areas. Water-proofing used in conjunction with buoyancy protection could also be considered. A perimeter drain system should consist of a 4-inch diameter, perforated drain pipe surrounded by a Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 13 minimum of six (6) inches of free-draining gravel. A filter fabric should be considered around the free-draining gravel or perforated pipe to reduce the potential for an influx of fine-grained soils into the system. The drain pipe should be placed at approximate foundation bearing level at the high point of the system, run around the exterior perimeter of the below grade area with a minimum of 1/s-inch per foot to facilitate efficient water removal and designed to discharge to a sump pit and pump system or other appropriate outfall. Backfill placed adjacent to the below-grade walls should consist of low-volume-change potential soils free from organic matter, debris and other objectionable materials. The natural site lean clay and sand and gravel could be used as backfill in this area provided the proper moisture content is developed in those materials at the time of placement and compaction. We recommend the site lean clay/clayey sand and/or similar backfill soils be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted to within ±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density. Excessive lateral stresses can be imposed on below-grade walls when using heavier mechanical compaction equipment. We recommend compaction of unbalanced wall backfill soils be completed using light mechanical or hand compaction equipment. Lateral Earth Pressures For design of below-grade walls where preventative measures have been taken to reduce the potential for development of hydrostatic loads on the walls, we recommend using an active equivalent fluid pressure value of 40 pounds per cubic foot. Some rotation of the walls must occur to develop the active earth pressure state. That rotation can result in cracking of the walls typically in between corners and other restrained points. The amount of deflection of the top of the wall can be estimated at 0.5% times the height of the wall. An equivalent fluid pressure value of 60 pounds per cubic foot could be used for restrained conditions. For design of below grade walls to resist hydrostatic loads, we recommend using an active equivalent fluid pressure value of 100 pounds per cubic foot. An equivalent fluid pressure value of 110 pounds per cubic foot could be used for restrained and undrained conditions. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 14 Variables that affect lateral earth pressures include but are not limited to the shrink/swell potential of the backfill soils, backfill compaction and geometry, wetting of the backfill soils, surcharge loads and point loads developed in the backfill materials. The recommended equivalent fluid pressure values do not include a factor of safety or an allowance for hydrostatic loading. Use of expansive soil backfill, excessive compaction of the wall backfill or surcharge loads placed adjacent to the basement walls can add to the lateral earth pressures causing the equivalent fluid pressure values used in design to be exceeded. Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork The building floor slabs and exterior flatwork could be supported directly on reconditioned natural site soils and/or properly placed and compacted fill/removal area backfill developed as outlined in the `Site Development' section of this report. A modulus of subgrade reaction (k value) of 125 pci could be used for design of floor slabs supported on reconditioned site sandy lean clay or similar soils. Subgrade soils expected to receive floor slab and exterior flatwork concrete should be evaluated closely immediately prior to concrete placement. If areas of disturbed, wet and softened, or dry subgrade soils are encountered at that time, some reworking of those materials or removal/replacement procedures may be required. Floor slabs should be designed and constructed as floating slabs, separated from foundation walls, columns and plumbing and mechanical penetrations by the use of block outs or appropriate isolation material. Additionally, we recommend all residence and garage partition walls be constructed as floating walls to help reduce the potential for differential slab to foundation movement causing distress in upper sections of the residence. A minimum 11/z-inch void space is recommended beneath all partition walls. Special attention to door framing, drywall installation, stair systems and trim carpentry should be taken to isolate those elements from the floor slabs, allowing for some differential floor slab to foundation movement to occur without transmitting stresses to the overlying structure. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 15 Depending on the type of floor covering and floor covering adhesive used in finished slab-on-grade areas, a vapor barrier may be required immediately beneath the floor slabs in order to maintain flooring product manufacturer warranties. A vapor barrier would help reduce the transmission of moisture through the floor slab. However, the unilateral moisture release caused by placing concrete on an impermeable surface can increase slab curl. The amount of slab curl can be reduced by careful selection of an appropriate concrete mix, however, slab curl cannot be eliminated. We recommend the owner, architect and flooring contractor consider the performance of the slab, in conjunction with the proposed flooring products to help determine if a vapor barrier will be required and where best to position the vapor barrier in relation to the floor slab. Additional guidance and recommendations concerning slab-on-grade design can be found in American Concrete Institute (ACI) section 302. Some movement of exterior flatwork should be expected as the moisture content of the subgrade soils increases subsequent to construction. Based on the results of completed laboratory testing, we expect movement of exterior flatwork supported on reconditioned site soils and/or properly placed and compacted fill would be limited. Care should be taken to ensure that when exterior flatwork moves, positive drainage will be maintained away from the structures. Indoor Pool We understand an indoor, in-ground pool will be constructed as part of the hotel improvements. The pool is expected to bear at a maximum depth in the range of approximately 5 to 7 feet below present site grades. Based on the materials encountered in the completed site borings and results of laboratory testing, it is our opinion the lightly- loaded swimming pool could be supported on natural, undisturbed lean clay. For design of the pool foundation bearing on natural, undisturbed medium stiff lean clay, we recommend using a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. Care should be taken to avoid developing unbalanced hydrostatic loads on the pool walls and pool bottom. Pressure relief valves could be considered to avoid developing uplift and excessive horizontal hydrostatic loads. For design of the below-grade pool walls protected from unilateral hydrostatic loading, we recommend using an active equivalent Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 16 fluid pressure value of 40 pounds per cubic foot. Some rotation of the pool walls must occur to develop the active earth pressure state. That rotation can result in cracking of the walls typically in between corners and other restrained points. The amount of deflection of the top of the wall required to develop the "active" state can be estimated at 0.5% times the height of the wall. An equivalent fluid pressure value of 60 pounds per cubic foot could be used for restrained conditions. Variables that affect active lateral earth pressures include but are not limited to the swell potential of the backfill soils, backfill compaction and geometry, wetting of the backfill soils, surcharge loads and point loads developed in the backfill materials. The recommended equivalent fluid pressure values do not include a factor of safety or an allowance for hydrostatic loading. Use of expansive soil backfill, excessive compaction of the wall backfill or surcharge loads placed adjacent to the pool walls can add to the lateral earth pressures causing the equivalent fluid pressure values used in design to be exceeded. If backfill is required adjacent to any below-grade pool walls, we recommend those materials consist of approved low-volume change (LVC) soils free from organic matter, debris and other objectionable materials. We understand pea gravel is typically used as pool wall backfill due to the limited area that backfill will extend and inability to access these areas with compaction equipment. If site soils will be used as backfill adjacent to the pool and access with compaction equipment is possible, backfill soils should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted to in moisture and compacted as outlined in the"Demolition and Site Development" section of this report. Excessive lateral stresses can be imposed on below grade walls when using heavier mechanical compaction equipment. We recommend compaction of unbalanced pool wall backfill soils be completed using light mechanical or hand compaction equipment. Comparatively soft lean clay soils were encountered in those borings completed in the hotel building area and may be encountered in the pool excavation. At current moisture levels, the site lean clay would be easily disturbed by the construction activities. Care should be taken at the time of construction to avoid disturbing the pool foundation bearing/subgrade soils and the need for corrective action. Materials which are disturbed Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 17 by the construction activities or materials which become dry and desiccated or wet and softened should be removed and replaced or reworked in place prior to placement of pool concrete. We estimate the long-term total and differential settlement of the pool constructed as outlined above would be less than 1 inch. Pavements Site pavements could be supported directly on reconditioned natural site soils and/or properly placed and compacted fill developed as outlined above in the `Site Development' section of this report. The site lean clay would be subject to low remolded shear strength. A resistance value (R-value) of 5 was estimated for the site lean clay and used in the pavement section design. Traffic loading on site pavements is expected to consist of areas of low volumes of automobiles and light trucks as well as areas of higher light vehicle traffic volumes and