Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReports - Drainage - 02/21/2025 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT Toyota Pedersen Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: Pedersen Properties 4455 S Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80525 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 3325 South Timberline Road - Suite 130 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 822-7911 KiMIK;y ,F.f/ Horn Project#:296073000 Prepared: February 21,2025 February 21, 2025 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Engineering 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Toyota Pedersen Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Dear Reviewer: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your review as part of the Project Development Plan (PDP) Major Amendment (MJA) 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 Toyota Pedersen 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. Ramsey Pickard, P.E. TimberlineR. Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 • Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Toyota Pedersen — 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..................................................................4 VIII. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA........................................................................6 IX. VARIANCE REQUESTS .......................................................................................7 X. EROSION CONTROL ...........................................................................................7 XI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................7 X. REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................8 APPENDIX A—REFERENCED CRITERIA.............................................................................. APPENDIX B—HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS AND EXHIBITS ................................................ APPENDIX C—HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS........................................................................ Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Toyota Pedersen — Fort Collins, Colorado I. GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISITING SITE INFORMATION Toyota Pedersen (the "Project") is located in the southeast quarter of Section 35, Township 07 North, Range 69 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, State of Colorado. The property is bounded by South Mason Street to the West, Kensington Drive to the South, a Target department store to the North, and South College Avenue to the East. A Vicinity Map is shown below in Figure 1. inW.TROUTMAN P ® F a z ui D SITE 7i W.HARMONY RD. W.HARMONY RD. �d w {7 w P n�l J U U7 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Surrounding properties include an existing department store to the east and north, car dealership to the west, and commercial retail developments to the south. The property currently consists of an existing car dealership and a paved parking lot. The Project site is located within the General Commercial (CG) Zone District. The Project is located within the Mail Creek 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 is split into two basins. The east basin drains from the south to the northeast to storm inlets located on-site, ultimately draining to the storm sewer system along S College Ave. The western basin drains south to north to storm inlets locate on- site, ultimately draining to a storm sewer system located along S College Ave via the Target parcel. While they are split into two basins on site, both storm lines ultimately drain to the storm system along College. The existing parking lot generally slopes from south to 1 1 Kimley>>>Horn Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Toyota Pedersen — Fort Collins, Colorado north 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 B with soil that includes Altvan-Santana Loam. The northeast corner of the site consists of hydrologic soil group (HSG) Type C with soils that include Nunn Clay soil. 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. A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation dated February 13, 2014, was prepared by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC. There are no known significant geologic features at this site. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 15 to 20.5 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 Mail Creek Master Drainage Basin. This basin has a maximum allowable release rate of the 2-yr historic discharge rate. A map of the Mail Creek Basin is included in Appendix A. When improvements are proposed to an existing developed site and there is an increase in impervious area greater than 1,000 square feet, additional onsite detention is required for runoff from new impervious surfaces. The area of imperviousness is decreasing; therefore, no detention is needed as a result. The Water Quality and low impact development (LID) requirements for the Mail Creek Basin follows FCSCM, which are outlined in the Drainage Design Criteria section of the report. To our knowledge, no master drainage reports exist for the Project site. The Project proposes the removal of a portion of the existing building 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 improvements. The drainage is planned to follow historic drainage patterns, where it will connect to a storm sewer located within S. College Avenue through two sub-basins onsite. III. EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE Historically, the site drains from south to north, towards existing private storm inlets onsite, ultimately draining to storm sewer 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. There are two existing detention ponds located east of South Mason Street. These ponds will remain unchanged and drain through the proposed site. Sub-basin EX-A: The eastern portion of the site, Sub-basin EX-A, slopes east from 1% to 5% and drains north. The drainage follows the curb and gutter and valley pans within the site it as it enters private storm inlets. Flows ultimately drain to the public storm sewer located along S. College Avenue. Basin EX-A is comprised of Type C soils as classified by the NRCS. 21 Kimley>>>Horn Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Toyota Pedersen — Fort Collins, Colorado Sub-basin EX-B: The western portion of the site, Sub-basin EX-B, slopes east from 1% to 5% and drains north. The drainage follows the curb and gutter and valley pans within the site it as it enters private storm inlets. Flows ultimately drain to a private storm system north of the site wich then flows in the public storm sewer located along S. College Avenue. Basin EX-B is comprised of Type B and Type C soils as classified by the NRCS. Sub-basin OS1: The perimeter of the site, consisting of landscaped area, Sub-basin OS1, slopes towards the curb and gutter along S. College Avenue, located to the east of the Project. Basin OS1 is comprised of Type B soils as classified by the NRCS. IV. FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION The Toyota Pedersen site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 08069C1000F dated December 19, 2006, 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 +/- 5.02-acre site to include a building addition, parking lot improvements, and stormwater improvements. Note that the existing site consists almost entirely of impervious area. The project will provide LID and water quality treatment for the proposed improvements. Vl. PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS The proposed sub-basin descriptions are included below. The rational calculations within Appendix B include areas, imperviousness, and other applicable information. Sub-basin 1A: Sub-basin 1A is located in the northeastern corner of the site and consists of concrete sidewalks, asphalt parking lot, and landscaping improvements. The drainage is anticipated to flow north where it will be collected and routed to a Type R storm inlet located at design point 1A. The drainage will be conveyed into an underground LID system before discharging into the existing public storm sewer within S. College Avenue. Sub-basin 2A: Sub-basin 2A is located in the central part of the site and consists of existing building and building additions, the drainage is anticipated to flow into roof drains and into the private storm sewer system. The drainage will be conveyed into an underground LID system before discharging into the existing public storm sewer within S. College Avenue. Sub-basin 3A: Sub-basin 3A is located in the southeastern corner of the site and consists concrete sidewalks, asphalt parking lot, and landscaping improvements. The drainage is anticipated to flow south where it will be collected and routed to a Type R storm inlet located at design 31 Kimley>>>Horn Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Toyota Pedersen — Fort Collins, Colorado point 3A. The drainage will be conveyed into an underground LID system before discharging into the existing public storm sewer within S. College Avenue. Sub-basin 1 B: Sub-basin 1 B is located in the northwestern corner of the site and consists of asphalt parking lot and landscaping improvements. The drainage is anticipated to flow north where it will be collected and routed to a Type R storm inlet located at design point 1 B. The drainage will be conveyed into an underground LID system before discharging into the existing public storm sewer north of the site. This sub-basin contains an existing detention pond that drains into the private