occasional heavier trash, delivery and emergency vehicle traffic. Equivalent 18-kip single axle loads (ESAL's) were estimated for the quantity of site traffic anticipated. Two (2) general design classifications are outlined below in Table II. Standard duty pavements could be considered in automobile drive and parking areas. Heavy duty pavements should be considered for access drives and other areas of the site expected to receive higher traffic volumes or heavier trash, delivery and emergency truck traffic. Proofrolling of the pavement subgrades should be completed to help identify unstable areas. Areas which pump or deform excessively should be mended prior to paving. Isolated areas of subgrade instability can be mended on a case-by-case basis. If more extensive areas of subgrade instability are observed and depending on the in-place moisture content of the subgrade soils immediately prior to paving, the time of year when construction occurs and other hydrologic conditions, overall stabilization of the subgrade soils may become necessary to develop a suitable paving platform. At current moisture levels, overall subgrade instability should be expected. If required, we recommend consideration be given to stabilization of the pavement subgrades with Class C fly ash. With the increase in support strength developed by the chemical stabilization procedures, it is our opinion some credit for the stabilized zone could be included in the pavement section design, reducing the required thickness of overlying asphaltic concrete and aggregate base course. Chemical stabilization can also eliminate some of the uncertainty Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 18 associated with attempting to pave during periods of inclement weather. Pavement section design options incorporating some structural credit for the chemically-stabilized subgrade soils are outlined below in Table II. TABLE H—PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN Standard Duty Heavy Du Option A—Composite Asphaltic Concrete(Grading S or SX) 4" 5" Aggregate Base(Class 5 or 6) 6" V Option B—Composite on Stabilized Subgrade Asphaltic Concrete(Grading S or SX) 3" 4" Aggregate Base(Class 5 or 6) 4" 6" Fly Ash Stabilized Sub grade 12" 12" Option C -Portland Cement Concrete Pavement PCCP 5" 6" Asphaltic concrete should consist of a bituminous plant mix composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler, binders and additives (if required) meeting the design requirements of the City of Fort Collins. Aggregate used in the asphaltic concrete should meet specific gradation requirements such as Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) grading S (3/4-inch minus) or SX ('/2-inch minus) specifications. Hot mix asphalt designed using "Superpave" criteria should be compacted to within 92 to 96% of the materials Maximum Theoretical Density. Aggregate base should be consistent with CDOT requirements for Class 5 or Class 6 aggregate base, placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick and compacted to at least 95% of the materials standard Proctor maximum dry density. If chemical stabilization procedures will be completed, we recommend the addition of 13% Class `C' fly ash based on component dry unit weights. A 12-inch thick stabilized zone should be constructed by thoroughly blending the fly ash with the in-place subgrade soils. Some "fluffing" of the finish subgrade level should be expected with the stabilization procedures. The blended materials should be adjusted in moisture content to within the range of±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density within two (2)hours of fly ash addition. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 19 For areas subjected to truck turning movements and/or concentrated and repetitive loading such as dumpster or truck parking and loading areas, we recommend consideration be given to the use of Portland cement concrete pavement with a minimum thickness of 6 inches. The concrete used for site pavements should be air entrained and have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Woven wire mesh or fiber entrained concrete should be considered to help in the control of shrinkage cracking. The proposed pavement section designs do not include an allowance for excessive loading conditions imposed by heavy construction vehicles or equipment. Heavily loaded concrete or other building material trucks and construction equipment can cause some localized distress to site pavements. The recommended pavement sections are minimums and periodic maintenance efforts should be expected. A preventative maintenance program can help increase the service life of site pavements. Drainage Positive drainage is imperative for satisfactory long-term performance of the proposed buildings and associated site improvements. We recommend positive drainage be developed away from the structures during construction and maintained throughout the life of the site improvements with a minimum of 10% fall in the first 10 feet away from the buildings. Shallower slopes could be considered in hardscape areas. In the event that poor or negative drainage develops adjacent to the buildings over time, the original grade and associated positive drainage outlined above should be immediately restored. Care should be taken in the planning of landscaping to avoid features which could result in the fluctuation of the moisture content of the foundation bearing and flatwork subgrade soils. We recommend watering systems be placed a minimum of 5 feet away from the perimeter of the site structures and be designed to discharge away from all site improvements. Gutter systems should be considered to help reduce the potential for water ponding adjacent to the buildings with the gutter downspouts, roof drains or scuppers extended to discharge a minimum of 5 feet away from structural and flatwork elements. Water which is allowed to pond adjacent to site improvements can result in unsatisfactory performance of those improvements over time. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Spradley Barr Redevelopment Fort Collins,Colorado Soilogic# 18-1206 20 GENERAL COMMENTS This report was prepared based upon the data obtained from the completed site exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and any other information discussed. The completed borings provides an indication of subsurface conditions at the boring locations only. Variations in subsurface conditions can occur in relatively short distances away from the borings. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur across the site or away from the borings. If variations in the subsurface conditions anticipated become evident, the geotechnical engineer should be notified immediately so that further evaluation can be completed and when warranted, alternative recommendations provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any biological or environmental assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants or hazardous materials or conditions. Other studies should be completed if concerns over the potential of such contamination or pollution exist. The geotechnical engineer should be retained to review the plans and specifications so that comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. The geotechnical engineer should also be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of care for the profession. No warranties express or implied, are made. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid in the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, unless those changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified and verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. JULY 2018 --O i 1• BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM SO- LOGIC * _ - - v i 1 .rat `.. i`�►r� ��w�►i� ` FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 LOG OF BORING B-1 SOS LOGIC July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 3 Days After Drilling 15' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N 1 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY light to dark brown/reddish brown 2 medium stiff to very stiff - 3 CS 8 17.8 110.5 6000 0.1% 700 With Scattered Gravel - 4 5 CS 15 26.9 96.4 6000 6 7 8 9 10 CS 16 20.1 106.4 6000 11 12 13 14 15 CS 20 16.6 112.6 9000 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 LOG OF BORING B-2 SOS LOGIC July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13 1/2' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13 1/2' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 3 Days After Drilling 12' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —5"Asphaltic Concrete - -4"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 7 26.7 97.2 5000 None <500 6 7 8 9 10 CS 12 21.4 104.2 4500 11 12 13 14 15 CS 16 15.0 119.1 5500 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 LOG OF BORING B-3 SOS LOGIC July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 3 Days After Drilling 11 1/2' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —5"Asphaltic Concrete - -4"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 8 21.9 100.8 5000 None <500 36 16 52.6% 6 7 8 9 10 CS 11 17.3 109.4 4500 11 12 13 14 15 CS 8 17.1 112.0 2500 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 LOG OF BORING B-4 SOS LOGIC July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13 1/2' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13 1/2' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 3 Days After Drilling 12 1/2' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -4"Aggregate Base Course 1 SP-GP FILL-SAND AND GRAVEL 2 reddish brown/grey - loose 3 CS 6 1.1 4 5 CS 8 20.3 102.7 9000+ CL SANDY LEAN CLAY - light to dark brown/reddish brown 6 medium stiff to stiff - 7 With Scattered Gravel - 8 9 10 CS 1 11 17.5 110.0 6500 11 12 13 14 15 CS 10 17.3 108.7 1500 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS,COLORADO Project#18-1206 LOG OF BORING B-5 July 2018 SQ LOGIC Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13 1/2' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13 112' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 13 Days After Drilling 12 1/2' U) Estimated Swell %Passing y SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) w (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI (%) —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -4"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 1. With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 11 16.8 109.3 9000+ None <500 - - - 6 7 8 9 Sand Lenses with Depth 10 CS 10 9.7 121.3 6000 - - - - - 11 12 13 14 15 CS 8 21.2 107.7 2000 - - - - - 16 17 18 19 20 10 27.2 97.9 3500 - 21 22 23 24 25 26 SP-GP SAND AND GRAVEL - reddish brown 27 medium dense - With Clayey Lenses 28 29 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 30.0' 30 21 10.1 125.9 N/A - - - - - SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 LOG OF BORING B-6 SOS LOGIC July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 24 Hours After Drilling DCI @ 15' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -4"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 12 19.7 105.0 8500 6 7 8 9 10 CS 6 17.5 109.6 2000 11 12 13 14 15 CS 9 12.6 122.2 5000 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 LOG OF BORING B-7 SOS LOGIC July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 15' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 15' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 24 Hours After Drilling 12 1/2' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —5"Asphaltic Concrete - -2"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 CS 7 21.0 98.4 7500 None <500 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff 4 5 CS 10 28.3 91.7 9000+ None <500 32 16 56.9% 6 7 8 9 Sand Lenses with Depth - 10 CS 9 7.2 116.5 N/A 11 12 13 14 15 CS 7 17.2 113.9 2500 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS,COLORADO Project#18-1206 LOG OF BORING B-8 July 2018 SQ LOGIC Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13 1/2' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13 112' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 124 Hours After Drilling 13' to Estimated Swell %Passing y SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) w (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI (%) —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -3"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - soft to medium stiff 1. 5 CS 1 7 1 23.7 96.4 3500 - - - - - 6 7 8 9 10 CS 5 16.2 111.1 3500 None <500 - - - 11 12 13 Sand Lenses with Depth 14 15 CS 8 16.0 117.3 <500 - - - - - 16 17 SP-GP SAND AND GRAVEL - reddish brown 18 loose 19 20 CS 7 12.1 N/A - 21 22 23 24 25 26 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY - reddish brown 27 medium stiff - 28 29 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 30.0' 30 CS 8 23.6 101.7 2000 - - - - - SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 LOG OF BORING B-9 SOS LOGIC July 2018 Sheet 1/2 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/19/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13' Finish Date 7/19/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 4 Days After Drilling 13' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) rn (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —5"Asphaltic Concrete - -5"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 4 5 CS 14 25.0 98.4 7000 0.5% 1000 47 27 88.7% 6 7 8 9 10 CS 10 21.7 103.9 6000 11 12 13 14 15 CS 17 18.4 114.2 7000 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Increasing Gravel with Depth - 24 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 25 CS 1 9 1 22.4 1 105.1 1 2000 - SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-9 Cont July 2018 Sheet 2/2 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/19/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13' Finish Date 7/19/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 4 Days After Drilling 13' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 - 26 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 27 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 28 With Sand and Gravel Lenses 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 CS 50/8 18.0 108.9 9000+ None <500 32 8 23.1% SANDSTONE 36 grey - medium hard to very hard 37 With Interbedded Siltstone/Claystone 38 39 40 CS 50/11 18.4 9000+ 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 BOTTOM OF BORING 50' 50 CS 50/6 15.7 9000+ SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-10 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 14' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 14' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 3 Days After Drilling 12 1/2' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -5"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 13 22.7 103.3 6000 None <500 6 7 8 9 Sand Lenses with Depth - 10 CS 13 9.2 116.8 5000 11 12 13 14 15 CS 12 19.4 109.8 5000 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-11 July 2018 Sheet 1/2 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/19/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 14' Finish Date 7/19/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 14' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 4 Days After Drilling 14' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) rn (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —5"Asphaltic Concrete - -4"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - soft to very stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 9 20.5 101.1 7000 None <500 6 7 8 9 Sand Lenses with Depth - 10 CS 3 9.4 122.6 3000 None <500 11 12 13 14 15 CS 9 17.6 109.9 8000 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 25 CS 20 19.6 110.0 9000+ SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-11 Cont July 2018 Sheet 2/2 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/19/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 14' Finish Date 7/19/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 14' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 4 Days After Drilling 14' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 - CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 26 light to dark brown/reddish brown - soft to very stiff 27 28 ��3O SP-GP SAND AND GRAVEL - reddish brown CS 1 28 13.8 116.5 N/A medium dense - 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 SANDSTONE - grey 39 very hard - 40 CS 50/3 17.9 110.5 9000+ With Interbedded Siltstone/Claystone - 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 BOTTOM OF BORING 50' 50 CS 50/5 17.9 9000+ SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-12 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/24/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 7/24/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 24 Hours After Drilling Backfilled Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -3"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 CS 14 17.1 106.0 9000+ 0.1 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 4 5 CS 9 23.9 96.0 6000 6 7 8 Sand Lenses with Depth - 9 10 CS 7 7.3 118.3 9000+ BOTTOM OF BORING @ 10.0' - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-13 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13 1/2' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13 1/2' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 24 Hours After Drilling 13' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -3"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff 4 5 CS 6 19.6 103.5 8500 None <500 35 16 61.1% 6 7 8 9 Sand and Gravel Lens @ 9' - 10 CS 7 4.8 112.2 N/A 11 12 13 14 15 CS 9 22.2 107.5 3000 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-14 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 14' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 14' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 3 Days After Drilling WCI @ 13' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —5"Asphaltic Concrete - -6"Aggregate Base Course 1 Possible Existing Fill - CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 2 dark brown/grey - medium stiff 3 CS 8 17.3 109.9 7500 None <500 4 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY - light to dark brown/reddish brown 5 CS 14 28.9 93.9 8500 stiff - 6 7 8 9 10 CS 18 16.3 116.1 9000+ 11 12 13 14 15 CS 13 12.9 122.0 4500 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-15 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/24/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 7/24/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 24 Hours After Drilling Backfilled Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -5"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 CS 12 21.7 99.8 8000 None <500 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 10 23.0 98.1 5000 6 7 8 9 10 CS 10 18.1 110.8 7000 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 10.0' - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-16 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/24/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 7/24/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 24 Hours After Drilling Backfilled Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY - light to dark brown/reddish brown 3 CS 2 30.2 89.7 <500 very soft to medium stiff - 4 5 CS 7 23.1 98.0 4000 None <500 6 7 8 9 10 CS 10 16.2 106.4 5000 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 10.0' - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-17 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/24/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 7/24/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 24 Hours After Drilling Backfilled Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —5"Asphaltic Concrete - -4"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 CS 11 18.4 109.2 8500 None <500 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 11 21.0 102.9 6000 6 7 8 9 Sand Lenses with Depth - 10 CS 6 11.0 120.8 8000 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 10.0' - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-18 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13 1/2' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13 1/2' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 3 Days After Drilling 13 1/2' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -3"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 7 20.8 100.6 9000+ None <500 6 7 8 9 10 CS 7 17.1 110.5 3000 11 12 13 14 15 CS 10 15.7 116.2 3500 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-19 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 15' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 15' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 3 Days After Drilling 13' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —5"Asphaltic Concrete - -6"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 CS 9 21.7 103.7 5000 None <500 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 9 20.6 97.4 6000 6 7 8 9 Sand and Gravel Lens @ 9' 10 CS 8 6.2 107.3 N/A 11 12 13 14 15 CS 12 15.0 12.0 4000 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-20 July 2018 Sheet 1/2 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/19/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13' Finish