storm sewer system before entering the LID system. Sub-basin 2113: Sub-basin 2B is located in the southwestern corner of the site and consists of asphalt parking lot and landscaping improvements. The drainage is anticipated to flow to a low point in the center of the basin where it will be collected in a Type R storm inlet located at design point 2B. The drainage will be conveyed into an underground LID system before discharging into the existing public storm sewer north of the site. This sub-basin contains an existing detention pond that drains into the private storm sewer system before entering the LID system. Sub-basin 3113: Sub-basin 2B is located in the southern portion of the site and consists of concrete sidewalks, asphalt parking lot, and landscaping improvements. The drainage is anticipated to flow to a low point in the center of the basin where it will be collected in a Type R storm inlet located at design point 3B. The drainage will be conveyed into an underground LID system before discharging into the existing public storm sewer north of the site. Sub-basin OS-1: Sub-basin OS-1 is located around the perimeter of the site and consists of landscaping improvements. The site is also proposing sidewalk improvements along College Avenue and Kensington Drive. The drainage is conveyed to the curb and gutter of College Avenue and Kensington Road. There are no public storm inlets in Kensington Road. The drainage is collected within existing public storm inlets along S. College Ave. VII. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES Proposed Site Description Site grading is designed to convey the proposed parking lot drainage to proposed storm inlets that discharge into the underground storm chamber system ("underground system") via private storm sewer. The Project proposes using ADS MC-3500 Stormtech chambers, and configuration will be provided in the next submittal once site layout has been reviewed by City Staff. Proposed Detention Facilities As noted above, the Mail Creek 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 existing site is 85% impervious, and the final development will see a reduction in overall imperviousness to 80% impervious. As a result, no detention is required. Existing and proposed impervious exhibits were used to calculate 41 Kimley>>>Horn Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Toyota Pedersen — Fort Collins, Colorado 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 5.02 AC Existing Impervious Area 4.31 AC Proposed Impervious Area 4.10 AC Change in Impervious Area 0.21 AC Reduction Table 1: Impervious Area Summary Proposed LID and Water Quality Treatment This LID system for the eastern Basin A will also provide water quality treatment for the basin. The underground systems outflow discharges to a public storm line along S College Avenue to the east of the Site. This LID system for the western Basin B will also provide water quality treatment for the basin. The underground systems outflow discharges to a private storm line to the north of the site, ultimately draining to the storm sewer along S College Avenue to the east of the Site. The hydraulic calculations for the storm sewer, inlet, 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 site will be conveyed via overland flow and concentrated flow via curb and gutter prior to entering storm inlets located throughout the site. 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 eastern and western basins will route to separate underground systems that will serve as a LID treatment and provide water quality treatment. 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 site. See calculations included in Appendix B. Water Quality and LID Values Eastern Basin A Impervious Area for Proposed Improvements 103,673 SF Required LID Impervious Area 77,755 SF Provided LID Impervious Area 103,673 SF Required Water Quality Volume 3,496 CIF Provided Water Quality Volume 3,675 CF 5 � G' ag � Kimley>>>Horn Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Toyota Pedersen — Fort Collins, Colorado Water Quality and LID Values Western Basin B Impervious Area for Proposed Improvements 73,923 SF Required LID Impervious Area 56,192 SF Provided LID Impervious Area 73,923 SF Required Water Quality Volume 2,390 CF Provided Water Quality Volume 2,450 CF Table 2: Water Quality and LID Summary The existing 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 parkway before entering the existing storm inlets within S. College Avenue. There are two existing detention ponds west of the existing parking lot. The existing impervious area doesn't appear to drain to the existing ponds before leaving the site. 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 and is shown on the Plat. 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 61 Kimley>>>Horn Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Toyota Pedersen — Fort Collins, Colorado Site specific controls that will be implemented include locating material storage away from storm drainage facilities. 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 Toyota Pedersen 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 improvements within the Project. 71 Kimley>>) Horn Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Toyota Pedersen — 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.html?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. 81Page Kimlep Horn Final Drainage Report Drake and College Mixed-Use — Fort Collins, Colorado Appendix A - Referenced Criteria Kimley>\/\/ Horn It f Y i. r.. t Williams WT - a [DRAM �D Lake M a 'I I Creek VC M - Master Plan - � - . , i i 9 Y o ' 6 = _ ,w Water Quality PI n a yp Nelson - 'r_ Reservoir � �1• f 1- •. i P t.y S , :sax.F s.. r XX k Ate' 1 1 F r ! 1 f f' Troutman Pond y19�'. ' ri : �. 15! • Retrofit Existing Pond to a 17 , � ,• .f Steve r accommodate Water Quality ' , Volume t , ?` - - p tra► } . ' y s dr . : _ �,��� h- Larkborou h Pond Woodridge Pond r .s � a.: y irt .:�, ;. Y t g ,e • Retrofit Existing Pond to Retrofit Existing Pond to ,�• �� � < t� � � `t __ �. 1ra I • - 7 • F s y X accommodate Water Quality -. accommodate Water Quart -- Y �. R I - a•_ rI r. _> Volume t = Volume t - -�r :F.. .k• ,� fi a- s 4 : r ' e 1 I 11- iJ A n .. ti 3' -•i:'.'`l 1 ... ,-.., ,- .y - a - - fir— _—'^•---s=j... - - O 00 D 0, _ r V V U U Warren " •„ , t ' as \` `i ` 'F: � .� -- - Ti- ;,r_rs•� r _ (, ._ Eti , , •i I 1. 111 x Warren Lake g Westfield Troutmlb,,n -r.1+ _ J k• �`xz Y , r l: Harmon es , K ` , n` y 1 ��t Mail Creek Basin Boundary - a ty .tom T 3 ` fIafjl ft - - - f. Proposed BMP Basin Type al iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij Flood Control Only • .a ------ - Water Quality Only Proposed Stream � -- Flood Control and Water Quality Restoration y Improvement - Fairway Pond ProposedImprovements _ ng p r pose �._ o , • Retrofit Existing and to � accommodate Water Quality t, Nr - None Volume Proposed Conceptual - �4 op ep Proposed A re Water Quality Alternatives 0 Proposed Water Quality Pond a• ._ '� :,. _ .` III Ni.. J_ � Undeveloped Area water Stream - Canal i Y i Parks M t j:V ::: .-�� - J :j _ _ � Natural Area A. Ill ze Proposed St Restoration p _ - - •r.- a - III ropose ream �Y y- ' ! ' �e and Habitat Improvements Ark s,U 0 500 1,000 2,000 rit nS ABCs t £' I `d Feet ASSOCIATES ' � NAIP Image-2009 USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource 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 s � or I M r I 0 200 ft '- February 17, 2025 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 3—Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes......................................... 13 4—Altvan-Satanta loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes......................................... 15 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes.................................................17 References............................................................................................................19 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 493230 493260 493290 493320 493350 493380 493410 493440 493470 493500 40°31'35'N e•�. — � I — I4 40°31'35"N r t � d I 8 t 8 Is q- i �19 t sr r. 287 Soil M:a'ip may not b= u�lid,'at this scaale., "� , 40°31 29 N � I r 40°31 29 N 493230 493260 493290 493320 493350 493380 493410 493440 493470 4935M 3: 3 F io v Map Scale:1:1,270 if printed on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet c Meters N ° 0 15 30 60 90 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 3 Altvan-Satanta loams,0 to 3 1.1 17.9% percent slopes 4 Altvan-Satanta foams,3 to 9 3.9 61.9% percent slopes 74 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent 1.3 20.2% slopes Totals for Area of Interest 6.3 100.0% 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 11 Custom Soil Resource Report 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. 