Date 7/19/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 4 Days After Drilling 13' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) rn (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -3"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - soft 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 4 21.4 98.4 3500 None <500 36 17 78.6% 6 7 8 9 10 CS 5 20.5 108.1 <500 None <500 11 12 13 14 15 CS 8 12.0 118.6 8000 16 SP-GP SAND AND GRAVEL - reddish brown 17 loose to medium dense - 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 25 CS 26 12.6 N/A SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-20 Cont July 2018 Sheet 2/2 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/19/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 13' Finish Date 7/19/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 13' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 4 Days After Drilling 13' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 - 26 27 SP-GP SAND AND GRAVEL - reddish brown 28 loose to medium dense - 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 CS 50/6 13.2 9000+ SANDSTONE - grey 36 hard to very hard - 37 With Interbedded Siltstone/Claystone - 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 CS 1 50/7 16.1 115.3 9000+ BOTTOM OF BORING 45' - 46 47 48 49 50 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-21 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/20/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 12 1/2' Finish Date 7/20/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 12 1/2' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 3 Days After Drilling 12' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -5"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 13 19.8 105.2 9000+ None <500 6 7 8 9 10 CS 7 19.7 106.8 2500 11 12 13 Sand Lenses with Depth 14 15 CS 13 11.5 124.1 5500 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 15.0' - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-22 July 2018 Sheet 1/2 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/19/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 12 1/2' Finish Date 7/19/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 12 1/2' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 4 Days After Drilling 12' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) rn (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —5"Asphaltic Concrete - -2"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 light to dark brown/reddish brown - soft to stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 6 25.1 94.0 9000+ None <500 6 7 8 9 10 CS 5 23.7 102.7 2000 11 12 13 14 Sand Lenses with Depth - 15 CS 13 12.5 122.4 8000 16 17 18 19 20 CS 9 18.6 121.6 1000 21 22 23 24 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-22 Cont July 2018 Sheet 2/2 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/19/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling 12 1/2' Finish Date 7/19/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 12 1/2' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 4 Days After Drilling 12' Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 - CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 26 light to dark brown/reddish brown - soft to stiff 27 With Sand and Gravel Lenses - 28 29 30 CS 50/10 12.2 9000+ SANDSTONE - grey 31 medium hard to very hard - 32 With Interbedded Siltstone/Claystone - 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 CS 1 50/4 16.1 115.6 9000+ None <500 31 6 17.3% BOTTOM OF BORING 45' - 46 47 48 49 50 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project#18-1206 SOS LOGIC LOG OF BORING B-23 July 2018 Sheet 1/1 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 7/24/2018 Auger Type: 4"CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 7/24/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG/BM 24 Hours After Drilling Backfilled Estimated Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD q %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) N (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI N —4"Asphaltic Concrete - -4"Aggregate Base Course 1 2 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 3 CS 6 22.5 4000 light to dark brown/reddish brown - medium stiff to stiff 4 With Scattered Gravel 5 CS 7 20.2 106.2 5000 None <500 6 7 8 9 10 CS 12 17.7 110.5 6000 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 10.0' - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 -4 0 ZG -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-1 @ 2 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Initial Moisture 17.8% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 18.6% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf 0.1% % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) 700 Dry Density(pcf) 110.5 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 -4 0 cc -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-2 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 26.7% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 27.2% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 97.2 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 -4 0 cc -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-3 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 21.9% Liquid Limit 36 Final Moisture 23.6% Plasticity Index 16 % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 52.6% Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 100.8 0 SOLOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 LtwAldac -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-5 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 16.8% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 15.2% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 109.3 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 0 7-21 -2 aterA de -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-7 @ 2 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 21.0% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 23.1% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 98.4 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 atterA de -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-7 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 28.3% Liquid Limit 32 Final Moisture 29.0% Plasticity Index 16 % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 56.9% Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 91.7 0 SOLOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 -4 0 cc -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-8 @ 9 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 16.2% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 17.0% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 111.1 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 LtwAldac -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-9 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Initial Moisture 25.0% Liquid Limit 47 Final Moisture 25.2% Plasticity Index 27 % Swell @ 500 psf 0.5% % Passing#200 88.7% Swell Pressure (psf) 1,000 Dry Density(pcf) 98.4 0 SOLOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project# 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 3 6 y 4 2 -2 aterA cue -4 C O •W o -6 0 N C O U -8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-9 @ 34 Sample Description: Grey Sandstone (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 18.0% Liquid Limit 32 Final Moisture 19.6% Plasticity Index 8 % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 23.1% Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 108.9 SO� LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 LtwA do -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-10 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 22.7% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 23.0% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 103.3 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 LtwA do -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-11 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 20.5% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 22.5% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 101.1 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 LtwA do -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-11 @ 9 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Initial Moisture 9.4% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 12.8% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 122.6 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 LtwA da -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-12 @ 2 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 17.1% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 19.2% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf 0.1% % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) - Dry Density(pcf) 106.0 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 -4 0 cc -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-13 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 19.6% Liquid Limit 35 Final Moisture 20.7% Plasticity Index 16 % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 61.1% Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 103.5 0 SOLOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 -4 0 cc -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-14 @ 2 Sample Description: Fill - Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 17.3% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 18.8% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 109.9 SOS LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 LtwA do -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-15 @ 2 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 21.7% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 23.5% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 99.8 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 siterA ds -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-16 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 23.1% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 23.9% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 98.0 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 -4 0 ZG -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-17 @ 2 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 18.4% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 19.2% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 109.2 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 aterA de -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-18 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Initial Moisture 20.8% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 22.8% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 100.6 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 aterA de -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-19 @ 2 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 21.7% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 21.4% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 103.7 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 LtwAldac -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-20 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 21.4% Liquid Limit 36 Final Moisture 23.5% Plasticity Index 17 % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 78.6% Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 98.4 SO�LOGic SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 -4 0 .G CD 6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-20 @ 9 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Initial Moisture 20.5% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 16.9% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 108.1 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 -4 0 cc -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-21 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 19.8% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 21.7% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 105.2 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 LtwA do -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-22 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 25.1% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 27.8% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 94.0 SO�LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project# 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 3 6 y 4 2 -24��1� -4 C O •W o -6 0 N C O U -8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-22 @ 44 Sample Description: Grey Sandstone (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 16.1% Liquid Limit 31 Final Moisture 16.5% Plasticity Index 6 % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 17.3% Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 115.6 SO� LOGIC SPRADLEY BARR REDEVELOPMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project # 18-1206 July 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 (D 6 3 4 2 -2 aterA da -4 0 -6 0 H C O U 8 -10 -12 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-23 @ 4 Sample Description: Light to Dark Brown/Reddish Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 20.2% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 21.1% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density(pcf) 106.2 SO�LOGIC UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification Group Symbol Group NameB Coarse Grained Soils Gravels Clean Gravels Cu 2.4 and 1 s Cc 5 3E GW Well graded gravel' More than 50%retained More than 50%of coarse Less than 5%finesc Cu<4 and/or 1 >Cc>3' GP Poorly graded gravel' fraction retained on on No.200 sieve No.4 sieve Gravels with Fines More Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel',c." than 12%fines° Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel',','_ Sands Clean Sands Cu>-6 and 1 s Cc 5 3E SW Well graded sand' 50%or more of coarse Less than 5%fines' Cu<6 and/or 1 >Cc>3' SP Poorly graded sand' fraction passes No.4 sieve Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandB"' More than 12%fines' Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand •"' Fine-Grained Soils Silts and Clays Inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above"A"line' CL Lean clayK,L,M 50%or more passes the Liquid limit less than 50 PI<4 or plots below"A"line' ML SIItK,L,M No.200 sieve Organic Liquid limit-oven Organic clayK,L,M.N dried <0.75 OL Liquid limit-not Organic siltK,L,M,o dried Silts and Clays Inorganic PI plots on or above"A"line CH Fat clayK,L,M Liquid limit 50 or more PI plots below"A"line MH Elastic siltK.L M Organic Liquid limit-oven dried <0.75 OH Organic clayK.L.M,P Liquid limit-not dried Organic siltKLM° Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter,dark in color,and organic odor PT Peat "Based on the material passing the 3-in.(75-mm)sieve "If fines are organic,add"with organic fines"to group name. B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders,or both,add"with cobbles 1 If soil contains a 15%gravel,add"with gravel"to group name. or boulders,or both"to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area,soil is a CL-ML,silty clay. °Gravels with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well graded K If soil contains 15 to 29%plus No.200,add"with sand"or"with gravel with silt,GW-GC well graded gravel with clay,GP-GM poorly gravel,"whichever is predominant. graded gravel with silt,GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. L If soil contains a 30%plus No.200 predominantly sand,add °Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well graded "sandy"to group name. sand with silt,SW-SC well graded sand with clay,SP-SM poorly graded "'If soil contains a 30%plus No.200,predominantly gravel,add sand with silt,SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay "gravelly"to group name. z ECU=D60/Djo Cc= (D30) "PI a 4 and plots on or above"A"line. Dio x D6o OR<4 or plots below"A"line. F If soil contains a 15%sand,add"with sand"to group name. P PI plots on or above"A"line. GIf fines classify as CL-ML,use dual symbol GC-GM,or SC-SM. °PI plots below"A"line. 60 For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction 50 of coarse-grained soils ry 0 Equation of"A"-line Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5. ' w 40 then PI=0.73(ILL-20) t0� p Equation of"U"-line �o ? Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, G 30 the PI=0.9(LL-8) a20 ' Goo MH or OH CL 10 7 CL-ML 4 - ML or OL i 0 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT(ILL) GENERAL NOTES DRILLING&SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon- 1%" I.D.,2"O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger ST: Thin-Walled Tube—2.5"O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger RS: Ring Sampler-2.42" I.D., 3"O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger CS: California Barrel-1.92" I.D.,2.5"O.D., unless otherwise noted RB: Rock Bit BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler(SS)the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the "Standard Penetration" or "N-value". For 2.5" O.D. California Barrel samplers (CB) the penetration value is reported as the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, reported as "blows per inch," and is not considered equivalent to the "Standard Penetration"or"N-value". WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB: After Boring ACR: After Casing Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils,the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils,the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50%of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve;their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. FINE-GRAINED SOILS COARSE-GRAINED SOILS BEDROCK (CB) (SS) (CB) (SS) Relative (CB) Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. Consistency Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. Density Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. Consistency <3 0-2 Very Soft 0-5 <3 Very Loose <24 <20 Weathered 3-5 3-4 Soft 6-14 4-9 Loose 24-35 20-29 Firm 6-10 5-8 Medium Stiff 15-46 10-29 Medium Dense 36-60 30-49 Medium Hard 11-18 9-15 Stiff 47-79 30-50 Dense 61-96 50-79 Hard 19-36 16-30 Very Stiff >79 >50 Very Dense >96 >79 Very Hard >36 >30 Hard RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY GRAVEL Descriptive Terms of Percent of Maior Component Other Constituents Dry Weight of Sample Particle Size Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) With 15—29 Cobbles 12 in.to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm) Modifier >30 Gravel 3 in.to#4 sieve(75mm to 4.75 mm) Sand #4 to#200 sieve(4.75mm to 0.075mm) Silt or Clay Passing#200 Sieve(0.075mm) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Descriptive Terms of Percent of Other Constituents Dry Weight Term Plasticity Index Trace <5 Non-plastic 0 With 5-12 Low 1-10 Modifiers > 12 Medium 11-30 High 30+ v SO��_� LOGIC � Final Drainage Report Drake and College Mixed-Use— Fort Collins, Colorado Appendix B — Hydrologic Calculations and Exhibits Kimley>>>Horn Kimley>>) Horn RAINFALL INTENSITY Time Intensity Frequency Tabulation TIME 2 YR 10 YR 100 YR 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 7 2.52 4.31 8.80 8 2.40 4.10 8.38 9 2.30 3.93 8.03 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 12 2.05 3.50 7.16 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 20 1.61 2.74 5.60 25 1.43 2.44 4.98 30 1.30 2.21 4.52 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 50 0.92 1.58 3.23 60 0.82 1.40 2.86 120 11 0.49 0.86 1 1.84 Note: Intensity values from the City of Fort Collins Intensity-Duration-Frequency Tables; Chapter 5, Section 3.4 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, 2018 Edition. K:\NCO_Civi1\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>> Horn RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - EX. IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use 11/26/2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAW CHECKED BY: AGR SOIL: GROUP C Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers LAND USE: AREA AREA AREA AREA 2-YEAR COEFF. 0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 100-YEAR COEFF. 