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 3—Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpw2 Elevation: 5,200 to 6,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Altvan and similar soils:45 percent Satanta and similar soils: 30 percent Minor components:25 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Altvan Setting Landform:Terraces, benches Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 -0 to 10 inches: loam H2- 10 to 18 inches: clay loam H3- 18 to 30 inches: loam H4 -30 to 60 inches: gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low(about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Satanta Setting Landform: Structural benches, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile H1 -0 to 9 inches: loam H2-9 to 18 inches: loam H3- 18 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Nunn Percent of map unit: 10 percent Ecological site: R067BY002CO- Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Larim Percent of map unit: 10 percent Ecological site: R067BY063CO- Gravel Breaks Hydric soil rating: No Stoneham Percent of map unit: 5 percent Ecological site: R067BY002CO- Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 14 Custom Soil Resource Report 4—Altvan-Satanta loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpwf Elevation: 5,200 to 6,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Altvan and similar soils: 55 percent Satanta and similar soils:35 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Altvan Setting Landform:Terraces, benches, fans Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, base slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 9 inches: loam H2- 9 to 16 inches: clay loam H3- 16 to 31 inches: loam H4-31 to 60 inches: gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 9 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 high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low(about 5.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY008CO - Loamy Slopes 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No Description of Satanta Setting Landform:Terraces, structural benches Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile H1 -0 to 9 inches: loam H2-9 to 14 inches: loam H3- 14 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 6 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 high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY002CO - Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Nunn Percent of map unit: 6 percent Ecological site: R067BY002CO- Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Larimer Percent of map unit:4 percent Ecological site: R067BY002CO- Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 16 Custom Soil Resource Report 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlpl Elevation: 3,900 to 5,840 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 160 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 9 inches: clay loam Bt-9 to 13 inches: clay loam Btk- 13 to 25 inches: clay loam Bk1 -25 to 38 inches: clay loam Bk2-38 to 80 inches: clay loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches 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 to very slightly saline (0.1 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 0.5 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY042CO- Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Satanta 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 18 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 19 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 20 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette (.. FEMA Legend 105°4'59"W 40°31'47"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT i lb 44 _ Without Base Flood Elevation(BFE) +i J ^ zone A.V.A99 7 L f SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth zone Ae.AO.AH.VE.AR e HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway op- s 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard,Areas A ; of 1%annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zonex A Future Conditions 1d Annual �I A Chance Flood Hazard Zone Y Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to IL ! - ' OTHER AREAS OF Levee.See Notes.zone x 1 FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Levee zone o � r , � NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x ar loft �' ; Q Effective LOMRs dt A- �� � i z OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o --1 >� GENERAL - - Channel,Culvert,or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES IIIIIII Levee,Dike,or Floodwall i► �2°=2 Cross Sections with 1%Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation C'tt�' of Fort C ollti , ►AREA OF f�11111R1A1' I nnr� E HAZARD - - - Coastal Transect Q �� —5I3"^�^� Base Flood Elevation Line(BFE) 0S01 0 2 * �r•� Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary 1 — Coastal Transect Baseline via y OTHER _ Profile Baseline t FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available pop N l : + '& - No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS � Unmapped ftA 0 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. . i t .. 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 3 V _ 4 ,#_ accuracy standards r � ' _ s • The flood hazard information is derived directly from the aIt, 1 s authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA.This map }� A � � s � 0 was exported on 1/20/2025 at 10:55 PM and does not r i IS reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and dh i time.The NFHL and effective information may change or T16N R69W S2 T6N R69W S1 '>t become superseded by new data over time. 4dOr This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear:basemap imagery,flood zone labels, e • —' legend,scale bar,map creation date,community identifiers, tiw t +, •- SOS°4'22"W 40°31'19"N FIRM panel number,and FIRM effective date.Map images for Feet 1:6 000 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 Niaronal .F6:r"fCo1hns Toyota Pedersen FCMaps -Floodplain L •+igin•anl Legend FEMA Floodplain FEMA High Risk-Floodway FEMA High Risk-100 Year FEMA Moderate Risk-100/500 Y, City Floodplains City High Risk-Floodway City High Risk-100 Year City Moderate Risk-100 Year World Hillshade w I r r 1: 6,859 Notes 1,143.0 0 571.50 1,143.0 Feet This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this City of Fort Collins-GIS map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT PEDERSEN TOYOTA DEALERSHIP—ADDITION &RENOVATION 4455 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1142002 Prepared for: Heath Construction PO Drawer H 141 Racquette Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Attn: Mr. Rodney Rogers (rodne�rogersgheathconstruction.com) Prepared by: Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC 4396 Greenfield Drive Windsor, Colorado 80550 February 13, 2014 EARTH ENGINEERING Heath Construction CONSULTANTS, LLC PO Drawer H 141 Racquette Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Attn: Mr. Rodney Rogers (rdney.rogersgheathconstruction.com) Re: Subsurface Exploration Report Pederson Toyota Dealership—Addition&Renovation Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1142002 Mr. Rogers: Enclosed, herewith, are the results of the geotechnical subsurface exploration completed by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) personnel for the proposed expansion at the existing Pedersen Toyota Dealership located at 4455 South College Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado. For this exploration, seven (7) soil borings were completed at the site to obtain information on existing subsurface conditions. This exploration was completed in general accordance with our proposal dated December 23, 2013. In summary, existing asphalt pavement and aggregate base course was encountered at the surface of each boring and was underlain by apparent fill and/or native sandy lean clay subsoils, granular sands and gravels, and sandstone bedrock. The in-situ cohesive materials were generally classified as sandy lean clay, were soft to medium stiff, and exhibited low swell potential, as measured in laboratory testing at current in-situ moisture contents and dry densities. The granular soils were generally medium dense and the bedrock consisted of highly weathered sandstone that became less weathered and more competent with depth. Groundwater was encountered in four of the borings at depths ranging from approximately fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet during the initial drilling operations. The borings were backfilled upon completion of the drilling operations; therefore subsequent groundwater measurements were not obtained. Based on materials observed within the site-specific soil borings, and the anticipated foundation loads, we recommend the proposed three-story, slab-on-grade parking garage addition be supported on a grade beam and straight shaft drilled pier/caisson foundation 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 www.earth•engineering.com Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 2 system. We also recommend the interior slab-on-grades by supported on two (2) feet of structural fill. This will require the cohesive soils to be excavated to a depth of two (2) feet below the slab bearing elevation prior to placing and compacting two (2) feet of structural fill. In the pavement areas, the near surface cohesive soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted, as described within the attached report. Care will also be needed at the time of construction to evaluate likely previously placed backfill soils adjacent to the existing building and within the razed building footprints of adjacent storage facility. Geotechnical recommendations concerning design and construction of the proposed site improvements are provided within the attached report. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed report, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way,please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Earth gn 'veering Consultants,LLC � Dot C to Ai''••yJ' � t .eJ�Q `�sSlpNAI Ryan M. Laird, P.E. Project Engineer Reviewed by: David A. Richer, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT PEDERSEN TOYOTA DEALERSHIP—ADDITION &RENOVATION 4455 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO EEC PROJECT NO. 1142002 February 13, 2014 INTRODUCTION The subsurface exploration for the proposed expansion at the existing Pedersen Toyota Dealership located at 4455 South College Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado has been completed. For this exploration,seven(7)soil borings were completed to approximate depths of 10 to 35 feet below existing site grades to obtain information on existing subsurface conditions. Individual boring logs and a site diagram indicating the approximate boring locations are provided with this report. We understand this project will include an addition to the existing 2-story building,consisting of a 3-story parking garage, an on-site park area and on-site pavement improvements. The majority of the proposed expansion along the west side of the existing dealership is planned on the grounds of an existing storage yard. We understand the storage facility building will be razed to accommodate the proposed expansion. The first story of the proposed parking garage will include areas for service bays, storage, retail, and a car wash, as shown on the site diagrams provided to us by the project architect. The third story of the proposed parking garage will not be constructed immediately,but will allow for future expansion. At this time, we have had the opportunity to review the 50%schematic design dated October 10,2013,but we do not know the depth of the existing building's foundation system or the wall/column loads of the proposed expansion. Foundation loads for the proposed parking garage are estimated to be moderate/heavy with maximum column loads in the range of 400 kips and maximum wall loads in the range of 4 kl£ Floor loads are expected to be moderate/heavy. Small grade changes are expected to develop final site grades for the expansion project. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the completed test borings, analyze and evaluate the test data, and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations concerning design and construction of the foundations and support of floor slabs and pavements. Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 2 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES The boring locations were established in the field by Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) personnel by pacing and estimating angles from identifiable site references. The approximate locations of the test borings are indicated on the attached boring location diagram. The locations of the test borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. The test borings were drilled using a truck mounted, CME-55 drill rig equipped with a hydraulic head employed in drilling and sampling operations. The boreholes were advanced using 4-inch nominal diameter continuous flight augers. Samples of the subsurface materials encountered were obtained using split barrel and California barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specifications D1586 and D3550, respectively. In the split barrel and California barrel sampling procedures, standard sampling spoons are driven into the ground by means of a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the split barrel and California barrel samplers is recorded and is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and, to a lesser degree of accuracy, the consistency of cohesive soils and hardness of weathered bedrock. In the California barrel sampling procedure, relatively undisturbed samples are obtained in removable brass liners. All samples obtained in the field were sealed and returned to the laboratory for further examination, classification, and testing. Laboratory moisture content tests and visual classifications were completed on each of the recovered samples. In addition,the unconfined strength of appropriate samples was estimated using a calibrated hand penetrometer. Atterberg limits and washed sieve analysis tests were completed to evaluate the quantity and plasticity of fines in the subgrade samples. Swell/consolidation tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the potential for the subgrade and foundation bearing materials to change volume with variation in moisture and load. Results of the outlined tests are indicated on the attached boring logs and summary sheets. Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 3 As part of the testing program, all samples were examined in the laboratory and classified in accordance with the attached General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System,based on the soil's texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is indicated on the boring logs and a brief description of that classification system is included with this report. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The existing dealership is located at 4455 South College Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado. The area for the proposed 3-story parking garage expansion to the west of the existing building is currently a self-storage facility consisting of rows of 1-story units and asphalt pavement, as shown in the attached site photos. An EEC field engineer was on site during drilling to evaluate the subsurface conditions encountered and direct the drilling activities. Borings B-1 through B-6 were completed to obtain subsurface information for the building expansion while boring B-7 was completed to obtain subsurface information for the pavement area on the west. Field logs prepared by EEC site personnel were based on visual and tactual observation of disturbed samples and auger cuttings. The final boring logs included with this report may contain modifications to the field logs based on the results of laboratory testing and evaluation. Based on the results of the field borings and laboratory evaluation, subsurface conditions can be generalized as follows. In summary, approximately 3 inches of existing asphalt pavement and 5 inches of aggregate base course (ABC) were encountered at the surface of the borings. The subsurface soils generally consisted of cohesive soils classified as sandy lean clay with varying amounts of sand underlain by granular sands and gravels. Borings B-4,B-5,and B-6 encountered bedrock at depths of approximately 21, 27, and 17.5 feet, respectively. The cohesive soils were generally soft to medium stiff and showed low swell potential. The granular soils were generally medium dense and contained varying amounts of clay. Bedrock consisted of highly weathered sandstone that transitioned from soft to moderately hard/cemented with depth.The bedrock formation was weathered nearer to the surface and became less weathered and more competent with depth, exhibiting moderate to high load bearing capabilities. Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 4 The stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil and rock types. In-situ, the transition of materials may be gradual and indistinct. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Observations were made while drilling and after completion of the borings, to detect the presence and depth to hydrostatic groundwater. At the time of our field exploration, groundwater was encountered in four of the borings at depths ranging from approximately 15 to 20.5 feet below existing site grades. The borings were backfilled upon completion of the drilling operations; subsequent groundwater measurements were not obtained. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can occur over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions, and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. Monitoring in cased borings,sealed from the influence of surface infiltration,would be required to more accurately evaluate groundwater levels and fluctuations in the groundwater levels over time. Zones of perched and/or trapped groundwater may occur at times in the subsurface soils overlying bedrock,on top of the bedrock surface or within permeable fractures in the bedrock materials. The location and amount of perched water is dependent upon several factors, including hydrologic conditions,type of site development,irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site, and seasonal and weather conditions. The observations provided in this report represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration, and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Swell—Consolidation Test Results The swell-consolidation test is performed to evaluate the swell or collapse potential of soils to help determine foundation, floor slab and pavement design criteria. In this test, relatively undisturbed samples obtained directly from the California sampler are placed in a laboratory apparatus and inundated with water under a predetermined load. The swell-index is the resulting Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 5 amount of swell or collapse after the inundation period expressed as a percent of the sample's preload/initial thickness. After the inundation period,additional incremental loads are applied to evaluate the swell pressure and/or consolidation. For this assessment, we conducted seven (7) swell-consolidation tests on relatively undisturbed soil samples obtained at various intervals/depths and loading schemes throughout the site. The swell index values for the in-situ soil samples analyzed revealed generally low swell characteristics and a slightly tendency to consolidate with increased loads as indicated on the attached swell test summaries. The following table summarizes the swell-consolidation laboratory test results for samples obtained during our field explorations for the subject site. Swell Consolidation Test Results Boring Depth, Material Type In-Situ Dry Inundation Swell No. ft. Moisture Density, Pressure, Index,% Content,% PCF psf W-) B-1 4.0 Red Sandy LEAN CLAY(CL) 15.4 109.7 500 (-)0.2% B-2 4.0 Reddish Brown Sandy LEAN CLAY(CL) 19.1 106.8 500 (-)0.4% B-3 9.0 Red Clayey SAND(SC) 13.3 104.6 1000 (-)0.2% B-4 4.0 Red Sandy LEAN CLAY(CL) 12.0 113.1 500 (-)0.4% B-5 4.0 Red Clayey SAND(SC) 12.6 119.3 500 (-)0.1% B-6 9.0 Brown Sandy LEAN CLAY(CL) 12.4 115.2 1000 (-)0.2% B-7 2.0 Red Clayey SAND(SC) 18.1 110.6 150 (-)0.2% Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE) uses the following information to provide uniformity in terminology between geotechnical engineers to provide a relative correlation of slab performance risk to measured swell. "The representative percent swell values are not necessarily measured values; rather,they are a judgment of the swell of the soil and/or bedrock profile likely to influence slab performance." Geotechnical engineers use this information to also evaluate the swell potential risks for foundation performance based on the risk categories. Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 6 Recommended Representative Swell Potential Descriptions and Corresponding Slab Performance Risk Categories Slab Performance Risk Category Representative Percent Swell Representative Percent Swell (500 psf Surcharge) (1000 psf Surcharge) Low 0to<3 0<2 Moderate 3 to<5 2 to<4 High 5to<8 4to<6 Very High >8 >6 Based on the laboratory test results,the in-situ samples analyzed for this project were within the low range. Site Preparation The existing one-story self-storage structures, which are located to the west of the existing building and the associated foundations, we assume will be demolished and removed. In addition, the existing pavement, vegetation including tree root growth from the existing deciduous trees, and topsoil should be removed from the parking garage and pavement improvement areas. After removal of all deleterious materials,as well as completing all cuts and over-excavations,and prior to fill placement and/or site improvements,the exposed soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 9 inches,adjusted in moisture content to within+/- 2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D698. Final site grades were not available at the time of this report; however, based on our understanding of the proposed development,we expect small fill depths may be necessary to achieve design grades in the improvement areas. Fill soils required for developing the pavement area subgrades, after the initial zone has been moisture conditioned/stabilized, should consist of approved,low-volume-change materials,which are free from organic matter and debris. Based on the testing completed, it appears the on-site cohesive type materials could be used as general site fill below the pavement area subgrades provided adequate moisture treatment and compaction procedures are followed. Those procedures would include placement in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick,adjustment in moisture content to+/-2%o Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 7 of optimum moisture content for cohesive type soils, and compaction to at least 95% of the materials maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D698, the standard Proctor procedure. If the site's existing cohesive fill subsoils are used as general site fill,care will be needed to maintain the recommended moisture content prior to and during construction of overlying improvements. Care will be needed after preparation of the subgrades to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. Positive drainage should be developed away from site structures and pavements to avoid wetting of subgrade materials. Subgrade materials becoming wet subsequent to construction of the site improvements can result in unacceptable performance. Foundation System Based on the subsurface conditions observed in the test borings and on the anticipated foundation loads,we recommend supporting the proposed building addition/parking garage on a grade beam and straight shaft drilled pier/caisson foundation system extending into the underlying bedrock formation. Particular attention will be required in the construction of the drilled piers due to the depth of bedrock and presence of groundwater. For axial compression loads,the drilled piers could be designed using a maximum end bearing pressure of 40,000 pounds per square foot(psf), along with a skin-friction of 4,000 psf for the portion of the pier extended into the harder underlying bedrock formation. Straight shaft piers should be drilled a minimum of 8 feet into competent or harder bedrock. Lower values may be appropriate for pier "groupings" depending on the pier diameters and spacing. Pier groups should be evaluated individually. To satisfy forces in the horizontal direction, piers may be designed for lateral loads using a modulus of 50 tons per cubic foot(tcf)for the portion of the pier in native cohesive soils,75 tcf for native granular materials or engineered fill,and 400 tcf in bedrock for a pier diameter of 12 inches. The coefficient of subgrade reaction for varying pier diameters is as follows: Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 8 Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction(tons/ft) Pier Diameter(inches) Engineered Fill or Cohesive Soils Bedrock Granular Soils 18 33 50 267 24 25 38 200 30 20 1 30 160 36 17 125 1133 When the lateral capacity of drilled piers is evaluated by the L-Pile (COM 624) computer program,we recommend that internally generated load-deformation(P-Y)curves be used. The following parameters may be used for the design of laterally loaded piers, using the L-Pile (COM 624) computer program: 1[- Parameters Native Granular Soils or On-Site Overburden Bedrock Structural Fill Cohesive Soils Unit Weight of Soil(pcf) 130(i) 115(') 125(') Cohesion(psf) 0 200 5000 Angle of Internal Friction 0(degrees) 35 25 20 Strain Corresponding to '/z Max. Principal --- 0.02 0.015 Stress Difference.50 *Notes: 1) Reduce by 64 PCF below the water table Drilling caissons to design depth should be possible with conventional heavy-duty single flight power augers equipped with rock teeth on the majority of the site. However, areas of well- cemented sandstone bedrock lenses may be encountered throughout the site at various depths where specialized drilling equipment and/or rock excavating equipment may be required. Varying zones of cobbles may also be encountered in the granular soils above the bedrock. Excavation penetrating the well-cemented sandstone bedrock may require the use of specialized heavy-duty equipment,together with rock augers and/or core barrels. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult caisson excavation in the contract documents for the project. Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 9 Due to the presence of granular soils and groundwater at approximate depths ranging from 10 to 20 feet below current site grades in the parking garage area, maintaining open shafts may be difficult without stabilizing measures. Groundwater was encountered at approximate depths of 15 to 20.5 feet below site grades; we expect temporary casing will be required to adequately/properly drill and clean piers prior to concrete placement. Difficulty can be encountered in "sealing" temporary casing into the surface of the sandstone bedrock. Groundwater should be removed from each drilled pier hole prior to concrete placement. Pier concrete should be placed immediately after completion of drilling and cleaning. A maximum 3-inch depth of groundwater is acceptable in each drilled pier prior to concrete placement. If pier concrete cannot be placed in dry conditions,a tremie pipe should be used for concrete placement. Due to potential sloughing and raveling,foundation concrete quantities may exceed calculated geometric volumes. Pier concrete with slump in the range of 6 to 8 inches is recommended. Casing used for pier construction should be withdrawn in a slow continuous manner maintaining a sufficient head of concrete to prevent infiltration of water or the creation of voids in pier concrete. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should inspect the bearing surface and pier configuration. If the soil conditions encountered differ from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations may be required. We estimate the long-term settlement of drilled pier foundations designed and constructed as outlined above would be less than 1-inch. Floor Slab Design and Construction All existing vegetation and/or topsoil should be removed from beneath the new floor slabs. Additionally,the floor slab subgrades should be over-excavated to allow for at least 2 feet of approved fill below the floor slabs. Soft or loose in-place fill/backfill associated with prior building or utility construction,and any wet and softened or dry and desiccated soils should be removed as encountered. Close evaluation of the existing on-site fill material within the building floor slab areas will be required during the construction phase. A proof roll should be Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 10 performed to evaluate the integrity and/or stability of the material prior to floor slab preparation. After stripping, completing all cuts and removal of any unacceptable materials and prior to placement of any new fill, the in-place soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 9 inches,adjusted in moisture content and compacted to at least 95%o of maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D-698,the standard Proctor procedure. The moisture content of the scarified materials should be adjusted to be within the range of ±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture at the time of compaction. Fill materials required to develop the floor slab subgrade should be an approved imported structural fill,which should consist of inorganic,non-plastic,granular soil containing less than 10 percent material passing the No.200 mesh sieve with a 2-inch maximum particle size. Structural fill procedures would include placement in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjustment in moisture content to+/-2%of optimum moisture content, and compaction to at least 95% of the materials maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Specification D698, the standard Proctor procedure. After preparation of the subgrades, care should be taken to avoid disturbing the subgrade materials. Materials which are loosened or disturbed by the construction activities will require removal and replacement or reworking in place prior to placement of the overlying floor slabs. Positive drainage should be developed away from the proposed building addition to avoid wetting the subgrade or bearing materials. Subgrade or bearing materials allowed to become wetted subsequent to construction can result in unacceptable performance of the improvements. Seismic Conditions The site soil conditions consist of approximately 20 feet of medium stiff to medium dense overburden soils. For those site conditions,the 2009 International Building Code indicates a Seismic Site Classification of D. Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 11 Pavements—Design and Construction Recommendations We expect the site pavements will include areas designated for automobile traffic and areas of heavier truck traffic. For heavy-duty truck areas we are using an assumed equivalent daily load axle (EDLA) rating of 25 and in automobile areas we are using an EDLA of 10. Proofrolling and recompacting the subgrade is recommended immediately prior to placement of the aggregate road base section. Soft or weak areas delineated by the proofrolling operations should be undercut or stabilized in-place to achieve the appropriate subgrade support. It should be noted that the clay subgrade soils are subject to pumping at high moisture contents. It is possible or even likely that pumping of the subgrades will occur during construction and stabilization of the subgrades will be required to allow for placement of the overlying pavements. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site and the laboratory test results,it is recommended the on-site parking areas be designed using an R- value of 10. If instability is observed during proofroll observations,we suggest subgrade stabilization may be considered to mitigate for unstable subgrade soils. The stabilization could include incorporation of Class "C" fly ash to enhance the subgrade integrity by incorporating at least 13 percent by weight, Class "C"fly ash, into the upper 12-inches of subgrade. An alternate would be to use granular import to develop the pavement subgrades after removal of the cohesive subgrade soils. The granular soils would be less likely to show instability and could result in reduced pavement sections. We would be pleased to evaluate planned import materials and provide appropriate pavement design sections placed on the proposed subgrade fill. Pavement design methods are intended to provide structural sections with adequate thickness over a particular subgrade such that wheel loads are reduced to a level the subgrade can support. The support characteristics of the subgrade for pavement design do not account for shrink/swell movements of an expansive clay subgrade or consolidation of a wetted subgrade. Thus, the pavement may be adequate from a structural standpoint, yet still experience cracking and deformation due to shrink/swell related movement of the subgrade. It is, therefore, important to minimize moisture changes in the subgrade to reduce shrink/swell movements. Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 12 Recommended pavement sections are provided below in Table T. The hot bituminous pavement(HBP) could be grading SX(75) or S (75)with PG 58-28 oil. The aggregate base should be Class 5 or Class 6 base. Portland cement concrete should be an exterior pavement mix with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4200 psi and should be air entrained. HBP pavements may show rutting and distress in truck loading and turning areas. Concrete pavements should be considered in those areas. TABLE I—RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS Automobile Parking Heavy Duty Areas EDLA 10 25 18-Kip ESAL's 73,000 182,500 Reliability 75% 85% Resilient Modulus—(based on assumed R-Value of 10) 3562 3562 PSI Loss 2.5 2.0 Design Structure Number 2.60 3.25 Composite Section—Option A Hot Bituminous Pavement 4"x 0.44= 1.76 5"x 0.44=2.20 Aggregate Base 8"x 0.11 =0.88 10"x 0.11=1.10 Design Structure Number (2.64) (3.30) Composite Section with Fly Ash-Option B Hot Bituminous Pavement 3-1/2"x 0.44= 1.54 4-1/2"x 0.44= 1.98 Aggregate Base 6"x 0.11 =0.66 8"x 0.11 =0.88 Fly Ash Treated Subgrade 12"x 0.05=.60 12"x 0.05=0.60 Design Structure Number (2.80) (3.46) PCC(Non-reinforced) 5" 7" The recommended pavement sections are minimums and periodic maintenance should be expected. Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for expansion/contraction and isolation. The location and extent of joints should be based upon the final pavement geometry. Sawed joints should be cut as recommended by PCA guidelines. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer. Since the cohesive soils on the site have some shrink/swell potential,pavements could crack in the future primarily because of the volume change of the soils when subjected to an increase in Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 13 moisture content to the subgrade. The cracking, while not desirable, does not necessarily constitute structural failure of the pavement. The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is critical to the satisfactory performance of the pavement. Drainage design should provide for the removal of water from paved areas in order to reduce the potential for wetting of the subgrade soils. Long-term pavement performance will be dependent upon several factors, including maintaining subgrade moisture levels and providing for preventive maintenance. The following recommendations should be considered the minimum: • The subgrade and the pavement surface should be adequately sloped to promote proper surface drainage. • Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting (e.g. garden centers,wash racks) • Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately, • Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture migration to subgrade soils; • Placing compacted,low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter; and, • Placing curb,gutter,and/or sidewalk directly on approved proof rolled subgrade soils with the use of base course materials. Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any maintenance, additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of preventive maintenance. Site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 14 desiccation, or rainfall. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction and corrective action will be required.The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of pavement construction for signs of disturbance, such as but not limited to drying, or excessive rutting. If disturbance has occurred,pavement subgrade areas should be reworked, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving. Please note that if during or after placement of the stabilization or initial lift of pavement, the area is observed to be yielding under vehicle traffic or construction equipment, it is recommended that EEC be contacted for additional alternative methods of stabilization, or a change in the pavement section. Other Considerations Positive drainage should be developed away from the structure and pavement areas with a minimum slope of 1 inch per foot for the first 10 feet away from the improvements in landscape areas. Care should be taken in planning of landscaping adjacent to the building and parking and drive areas to avoid features which would pond water adjacent to the pavement, foundations or stemwalls. Placement of plants which require irrigation systems or could result in fluctuations of the moisture content of the subgrade material should be avoided adjacent to site improvements. Lawn watering systems should not be placed within 5 feet of the perimeter of the building and parking areas. Spray heads should be designed not to spray water on or immediately adjacent to the structure or site pavements. Roof drains should be designed to discharge at least 5 feet away from the structure and away from the pavement areas. GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the indicated locations and from any other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect any variations,which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident Earth Engineering Consultants,LLC EEC Project No. 1142002 February 13,2014 Page 15 until construction. If variations appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. It is further recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained for testing and observations during earthwork and foundation construction phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Heath Construction for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty,express or implied,is made. In the event that any changes in the nature,design,or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. DRILLING AND EXPLORATION DRILLING&SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon- 13/8"I.D.,2"O.D.,unless otherwise noted PS: Piston Sample ST: Thin-Walled Tube-2"O.D.,unless otherwise noted WS: Wash Sample R: Ring Barrel Sampler-2.42"I.D.,3"O.D.unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger FT: Fish Tail Bit HA: Hand Auger RB: Rock Bit DB: Diamond Bit=4",N,B BS: Bulk Sample AS: Auger Sample PM: Pressure Meter HS: Hollow Stem Auger WB: Wash Bore Standard"N Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D.split spoon,except where noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL : Water Level WS While Sampling WCL• Wet Cave in WD : While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB : After Boring ACR: After Casting Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils,the indicated levels may reflect the location of ground water. In low permeability soils,the accurate determination of ground water levels is not possible with only short term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION DEGREE OF WEATHERING: Soil Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification Slight Slight decomposition of parent material on system and the ASTM Designations D-2488. Coarse Grained joints. May be color change. Soils have move than 50%of their dry weight retained on a#200 Moderate Some decomposition and color change sieve;they are described as: boulders,cobbles,gravel or sand. throughout. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight High Rock highly decomposed,may be extremely retained on a#200 sieve;they are described as : clays, if they broken. are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION: Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor Limestone and Dolomite: constituents may be added according to the relative proportions Hard Di icu t to scratch with knife. based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse grained Moderately Can be scratched easily with knife. soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their consistency. Hard Cannot be scratched with fingernail. Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff(CL); silty Soft Can be scratched with fingernail. sand,trace gravel,medium dense(SM). Shale. Siltstone and Cla, sue: CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Hard Can be scratched easily with knife,cannot be scratched with fingernail. Unconfined Compressive Moderately Can be scratched with fingernail. Strength,Qu,psf Consistency Hard Soft Can be easily dented but not molded with < 500 Very Soft fingers. 500- 1,000 Soft Sandstone and Conglomerate: 1,001 - 2,000 Medium Well Capable of scratching a knife blade. 2,001 - 4,000 Stiff Cemented 4,001 - 8,000 Very Stiff Cemented Can be scratched with knife. 8,001 - 16,000 Very Hard Poorly Can be broken apart easily with fingers. RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS: Cemented N-Blows/ft Relative Density 0-3 Very Loose 4-9 Loose 10-29 Medium Dense 30-49 Dense 50-80 Very Dense 80+ Extremely Dense PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BEDROCK UNI= SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil Classification Group Group Name Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group names Using Laboratory Tests Symbol Coarse—Grained Gravels more than Clean Grovels Less Sails more than 50% of coarse than 5% fines Cu>4 and «c<3r GIN Well—graded gravel` 50% retained on fraction retained No. 200 sieve on No. 4 sieve CU<4 and/or 1>Cc>3r GP Poorly—graded gravel` Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel, G,H more than 12% fines Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey Gravel°•G•" Sands 50% or Clean Sands Less Cu>§ and 1<G.G< SW Well—graded sand) more coarse than 5% Fines fraction passes Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3° SP Poorly—graded sand' No. 4 sieve Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand°'"'' more than 12% fines Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand e Fine—Groined Silts and Clays inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above "A'Line' CL Lean clay'•`•" Soils 50% or Liquid Limit less more passes the than 50 PI<4 or plats. below "A"Line' ML Silt R4° No. 200 sieve organic, Liquid Limit — oven dried <OJS OL Organic clay KuMN Liquid Limit — not dried Organic silt'"m Silts and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above "A"Line CH Fat clay e11 Liquid Limit 50 or more PI plots below "A"Line MH Elastic Silt`'"' organic Liquid Limit — oven dried Organic cloy°i'"'P <0.75 OH Liquid Limit — not dried Organic silt"' ' Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat ''Bused on Nt m"tenvl pvssing the 3-in, (75- ° (D",) _dt all contains 15 !0 299if1us No. 200, add Cu=D /D Cc= '�-` mm) slew °° with sand' or "with growl, whichever Is °If Field sample con faired cobbles or boulders, pnsd.mirunt or both, odd "with dabbles or boulders, or bath" Llf sal contains 2 30" plus No. 200 to group namt predaminvnUy sand, odd "sandy to group aGmvels with 5 tv I= fines required dual °If sa0 contains 215% sand, vdcrwl h-sar "tp name. s dais group name. -If so0 eontolns 2 30% plus No. 200 GW GM well graded revel with silt -If Mee classify os CL-ML, des duel symbol predominantly grovel, add "gravely" to group 9 9 GW-GC well-gm GC-cM, or sC-SM.ded grovel with day IF Rase ore Ic, add"wIth a onic Fines to name. GP-GM peony-graded gr. d with sill organ rg xp124 and plots on or "bow "A" line GP-GC vod coded ravel with de. group name op15pl or plats below A" I{lin °Sands with 5 to 12%f Fes require dual If sa0 contains >15%grwel, odd"with grovel" °PI plots on or "bole A" Ilne symbols: 'o group e, opt plots below. "A" {re. SW-SM well-gmded sand with silt If AttML. Iltyerg limits plots shaded ore", sv0 is o SW-50 well-gmded sand with clay -ML, cilty clay. SP-51A poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC peony graded send with cloy °o For aoagOc°ibn of Me-gmincd A. and Ilne-gruhnl seellen of mmee- "Ined mill ` 50 Ev°otbn of W-11n" Halmntd et Fl-I to 1-M5, w� ` then Pl-0.73(LL-20)id then z Al U v2 a2n MH OH • 10 c ML ML aIx OL I' 0 0 10 7a ao <a se. so 70 eo se. 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (ILL) r 1 i : - - p�0�0 PEDERSEN TOYOTA EXPANSION FORT COLLINS,COLORADO EEC PROJECT No. 1142002 JANUARY 2014 f, EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LL[ r�� •:••!%.�::�Tiddi°ddi'i«`i�!♦'i'i'i'i'�.,: �:�r�;:;,,14�.:s,. r�r -xiX iiiiiii°i�iiiisii♦i`ii4'iiiiiii i-:Ss�:?��:;•s,♦.•:;:�e�,•:;:y: L\\ © ...•«•:Oi'♦••'i'!i'i'Oi'i'i ii'i'i`ira:�}:•:;:•:•.':4 s t:$;::4� >. ..1 :1.111♦1••1♦ ♦•. • ♦ ........ .... .. :•.«�i««««O'Oi'i i�W. •'i••i'i'i ii`i'i•�•=v:was•': O:•00:•::❖: :�:sS;::��:•�`rf::3i .i1 i iiY c-�_�•♦♦1♦♦_�•_.:::::..:..:♦i�'::C.:.Q.1•.••.O•':-g «« `:'i a i i<�ii« •i •Oi?i�i 0:.'.7.':::'::!i i:•:;:•:•:•':v'<e♦��•'•<••'1 �•'� .rJ�'i♦i i.•�!i•<• i ..........•iYi'i r i i i•�!J♦•i i� . .. 'eI,•8 i!O ,,.��%Ot•�♦%O«"•«i<:•':'i•♦�`•�♦�i•�♦�i r�Y�♦�:«��%i i•♦��''s;.•8�V•j'Y•,;�;Q.❖:•I•t•�d? W u '��' iii`i •i i i O.•i i♦i'i«i«««.«`O.«•i.❖i C•:����•�'�'�'���'•'O�'���. 1��, � �•.• • ��:4'♦'i i'i♦i'i•.«:'♦i i i i Li i`'i««•i•'i•'i'i'i r�::•• .;,;;•;•�;; . - W •■ ♦`i♦i♦i•�!i�i e•:�••�•�«•i i ii i�!�`i«i«`ii!�♦ii♦i.�::••• .• •P.ti ONE IN �•««� �=w�Oi i♦•i i i i i!♦_�«t i i ice'♦•♦i'i'ir�:✓,,,',�p4��,,.rA,••':;:•p::! N= �..■ ••.�•••• 1a.e.o.o.c S ��\.•,���Oi'Oi'i i!•ii i•.•.....«4�i ♦i�iJ•i�Y�'t:::4�:•:•:y1,••••••••Y•:•'.� rao -' ..♦-•w.••i•«i!«�ii"R:'_s1i♦'♦••••'0••;•J,O:•;;;�:::'•J:•;;yy; '' a,'•«'1'i i..�.'♦'♦'1'i i i♦ilii�i11«1♦111.1�•�•�1i•�1 :::!,�:J�•'a•` .rr•i M: eiw '!_...>•. Legend HIM: rK4111 ■u■ �GApproximate Boring Locations OlSite Photos lPhotos taken in approximate location, d1rection ofarl-owJ IFigure 2: Boring Location Diagram Pedersen Toyota - Remodel Expansion Fort Collins, ProjectNo I rth EEC PEDERSEN TOYOTA-REMODEL EXPANSION FORT COLLINS,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142002 LOG OF BORING B-1 DATE: JANUARY 2014 RIG TYPE: CME55 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 1/24/2014 WHILE DRILLING 20.5' AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 1/24/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV 5035 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -LIMITS -200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWSIFT) (PSF) (%) (PCE) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %@.500 PSF ASPHALT-3" BASE-5.5" 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 2 red _ medium stiff to stiff 3 with traces of gavel _ 4 Fc—s 5 5 1 6000 15.4 107.4 1 31 1 18 54.8 1 <500 psf None 6 7 8 9 __ sand seam ESS 10 11 6.5 11 gravel seam _ 12 13 14 CLAYEY GRAVEL(GC) CS 15 21 1000 4.3 121.9 red _ medium dense 16 17 18 19 brown/red SS 20 21 6000 14.4 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 2O.5' 21 22 23 24 25 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC PEDERSEN TOYOTA-REMODEL EXPANSION FORT COLLINS,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142002 LOG OF BORING B-2 DATE: JANUARY 2014 RIG TYPE: CME55 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 1/2412014 WHILE DRILLING 15.0' AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 1/2412014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV 5031 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -LIMITS -200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWSIFT) (PSF) (%) (PCE) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %@.500 PSF ASPHALT-3" BASE-3" 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 2 dark brown _ stiff to very stiff 3 with calcareous deposits _ 4 Fc—s 5 10 1 9000 19.1 107.3 1 1 <500 PSf None 6 7 8 9 CLAYEY SAND&GRAVELS(SC/GC) SS 10 16 6000 7.0 red/brown _ medium dense 11 12 