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.63 IMPERVIOUS % 2% 90% 100% 40% Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) C(2) C(100) Imp % On-Site Basins Flowing On-site EX-A EX-A 0.00 0.40 2.72 0.00 3.13 0.95 1.00 99% EX-B EX-B 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.00 1.45 0.95 1.00 100% EX-C EX-C 0.03 0.24 1.43 0.00 1.69 0.94 0.99 97% BASIN SUBTOTAL 0.03 0.64 5.60 0.00 6.27 0.95 1.00 99% 0% 10% 89% 0% K:\NCO_Civil\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn 2-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use DATE: 11/26/2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAw CHECKED BY: AGR SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(Ti) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN I AREA C2 LENGTH SLOPE T; LENGTH SLOPE R I VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL I TOTAL Tc BASIN Ac Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. On-Site Basins EX-A 3.13 0.95 200 1.5% 3.5 240 1.5% 0.195 1.8 2.3 5.7 440 1.5% 99% 12.4 5.7 EX-B 1.45 0.95 200 1.5% 3.5 165 1.5% 0.195 1.8 1.6 5.0 365 1.5% 100% 12.0 5.0 EX-C 1.69 0.94 200 1.5% 3.7 90 1.5% 0.195 1.8 0.9 4.6 290 1.5% 97% 11.6 5.0 K:\NCO_Civil\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn 100-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use DATE: 11/26/2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: i3Aw CHECKED BY: AGR SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(Ti) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN I AREA C100 LENGTH SLOPE T; LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN Ac Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. On-Site Basins EX-A 3.13 1.00 200 1.5% 2.3 240 1.5% 0.195 1.8 2.3 4.6 440 1.5% 99% 12.4 5.0 EX 1.45 1.00 200 1.5% 2.3 165 1.5% 0.195 1.8 1.6 3.9 365 1.5% 100% 12.0 5.0 EX-C 1.69 0.99 200 1.5% 2.6 90 1.5% 0.195 1.8 0.9 3.4 290 1.5% 97% 11.6 5.0 K:\NCO_Civil\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>)Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 2 YEAR EVENT DATE: 11/26/2024 PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAW Pt(1-Hour Rainfall)= 0.82 CHECKED BY: AGR REMARKS ZZ ZF- Q .-. U.LL � c C9 � � z wc� OW W cn � Q ZO Q C� v pm pa V On-Site Basins EX-A EX-A 3.13 0.95 5.75 2.97 2.68 7.95 Existing Drainage Flows EX-B EX-B 1.45 0.95 5.03 1.38 2.78 3.83 Existing Drainage Flows EX-C EX-C 1.69 0.94 5.00 1.59 2.78 4.42 Existing Drainage Flows K:\NCO_Civil\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>))Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT DATE: 11/26/2024 PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAW Pt(1-Hour Rainfall)= 2.86 CHECKED BY: AGR REMARKS u_ LL c!) Z Qm N � Q �zVO W Q — � p ZOC3 � U .�. L) On-Site Basins EX-A EX-A 1 3.13 1 1.00 1 5.75 1 3.13 1 9.34 1 29.19 1 Existing Drainage Flows EX-B EX-B 1 1.45 1 1.00 1 5.03 1 1.45 1 9.68 1 14.04 1 Existing Drainage Flows EX-C EX-C 1 1.69 1 0.99 1 5.00 1 1.67 1 9.70 1 16.22 Existing Drainage Flows K:\NCO_Civil\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley))) Horn PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use DATE: 11/26/2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAW CHECKED BY: AGR RATIONAL CALCULATIONS SUMMARY DESIGN POINT TRIBUTARY I TRIBUTARY AREA I IMPERVIOUSNESS PEAK FLOWS (CFS) BASINS (AC) % Q2 Q100 On-Site Basins Flowing On-Site EX-A EX-A 3.13 99% 7.95 29.19 EX-B EX-B 1.45 100% 3.83 14.04 EX-C EX-C 1.69 97% 4.42 16.22 TOTAL 6.27 99% 16.19 59.46 K:\NC0_Civil\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>) Horn RAINFALL INTENSITY Time Intensity Frequency Tabulation TIME 2 YR 10 YR 100 YR 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 7 2.52 4.31 8.80 8 2.40 4.10 8.38 9 2.30 3.93 8.03 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 12 2.05 3.50 7.16 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 20 1.61 2.74 5.60 25 1.43 2.44 4.98 30 1.30 2.21 4.52 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 50 0.92 1.58 3.23 60 0.82 1.40 2.86 120 11 0.49 0.86 1 1.84 Note: Intensity values from the City of Fort Collins Intensity-Duration-Frequency Tables; Chapter 5, Section 3.4 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, 2018 Edition. K:\NCO_Civi1\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>Morn RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS-IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION PROJECT NAME:Drake and College Mixed Use 12/4/2024 PROJECT NUMBER:96315014 CALCULATED BY:BAW CHECKED BY:AGR SOIL:GROUP C Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt,Concrete Gravel/Pavers Commercial LAND USE: AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA 2-YEAR COEFF. 0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.85 100-YEAR COEFF. 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 IMPERVIOUS% 2% 90% 100% 40% 803/7 Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt,Concrete Gravel/Pavers Commercial TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN I POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC C(2) C 100 Imp On-Site Basins Flowing On-site 1A 1A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.98 0.85 1.00 80% 18 1 B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.85 1.00 80% 2A 2A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.85 1.00 80% 2B 2B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.85 1.00 80% 3A 3A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.25 0.85 1.00 80% 3B 3B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.85 1.00 80°/a 4A 4A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.99 1.99 0.85 1.00 80% 4B 4B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.85 1.00 80/ R1 R1 0.03 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.10 0.52 0.89 0.96 91 R2 R2 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.18 0.83 0.92 829 BASIN SUBTOTAL 1 0.05 0.00 0.49 0.00 5.41 5.95 0.85 0.99 81% 1% 0% 8% 0% 91% On-Site Basins Flowing Off-site OS1 OS1 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.69 0.91 95% OS2 OS2 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.73 0.98 72% OS3 OS3 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.55 0.73 82% OS4 OS4 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.20 0.31 2% BASIN SUBTOTAL 0.15 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.58 0.64 50% 48% 0% 38% 0% 141/6 On-Site Roadway Basins Flowing to Underground Chamber System R1$R2 R1$R2 1 0.05 1 0.00 0.49 1 0.00 0.16 0.69 0.68 1 0.90 1 89 7% 1 0% 71% 0% 23% Notes: 1. Imperviousness,I,values per UDFCD Criteria Manual Volume 1,Table 6-3 2. Runoff Coefficient values are from the City of Fort Collins Runoff Coefficient Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3;Chapter 5,Section 3.2 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual 2018 Edition.Frequency ad'ustment factor has been applied to composite C values per Table 3.2-3. K:\NCO_C10\096315014_K.W.Drake-College\Projett Files\Eag\02lrtage\PR CIA Glcs.zlsz Kimley>>>Horn 2-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use DATE: 12/4/2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAw CHECKED BY: AGR SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(TI) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN AREA C2 LENGTH SLOPE TI LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN AC Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. On-Site Basins 1A 0.98 0.85 0.0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/O! 80% 10.0 5.0 1B 0.16 0.85 0.0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/O! 80% 10.0 5.0 2A 0.50 0.85 0.0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/O! 80% 10.0 5.0 2B 0.05 0.85 0.0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/O! 80% 10.0 5.0 3A 1.25 0.85 0.0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/O! 80% 10.0 5.0 3B 0.17 0.85 0.0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/O! 80% 10.0 5.0 4A 1.99 0.85 1 0.0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/O! 80% 10.0 5.0 4B 0.15 0.85 1 0.0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/01 80% 10.0 1 5.0 R1 0.52 0.89 60 2.0% 2.4 200 O.6% 0.195 3.0 1.1 3.5 260 0.9% 80% 11.4 5.0 R2 0.18 0.83 35 2.0% 2.3 100 0.6% 0.195 3.0 0.6 2.9 135 1.0% 80% 10.8 5.0 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site M 0.06 0.69 75 2.0% 5.2 15 0.6% 0.195 3.0 0.1 5.3 90 1.8% 0% 10.5 5.3 0.04 0.73 40 2.0% 3.4 55 3.5% 0.195 7.2 0.1 3.6 95 2.9% 0% 10.5 5.0 0.08 0.55 40 2.0% 5.2 55 3.5% 0.195 7.2 0.1 5.3 95 2.9% 0% 10.5 5.3 0.13 0.20 30 2.0% 7.3 0.195 0.0 0.0 7.3 30 2.0% 0% 10.2 7.3 y Basins Flowing to Underground Chamber System R1 &R2 1 0.69 1 0.68 1 35 1 2.0% 1 3.6 1 100 0.6% 0.195 3.0 0.6 4.2 1 135 1.0% 89% 10.8 5.0 K:\NC0_Civii\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn 100-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use DATE: 12/4/2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAw CHECKED BY: AGR SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(Ti) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN I AREA C100 LENGTH SLOPE TI LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN Ac Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. in. Min. On-Site Basins 1A 0.98 1.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/0! 80% 10.0 5.0 1 B 0.16 1.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/0! 80% 10.0 5.0 2A 0.50 1.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/0! 80% 10.0 5.0 2B 0.05 1.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/0! 80% 10.0 5.0 3A 1.25 1.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/0! 80% 10.0 5.0 3B 0.17 1.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/0! 80% 10.0 5.0 4A 1.99 1.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/0! 80% 10.0 5.0 4B 0.15 1.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 #DIV/0! 80% 10.0 5.0 R1 0.52 0.96 60 0 1.6 200 0 0.195 3.0 1.1 2.7 260 0.9% 91% 11.4 5.0 R2 0.18 0.92 35 0 1.6 100 0 0.195 3.0 0.6 2.2 135 1.0% 82% 10.8 5.0 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 0.06 1 0.91 75 2.0% 2.4 15 0.6% 0.195 3.0 0.1 2.5 1 90 1.8% 0% 1 10.5 1 5.0 OS2 0.04 1 0.98 40 2.0% 1.1 55 3.5% 0.195 7.2 0.1 1.3 1 95 2.9% 0% 1 10.5 5.0 OS3 0.08 0.73 40 2.0% 3.5 55 3.5% 0.195 7.2 0.1 3.6 95 2.9% 0% 10.5 5.0 OS4 0.13 0.31 1 30 2.0% 6.4 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 6.4 30 2.0% 0% 10.2 6.4 On-Site Roadway Basins Flowing to Underground Chamber System R1 &R2 1 0.69 1 0.90 1 35 1 2.0% 1 1.7 1 100 0.6% 0.195 3.0 0.6 2.3 135 1.0% 79% 10.8 5.0 K:\NCO_Civil\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN -RATIONAL METHOD 2 YEAR EVENT DATE: 12/4/2024 PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAW Pt(1-Hour Rainfall). 0.82 CHECKED BY:AGR REMARKS u_ qcn LDz WU O �j :° t a C� rna co � a zo a - 2 v om oa L) �_ On-Site Basins Future Lot 1 drainage flows to connect via storm sewer at 1A 1A 0.98 0.85 5.00 0.83 2.78 2.32 Design point 1A Future Lot 1 drainage flows off-site towards W.Drake Road at 1 B 1 B 0.16 0.85 5.00 0.13 2.78 0.37 Design point 1 B Future Lot 2 drainage flows to connect via storm sewer at 2A 2A 0.50 0.85 5.00 0.43 2.78 1.19 Design point 2A Future Lot 2 drainage flows off-site towards S.College Avenue 28 2B 0.05 0.85 5.00 0.04 2.78 0.12 at Design point 2B Future Lot 3 drainage flows to connect via storm sewer at 3A 3A 1.25 0.85 5.00 1.06 2.78 2.95 Design point 3A Future Lot 3 drainage flows off-site towards W.Drake Road at 3B 3B 0.17 0.85 5.00 0.15 2.78 0.41 Design point 3B Future Lot 4 drainage flows to connect via storm sewer at 4A 4A 1.99 0.85 5.00 1.69 2.78 4.71 Design point 4A Future Lot 4 drainage flows off-site towards W.Thunderbird 4B 4B 0.15 0.85 5.00 0.13 2.78 0.36 Drive at Design point 4B Flows to proposed inlet within roadway to underground storm R1 R1 0.52 0.89 5.00 0.46 2.78 1.28 system at R1 Flows to proposed inlet within roadway to underground storm R2 R2 0.18 0.83 5.00 0.15 2.78 0.41 system at R2 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 OS1 0.06 0.69 5.30 0.04 2.74 0.12 Flows North to W.Drake Street OS2 OS2 0.04 0.73 5.00 0.03 2.78 0.08 Flows South to W.Thunderbird Rd OS3 OS3 0.08 0.55 5.28 0.04 2.74 0.12 Flows East within roadway to S College Avenue OS4 OS4 0.13 0.20 7.32 0.03 2.48 0.06 Flows East along landscaping to S College Avenue On-Site Roadway Basins Flowing to Underground Chamber System R1&R2 R1&R2 1 0.69 1 0.68 1 5.00 1 0.47 2.78 1.32 1 Flows to Underground Chamber System K:\NC0_Civil\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>Morn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN -RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT DATE: 12/4/2024 PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAW Pt(1-Hour Rainfall)= 2.86 CHECKED BY: AGR REMARKS ILL LL z_ LL N � � Z LU ZW p W Ga Qa � O .". V E On-Site Basins Future Lot 1 drainage flows to connect via storm sewer at 1A 1A 0.98 1.00 5.00 0.98 9.70 9.52 Design point 1A Future Lot 1 drainage flows off-site towards W.Drake Road at 1 B 1 B 0.16 1.00 5.00 0.16 9.70 1.54 Design point 1 B Future Lot 2 drainage flaws to connect via storm sewer at 2A 2A 0.50 1.00 5.00 0.50 9.70 4.87 Design point 2A Future Lot 2 drainage flows off-site towards S.College Avenue 2B 2B 0.05 1.00 5.00 0.05 9.70 0.50 at Design point 2B Future Lot 3 drainage flaws to connect via storm sewer at 3A 3A 1.25 1.00 5.00 1.25 9.70 12.10 Design point 3A Future Lot 3 drainage flows off-site towards W.Drake Road at 3B 3B 0.17 1.00 5.00 0.17 9.70 1.69 Design point 3B Future Lot 4 drainage flows to connect via storm sewer at 4A 4A 1.99 1.00 5.00 1.99 9.70 19.32 Design point 4A Future Lot 4 drainage flows off-site towards W.Thunderbird 4B 4B 0.15 1.00 5.00 0.15 9.70 1.48 Drive at Design point 4B Flows to proposed inlet within roadway to underground storm R1 R1 0.52 0.96 5.00 0.49 9.70 4.80 system at R1 Flows to proposed inlet within roadway to underground storm R2 R2 0.18 0.92 5.00 0.16 9.70 1.57 system at R2 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 OS1 0.06 0.91 5.30 0.06 9.55 0.56 Flows North to W.Drake Street OS2 OS2 0.04 0.98 5.00 0.04 9.70 0.38 Flows South to W.Thunderbird Rd OS3 OS3 0.08 0.73 5.28 0.06 9.56 0.55 Flows East within roadway to S College Avenue OS4 OS4 0.13 0.31 7.32 0.04 8.67 0.35 Flows East along landscaping to S College Avenue On-Site Roadway Basins Flowing to Underground Chamber System R1&R2 I R1&R2 1 0.69 1 0.90 1 5.00 1 0.63 9.70 6.07 Flows to Underground Chamber System K:\NC0_Civil\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>) Horn PROJECT NAME: Drake and College Mixed Use DATE: 12/4/2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAW CHECKED BY: AGR RATIONAL CALCULATIONS SUMMARY DESIGN POINT TRIBUTARY TRIBUTARY AREA IMPERVIOUSNESS PEAK FLOWS (CFS) BASINS (AC) % Q2 0100 On-Site Basins Flowing On-Site 1 A 1 A 0.98 80% 2.32 9.52 1 B 1 B 0.16 80% 0.37 1.54 2A 2A 0.50 80% 1.19 4.87 2B 2B 0.05 80% 0.12 0.50 3A 3A 1.25 80% 2.95 12.10 3B 3B 0.17 80% 0.41 1.69 4A 4A 1.99 80% 4.71 19.32 4B 4B 0.15 80% 0.36 1.48 R1 R1 0.52 91% 1.28 4.80 R2 R2 0.18 82% 0.41 1.57 TOTAL 5.95 81% 1 14.12 57.38 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 OS1 0.06 95% 0.12 0.56 OS2 OS2 0.04 72% 0.08 0.38 OS3 OS3 0.08 82% 0.12 0.55 OS4 OS4 0.13 2% 0.06 0.35 TOTAL 0.31 50% 0.39 1.84 On-Site Roadway Basins Flowing to Underground Chamber System R1 & R2 I R1 & R2 1 0.69 1 89% 1 1.32 6.07 K:\NC0_Civi1\096315014_Kentro Drake-College\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>»Horn PROJECT NAME: Drake&College Mixed-Use DATE: 12/4/2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: BAW CHECKED BY: AGR PROJECT INFORMATION WQCV Calculations Total Site Area: 6.27 acres Road Improvement Area to LID a: 0.69 acres 0.8 (Sub-basin A104,A110): (12 hours draintime) Imperviousness 0.89 WQCV 0.314 Total Site Impervious Area: 0.49 acres Total WQCV Req.(CF) 947.7 CIF Added/Modified Impervious Area: 0.49 acres Total WQCV Provided 972 CIF WQCV=v(0.92J—1.19J4 0.7&n Where:WQCV=Water Quality Capture Volume,watershed inches a=Coefficient corresponding to WQCV drain time(Table SA-1) 1=Imperviousness i%/100) V= c J Ax1.2 Equation 7-1 Where:V=required volume,acre-ft A=tributary catchment area upstream,acres WQCV=Water Quality Capture Volume,watershed inches 1.2=to account for the additional 20%of required storage for sedimentation accumulation Table 5.4-1.Drain Time Coefficients for WCWV Calculations Drain Time(hrs) Coefficient(a) 12 0.8 40 1.0 1) 5D%ofthe newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques and 25%of new paved(vehicle use)areas must be pervious. 2) 75%of all newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques. Impervious surfaces are defined as hardscape surfaces that do not allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Impervious surfaces include asphalt and concrete surfaces, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks,patios and rooftops.(Impervious surface areas must be assumed for single family residential lots when overall impervious areas are being determined for residential developments.The assumed areas mustthen be included in LID calculations.) Fort Collins IDF Table for Rational Method (FCSCM Table 3.4.1) Intensity Intensity Intensity Intensity Duration WQ 2-year 10-year 100-year (min.) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) 5 1.43 2.85 4.87 9.95 6 1.34 2.67 4.56 9.31 7 1.26 2.52 4.31 8.80 8 1.20 2.40 4.10 8.38 9 1.15 2.30 3.93 8.03 10 1.11 2.21 3.78 7.72 11 1.07 2.13 3.63 7.42 12 1.03 2.05 3.50 7.16 13 0.99 1.98 3.39 6.92 14 0.96 1.92 3.29 6.71 15 0.94 1.87 3.19 6.52 16 0.91 1.81 3.08 6.30 17 0.88 1.75 2.99 6.10 18 0.85 1.70 2.90 5.92 19 0.83 1.65 2.82 5.75 20 0.81 1.61 2.74 5.60 21 0.78 1.56 2.67 5.46 22 0.77 1.53 2.61 5.32 23 0.75 1.49 2.55 5.20 24 0.73 1.46 2.49 5.09 25 0.72 1.43 2.44 4.98 26 0.70 1.40 2.39 4.87 27 0.69 1.37 2.34 4.78 28 0.67 1.34 2.29 4.69 29 0.66 1.32 2.25 4.60 30 0.65 1.30 2.21 4.52 31 0.64 1.27 2.16 4.42 32 0.62 1.24 2.12 4.33 33 0.61 1.22 2.08 4.24 34 0.60 1.19 2.04 4.16 35 0.59 1.17 2.00 4.08 36 0.58 1.15 1.96 4.01 37 0.58 1.16 1.93 3.93 38 0.56 1.11 1.89 3.87 39 0.55 1.09 1.86 3.80 40 0.54 1.07 1.83 3.74 41 0.53 1.05 1.80 3.68 42 0.52 1.04 1.77 3.62 43 0.51 1.02 1.74 6.56 44 0.51 1.01 1.72 3.51 45 0.50 0.99 1.69 3.46 46 0.49 0.98 1.67 3.41 47 0.48 0.96 1.64 3.36 48 0.48 0.95 1.62 3.31 49 0.47 0.94 1.60 3.27 50 0.46 0.92 1.58 3.23 51 0.46 0.91 1.56 3.18 52 0.45 0.90 1.54 3.14 53 0.45 0.89 1.52 3.10 54 0.44 0.88 1.50 3.07 55 0.44 0.87 1.48 3.06 56 0.43 0.86 1.47 2.99 57 0.43 0.85 1.45 2.96 58 0.42 0.84 1.43 2.92 59 0.42 0.83 1.42 2.89 60 0.41 0.82 1.40 2.86 65 0.39 0.78 1.32 2.71 70 0.37 0.73 1.25 2.59 75 0.35 0.70 1.19 2.47 80 0.33 0.66 1.14 2.38 85 0.32 0.64 1.09 2.29 90 0.31 0.61 1.05 2.21 95 0.29 0.58 1.01 2.13 100 0.28 0.56 0.97 2.06 105 0.27 0.54 0.94 2.00 110 0.26 0.52 0.91 1.94 115 0.26 0.51 0.88 1.88 120 0.25 0.49 0.86 1.84 Chamber Configuration Summary Minimum Installed Required Total Total Chamber Unit Isolator Row Provided Installed Required WQ Chamber Unit Chamber Volume,inc. Mimimum No. Minimum WQ Volume by No.of Provided WQ Isolator Row System Chamber WQ Volume InfLOwh Chamber Release Rate` Unit Volume° Aggregatee of Chambers Release Rateg FAA Method Design Chambers Release Rate Volume Volume ID (cf 1, (cfs) Type "`, (cf) (cf) forWQCVr (cfs) (cf) Control' Provided (cfs) (cf) (cf) 1 948 0.71 SC-800 0.024 50.60 81.00 12 0.28 297 WQCV 12 0.28 607 972 a.Total required WQCV calculated per 12-hr drain time. b.WQ inflow is approximated as one-half the 2-yr peak runoff rate. c.Release rate per chamber,limited by flow through geotextile with accumulated sediment. d.Volume within chamber only,not accountingfor void spaces in surrounding aggregate.The Isolator Row(s)are sized perthis unit volume. e.Volume includes chamber and void spaces(40%)in surrounding aggregate,per chamber unit.The total system WQCV is sized per this unitvolume. f.Number of chambers required to provide full WQCV within total,installed system,including aggregate. g.Release rate per chamber times number of chambers.This is used at the'outlet control'forthe FAA calculations. h.Minimum'chamber-only'volumetoensure dirty water is fully contained within Isolator Row. i.Is design controlled by IsoLator Row volume or WQCV. I.Release rate per chamber times number of chambers provided.This is the approximate controlled discharge from the WQevent. k.Volume provided in chambers only(no aggregate storage).This number must meet or exceed the required FAA storage volume. 1.System volume includes total number of chambers,plus surrounding aggregate.This number must meet or exceed the required12-hrWQCV. Isolator Row Volume Calculation (FAA Method) Drake-College Chamber 1 Project Number: 96315014 Project Location: College and Drake Calcs By: BAW Inputs Results Design Point: 1 Design Storm: WQ Isolator Volume 297 ft 3 Developed"C": 0.99 Area(A): 0.69 acres Max. Release(QouTY 0.31 cfs Inflow(Runoff) Outflow(Release) Storage Detention Time Time WQ Intensity QWQ Volume Volume Volume (Minutes) (Seconds) (in/hr) (cfs) ft3 ft3 ft3 5 300 1.43 0.98 293 93 200 10 600 1.11 0.76 454 186 268 15 900 0.94 0.64 576 279 297 20 1200 0.81 0.55 662 372 290 25 1500 0.72 0.49 734 465 269 30 1800 0.65 0.45 801 558 243 35 2100 0.59 0.40 841 651 190 40 2400 0.54 0.37 879 744 135 45 2700 0.50 0.34 915 837 78 50 3000 0.46 0.32 945 930 15 55 3300 0.44 0.30 983 1023 -40 60 3600 0.41 0.28 1011 1116 -105 65 3900 0.39 0.27 1042 1209 -167 70 4200 0.37 0.25 1050 1302 -252 75 4500 0.35 0.24 1079 1395 -316 80 4800 0.33 0.23 1085 1488 -403 85 5100 0.32 0.22 1118 1581 -463 90 5400 0.31 0.21 1128 1674 -546 95 5700 0.29 0.20 1132 1767 -635 100 6000 0.28 0.19 1151 1860 -709 105 6300 0.27 0.18 1165 1953 -788 110 6600 0.26 0.18 1175 2046 -871 115 6900 0.26 0.17 1205 2139 -934 120 7200 0.25 0.17 1208 2232 -1024 LEGEND: W Q 0 � mm � mm � mm � PROPERTYLINE m DRAKE ROAD # = BASIN DESIGNATION (ROW VARIES) # AC = AREA IN ACRES AC I I = % IMPERVIOUSNESS - -- OH —OH 0HU • da --- -- ., i+S.•.•••. i •A. < q:. - '4 ...� a -- - O O' 4 d' d♦ JAy� !— " .. < # # = DESIGN POINT Uj a . W a �_�� �= � 5025 ` ■� EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY .' , ..... a � — _ PROPOSED ROW a — ", EXISTING FLOW ARROW XA - ♦ � O ..e o — e . A. a' I - - cD - 5026- --- - - _ N . - -- - \ Q < e - --- -- - --- -- U E E 1 co a. _ , ... .d. . �3 Y III. `'e < .�I ♦ e a, ee• it ♦ '' .'e •. •d, i -------- 5027-------- S d • ,. • + . d ♦ < 0�9� A . EX— A ♦ I S { G� • •. • e• a �5027 3.13 99% x x x - - - -- ------ -- - �'' ' C d - _ N ----------- 3 d W W � w d♦ d - W W O m m Q Fy ^ Q ~ rn W > 0Co � (D � N z o Cn o` Il�lil II Co O U) Q O w J Q O 00 � d mi - gasO N Q U '♦ O of - A 5028- it ZOO z l _ x ✓ J z W O 0 0, x 5029-- -- 1 1 2 m . O i' -- ° co Lu Qo m I - ...I W I- Z J I m XC . .. .pe �lY00 z � a x— - i O - - --- __ �� e� Nof N i I @m0 o / z m uc 1 z 1 -- - <.- I DESIGNED BY: BAW DRAWN BY: MKL CHECKED BY: AGR z I PROPOSED ROW _ i - _ PROPOSED ROW ♦I DATE: 12/4/24 � m 1 -5028- , � .dEX o z I 1.69 -_ 97� z w 0 m — — o C N 60-'6 �O LO •a' z d. E I I Lu z I — — — — — — — — — — — — — - -- - -- G — G %a• x °� 1 w d , O d < r ° Qf o 10 i w x 1 O `d... .d I m �.L] w ,lo a V d, 4 w e J w 10 . : .4 J o r, EL w �� e � 100 ' 10 T T V ., a+ • a d ,, x ~ m '� E E _ ♦ d W U ♦ , W w .1 E o I° I x W L.L z .'. w U a - 5028 EL U w � a I— EX_ B w . x x I -- Z �J N 1.45 00� W z O I c�o �• Zz � � I oz x I � e IU > U O M o � o � w • W t` O \ T x o O � z_ z _ � � 1 C Q oLu w PROPOSED ROW w XB cD Q O d• ! I 3 m x - 1- (�z H� -� EH P13ELIMINAIf i w — - -- -- -- - — — _ — — _ — _ _ _ _ =II = — FOR REVIEW ONLY a 0 _- --- - Yo - NOT FOR o z CONSTRUCTION 0 THUNDERBIRD DRIVE IGm lMom Yo (60- ROW) Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Iw o NORTH PROJECT NO. M= rn w 096315014 o SCALE IN FEET Know what's b@IOW. SHEET OGRAPZ HIC IU 0 15 30 60 V ® Call before you dig. zo Y � LEGEND: W Q 0 � ■ ■ >_ ■ ■ � ■ ■ >_ PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED STORM LINE 00 DRAKE ROAD PROPOSED CATCH CURB AND GUTTER EXISTING # = BASIN DESIGNATION RIGHT-OF-WAY ORU off off off AC = AREA IN ACRES z � — O AC I I = % IMPERVIOUSNESS ' F' t��- --------------- ___-_-- DESIGN POINT I -1 1 ma PROPOSED ------ — — — ------ 0S ---I______ ---------------- RIGHT-OF-WAY { — rftft-.- 502g 3 B i i 1 ; 1 B ----------------------- 1 B --------------- � PROPOSED BASIN BOUNDARY Oz 3 A �p&I ���ma 0.17 80% OS- 1 I 0.16 80% � �� �- - PROPOSED ■� N z � � 1 ��� I I � � � 1 A � N � PROPOSED FLOW ARROW W 1 i i - i 0.06 95% 1 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY I � I \ �® EXISTING FLOW ARROW 0 1.25 80% I I I �►�go � 80% { Po U1 , I I I b I N I z Il ; 1 1 I ° I 1 11 M o \ I I I 11 � I \ e 1 � I I 1 I pryer S°�9\ ��• I 1 I I y 1 1 1 � o 1 1 I I I EXISTING z p mr I 1 I I 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY � � 00 R1 W U S N Z 1 , 0.5291 % I II w U) 1 >% 1 I il�ii`i I l I LU o O 1 I I I I i I c� z w o co I I ii',;I I w a z 1 Z i I I I I ,-' iliihl 1 1 i 0 � OJ Z 1 I I u I I wo 1 1 --5029-_ I �I 1 1 I I U ° C U W � o 1 - ;`,1 1 1 i wiz Y W 1 I 1 I ; I co I o i i 1 I w� 1 1 S PROPOSED Y O I— RIGHT-OF-WAY Q I PROPOSED N i I PROPOSED I i o L N o i RIGHT-OF-WAYLO I I I I OVERFLOW INLET I I N r O o 0 I 1 1 STRUCTURE 1 A 1 1 O c� IL J 1 DESIGNED BY: BAW CD DRAWN BY: MKL 0 J I o 1 1 I CHECKED BY: AGR 1 J 1 _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2A U — — — _ - — — I DATE: 12/4/24 ~ I I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _/ — — — — — — — — — — r U ! 0 4A i 1 I PROPOSED STORM LINE 1 PROPOSED ADS SC-800 2B OS- 4 STORM TECH OR ° I I I I I APPROVED EQUAL , I 4A I I 0.13 2% w I 2A I �y I i 1.99 80% �� 'il \ ■ s°26 Ln Q50 co O�o� \ ■ 80% LLI ♦ I p I s \ \ , , 1 I o (N 1 \ \ I j z I I J I I \ \ \ ♦ � 0.05 80% I I Lu of \ \ 1 a — OS- 3 - - - - I - - W o = \ _ - - R2 — R2 - - - - - - - - - - - - W 1 \ \ I i `� \ �1 - - _ 0.18 82% _ - - - I 0.08 82% i S w I— \ / 1 i IEL . J 00 T EXISTING 06 x T-OF-WAY \` \\ \ \ , W W \ \ I W W ' \ \ Q rn I Z II 1\ \\ \ I V LW 1 1 I O Q o I 1 1 I EL I I I 1 U I 02 I 1 O s9 I 1 u°"i I oM I I = I h Z Q I I I I M I W o I I 1 6o Zw I I I 1 UI 4 � I I I o� � LL I I M° W I I 6 o °?s fiI >• �I co< � goto No logo 4B 1 1 1 OS-2 1 PROPOSEDmo .o,: l\``_ o RIGHT OF-WAY i o.04 72% 1 o W ---------- ���_�——----- ------------------- ----------------- 0.15 80% - o � � � � --- 4B -- 5 --1 U W f H c0 of P91IIIEUMNARY — u) U FOR REVIEW ONLY o EXISTING z RIGHT-OF-WAY NOT FOR o N CONSTRUCTION THUNDERBIRD DRIVE 10ML Mom Yo Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. IW � mm o NORTH PROJECT NO. CO rn W 096315014 00 I� z GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Know what's below. SHEET o U 0 15 30 60 ® all before you dig. C7 .0 z0 V " ,_ Y I— 30 OF 30 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET — — J 0 40 80 160 NORTH o o WES _E ROAD nHU LEGEND PROPERTY LINE �- I - __- _ - 5025 — — ` - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE l i S I s I � I ---------------- \\\ N� o — — EASEMENT LINE 0 28- I o Lo cN — CENTERLINE Io, j 5026 ps', N I I M,c O I EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR CP N W I I I I -�27 EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR Doti I200 PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR 0 m $201 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR Z I I I �� Y r' I > UNDERGROUND CHAMBER SYSTEM I Q � ' I � I ; � m o I I I I UNDERGROUND CHAMBER TREATMENT AREA `o LLICD N I I j I I I — — — UNDERGROUND CHAMBER TREATMENT AREA M _ -- -- F _ - _ (ASSUMED 80% IMPERVIOUS) C �- CU �4-I - - - - - - - - - - - — � G j m -17 Lo I I I UNDERGROUND SYSTEM 1 j AREA TO BE TREATED BY INDIVIDUAL LOT I I I TREATMENT AREA:0.49 AC I I I I p I I l fps S�26, REQUIRED VOLUME:948 CF i PROVIDED VOLUME:972 CIF UNTREATED AREA I Lo IZ?5 Q UNTREATED AREA(ASSUMED 80%IMPERVIOUS) Sp? ��� \ \ - - - - - - - - - - - — I I I 8 \\\ I so29 I � I � ko M I 81- I C II I s o PROJECT LID SUMMARY I 00 I C) --------------- _ TOTAL DISTURBED IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 26,709 SF — MINIMUM AREA TO BE TREATED BY LID MEASURES - �`- - - - - - - TOTAL REQUIRED TREATED IMPERVIOUS AREAS BY UNDERGROUND 20,032 SF 75.0% THUNDERBIRD_DRIVE IJ SYSTEM / TOTAL PROPOSED TREATED IMPERVIOUS AREAS BY UNDERGROUND 21,287 SF 79.7% I SYSTEM LID EXHIBIT SWC COLLEGE/DRAKE Kimley ))Horn ©2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES,INC. 3325 S.TIMBERLINE RD,SUITE 130,FORT COLLINS,CO,80525 DATE:December 3,2024 PROJECT NUMSER:096315014 PHONE:(970)822-7911 LEGEND: W Q 0 PROPERTY LINE m EASEMENT LINE DRAKE ROAD PERVIOUS AREA ' _ -- — - IMPERVIOUS AREA y .. " 4Z .•.' d d. a •d.a •• 4 � ..� I" d .. .--- - -- --- /a a !1 Af- O 1 •I rl LU I V VV yq •� ° — — 5025 I � I — I O e I I s N cv cn. q.e, II Ir !� •. I I O 026 --- -- - I I I - - - -- - -- ', \\ i o � ! Z w a o co Di44 1 .n ! d .; I I I i I I ' e I IMPERVIOUS AREA SUMMARY CALCULATIONS o ' 3 O a:a .e li " . i -- --- 50 -- -- I w PROJECT AREA 6.27 AC O 3 7 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 6.18 AC I S G) Z --- - I I I PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 84 AC -- --- ----- \w P 4. ° d X X ----- -- -- -- / j \ / Z N 0 m -- -------- 100 , a. O I REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.34 AC ^ N w w I W W CD x ° �I t I I I I •I W 0 � Lo N N ul1 - I e C) = . I I I 1 A. p � z W I I o, III I C7 I (AU � ° --- -- -- - - -- -- I O 0 ° u) I -- - -- - 5 8- - - - - - - I I I Z W Q ,- _�� -- - I Q Z —j �I O i0 j I j I Ia.. f � I I I I Q W O II 2 m U •° Cl) Lu I I I I •II W ~ Z 1 I Y _j r z .e �I � � Y � O o O ff ~ a I I I I I I I I N N a ,ad.. I I cv / I O M LL z I o — — — — — - - — I . I DESIGNED BY: BAW Ld I I DRAWN BY: MKL o i i i CHECKED BY: AGR DATE: 12/4/24 w y• I , I ° e'. I � I w ° 0 ° I - z a' E oLu - - — — — — — — — - - ------ ---- G G I G Lu \ I tl — \ rrV �nn �d I w I.. ' r m \ W W'd. Lu W a I O coV J I' I — — — -- - - — — — - - — — — — I — a U - co 0 - W sl N W O°z d. x \¢ Ira W \ n N U C) QLu 1 I 1 E � X W ° ILL I I i I I I W I o � LO 7� rn ° I'a I I I C) d � � I I I I W I— �J 2L U^ XLy oZ I W w I I Nz I I W 101 I MN N - �a I � � I I I C w a•: .. I I w ' ° 01 cr I ` I I ,u > Dux I w s 1 oI I ~ I I I ZLu �1 N N =) I x W I NZ - U) Z � I a Q it Y l I I I X Z d I I W w - I OW I ., : . f..�� f - -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- i- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- - -- -- -- I I Q F ULu Z PRELIMINARY cn o Z — — _-------- =__-- '---- -- -_--# --- FOR REVIEW ONLY � U --------------- NOT FOR o z I CONSTRUCTION THUNDERBIRD DRIVE IGm *Horn Yo Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. IW o NORTH PROJECT NO. M= �W 096315014 o GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Know what's b@IOW. SHEET ® Call before you di EX-C OIU 0 15 30 60 V Y g• Uo =Z Y � 1 OF 1 LEGEND: w Q 0 PROPERTY LINE m EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DRAKE ROAD PERVIOUS AREA IIt - off off off z U) IMPERVIOUS AREA > r � PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (ASSUMES 80% IMPERVIOUSNESS) I � 0 0 o _ I w 0 \ _ \ n II I � , ,- - - � ,n s 1 � 23 z �� I /� IMPERVIOUS AREA SUMMARY CALCULATIONS C LLI W PROJECT AREA 6.27 AC ° IV i O 3 I I 2g - i z EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 6.18 AC I w I I I > PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 4.84 AC v �? o I I I - - -- ---- -- -- - s - - I Q CN z REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.34 AC ^ uj cy) N 00 00 - - i W Q i = I 1 I I I ; I � P I o I i J Q I I � w - I I Q o -- I -- — -- -- - I — -- — — i O Q z Q a I I I I z 0 Z¢ I I I I J _ W 0 1 � I �� I 29 I I O W f- co I I I I J Y I I I I I I _ J o I I Y OU O L- N (� ONE ¢ I rn I I °� P I °a e I o I I` VOM � o I U') I I z Z — - - — — — -� DESIGNED BY: BAW MKL I 3 N I ' I I - - -- - - - -- I CHECKED BY: AGR L; I f-� - o - - —i— I / Z I � � � i � — — — — — — — — _— — -= — = — — — — I i 1 DATE: 12/4/24 w ' � �� � ' I � I• I sot I / � -- � I/ I o LU s I I � o 5 I � Z 1 ^/, co ti I 6- __ I I I I - LTV LU o -- --- - - zI - --- - - -- - -- a I I w I a oEL I I � I \ z I \ \ - - — — — — - - — — — - - - - W u w W Ld LLI a v i, J of T - - — - - — f- - -- - - - - -7' 06 — - - — —1- - - - - — � I �J I �L)Ui Uj Do / ' I / I ' I CLW I h \ �,\ // a W a_ _0 z ❑ I I 00 I v 1 I — o a �U I I NN 0 I C'3- oWLij w I / rn � I I I I - \ I -1 V! o a W O z I I I X ❑ I I I �, z I O ICU I w v I I tia LLj N , N I �� N� - - z U)Z p I I x ? w ♦ - oW �1 . 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Uz w PNEL111111NARY mJ a3- _ _ _ U - _ - - - _ --- - ----_ - _ FOR REVIEW ONLY o - -- NOT FOR o< CONSTRUCTION o THUNDERBIRD DRIVE IGmleya*Horn Yo — — — —— — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ Kimley Horn and Associates,Inc. Iw � � LID� NORTH PROJECT NO. c_ rn w 096315014 co 0 Z o GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Know what's b@IOW. SHEET OI2 0 15 30 60 V ® Call before you dig. EX-D 00 z = Y 1 OF 1 Final Drainage Report Drake and College Mixed-Use— Fort Collins, Colorado Appendix C — Hydraulic Calculations (to be included with next submittal) Kimley>>>Horn