13 14 SAND&GRAVEL(SP/GP) CS 15 31 9000 6.6 119.7 31.4 dense to medium dense with clayey zones 16 17 18 19 20 SS _ 14 5000 21.1 1)See Note 1 below 21 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 21.0' 22 1)Encountered 3 inches of sandy LEAN CLAY with brown/gray/rust interbedded layers 23 24 25 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC PEDERSEN TOYOTA-REMODEL EXPANSION FORT COLLINS,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142002 LOG OF BORING B.3 DATE: JANUARY 2014 RIG TYPE: CME55 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 1/2412014 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 1/2412014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV 5035 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -LIMITS -200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWSIFT) (PSF) (%) (PCE) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %@.500 PSF ASPHALT-2" BASE-7" 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 2 brown/red _ medium stiff to stiff CS 3 9 3000 21.6 101.0 mottled _ 4 brown/red ESS 5 6 4000 14.1 6 7 8 SAND&GRAVEL(SP/GP) 9 red _ %@ 1000 Psf medium dense to dense CS 10 10 2000 13.3 111.7 s1000 psf None 11 12 13 14 __ ESS 15 19 5.5 16 17 18 19 CS 20 30 5.3 134.7 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 2O.0' 21 22 23 24 25 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC PEDERSEN TOYOTA-REMODEL EXPANSION FORT COLLINS,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142002 LOG OF BORING B-4 DATE: JANUARY 2014 RIG TYPE: CME55 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 1/2412014 WHILE DRILLING 19.5' AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 1/2412014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV 5035 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -LIMITS -200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWSIFT) (PSF) (%) (PCE) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %@.500 PSF ASPHALT-3" BASE-13" 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 2 red _ stiff 3 4 Fc_s 5 14 1 8000 12.0 111.E 1 1 1 <500 psf None 6 7 8 9 SAND&GRAVEL(SP/GP) SS 10 22 5.6 red _ medium dense 11 12 13 14 SILTY SAND(SM) CS 15 9 8000 10.5 red _ loose 16 17 18 19 GRAVEL _ medium dense SS 20 27 1000 10.9 112.9 with clay seams 21 BEDROCK:SANDSTONE weathered/poorly cemented to cemented CS 22 50/6" 5000 17.2 107.7 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 22.0' 23 24 25 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC PEDERSEN TOYOTA-REMODEL EXPANSION FORT COLLINS,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142002 LOG OF BORING B 5 DATE: JANUARY 2014 RIG TYPE: CME55 SHEET 1 OF 2 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 1/2412014 WHILE DRILLING 17.0' AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 1/2412014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV 5035 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -LIMITS -200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWSIFT) (PSF) (%) (PCE) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %@.500 PSF ASPHALT-3" BASE-5" 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY/CLAYEY SAND(CL/SC) 2 red _ very stiff to stiff/medium dense 3 4 Fc_s 5 11 1 5000 12.6 114.1 1 29 1 16 36.6 1 <500 Psf None 6 7 8 9 __ sand seams ESS 10 11 3000 13.7 11 12 13 14 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) CS 15 8 4000 22.2 101.5 stiff with gravel seams 16 17 18 19 CLAYEY SAND(SC) SS 20 6 20.8 40.2 loose to medium dense 21 22 23 CLAYEY SAND(SC) medium dense 24 decomposed,poorly cemented sandstone at 25' _ CS 25 28 5000 21.7 116.4 Continued on Sheet 2 of 2 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC PEDERSEN TOYOTA-REMODEL EXPANSION FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142002 LOG OF BORING B-5 DATE: JANUARY 2014 RIG TYPE: CME55 SHEET 2 OF 2 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 1/2412014 WHILE DRILLING 17.0' AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 1/2412014 AFTER DRILLING NIA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV 5035 24 HOUR NIA SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD A-LIMITS -200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWS/FT) (PSI) (%) (PCF) LL PI I%) PRESSURE %@ 500 PSF Continued from Sheet 1 of 2 26 27 BEDROCK:SANDSTONE 28 poorly cemented to cemented with increased depths _ 29 Ess 30 50/4" 4000 17.2 __ 31 32 33 34 brown/rust CS 35 Bounce BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 35.0' 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC PEDERSEN TOYOTA-REMODEL EXPANSION FORT COLLINS,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142002 LOG OF BORING B-6 DATE: JANUARY 2014 RIG TYPE: CME55 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 1/2412014 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 1/24/2014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV 5035.5 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DO A•LIMITS -200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWSIFT) (PSF) (%) (PCE) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %@.500 PSF ASPHALT-3" BASE-6.5" 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 2 red _ stiff to very stiff CS 3 8 3000 10.9 118.8 with traces of gravel _ 4 Ess 5 9 6000 16.3 6 7 8 9 1000 psf brown Fc_s 10 11 7000 12.4 118.4 <1000 psf None 11 12 13 14 SILTY SAND(SM) SS 15 50 15.7 dense _ brown/grey/rust 16 poorly cemented sandstone/siltstone _ 17 18 BEDROCK:SANDSTONE AND SILTSTONE poorly cemented to cemented with depth 19 brown/grey/rust Fc—s 20 Bounce 4000 8.2 21 22 23 24 SS 25 50/1" 5000 13.3 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 25.5' _ _ Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC PEDERSEN TOYOTA-REMODEL EXPANSION FORT COLLINS,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1142002 LOG OF BORING B-7 DATE: JANUARY 2014 RIG TYPE: CME55 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 1/2412014 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 1/2412014 AFTER DRILLING N/A SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV 5035 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION D N QU MC DD -LIMITS -200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWSIFT) (PSF) (%) (PCE) LL PI (%) PRESSURE %@.500 PSF ASPHALT-3" BASE-5.5" 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY/CLAYEY SAND(CL/SC) 2 red %@ 150 Psf medium stiff to stiff/medium dense C _S 3 8 4000 18.1 110.5 25 11 39.8 <150 psf None 4 ESS 5 5 5000 10.4 6 SAND(SP) 7 medium dense with fine gravel 8 9 __ FSS 10 15 5.5 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 10.5' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Red Sandy LEAN CLAY(CL) Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 31 IPlasticity Index: 18 % Passing#200: 54.8% Beginning Moisture: 15.4% JDry Density: 109.7 pcf JEnding Moisture: 16.9% Swell Pressure: <500 psf %Swell @ 500: None 10.0 8.0 6.0 a� 3 e7 4.0 2.0 c m E d g 0.0 c m m (L -2.0 Water Added 0 -4.0 0 U) o -6.0 U -8.0 -10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Load(TSF) Project: Pedersen Toyota- Remodel Expansion Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project#: 1142002 EEC Date: February 2014 6bL SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Reddish Brown Sandy LEAN CLAY(CL) Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: -- IPlasticity Index: -- % Passing#200: -- Beginning Moisture: 19.1% JDry Density: 106.8 pcf JEnding Moisture: 18.3% Swell Pressure: <500 psf %Swell @ 500: None 10.0 8.0 6.0 a� 3 U) 4.0 2.0 c m E d 0.0 c m L d a Water Added -2.0 -4.0 0 0 Cn a -6.0 U -8.0 -10.0 0.01 0.1 10 Load(TSF) 1 Project: Pedersen Toyota- Remodel Expansion Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project#: 1142002 Date: February 2014 SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Red Clayey Sand (SC) Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: -- IPlasticity Index: -- % Passing#200: -- Beginning Moisture: 13.3% JDry Density: 104.6 pcf JEnding Moisture: 21.2% Swell Pressure: <1000 psf %Swell @ 1000: None 10.0 8.0 6.0 a� 3 U) 4.0 2.0 c m E d 0.0 c m L d a -2.0 Water Added -4.0 0 0 Cn a -6.0 U -8.0 -10.0 0.01 0.1 10 Load(TSF) 1 Project: Pedersen Toyota- Remodel Expansion Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project#: 1142002 Date: February 2014 SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Red Sandy LEAN CLAY(CL) Sample Location: Boring 4, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: -- IPlasticity Index: -- % Passing#200: -- Beginning Moisture: 12.0% JDry Density: 113.1 pcf JEnding Moisture: 15.6% Swell Pressure: <500 psf %Swell @ 500: None 10.0 8.0 6.0 a� 3 U) 4.0 2.0 c m E d 0.0 c m L d a -2.0 Water Added -4.0 0 0 Cn a -6.0 U -8.0 -10.0 0.01 0.1 10 Load(TSF) 1 Project: Pedersen Toyota- Remodel Expansion Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project#: 1142002 Date: February 2014 SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Red Clayey SAND (SC) Sample Location: Boring 5, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 29 IPlasticity Index: 16 % Passing#200: 36.6% Beginning Moisture: 12.6% JDry Density: 119.3 pcf JEnding Moisture: 15.8% Swell Pressure: <500 psf %Swell @ 500: None 10.0 8.0 6.0 a� 3 U) 4.0 2.0 c m E d 0.0 c m L d a Water Added -2.0 -4.0 0 0 Cn a -6.0 U -8.0 -10.0 0.01 0.1 10 Load(TSF) 1 Project: Pedersen Toyota- Remodel Expansion Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project#: 1142002 Date: February 2014 SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy LEAN CLAY(CL) Sample Location: Boring 6, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: -- IPlasticity Index: -- % Passing#200: -- Beginning Moisture: 12.4% JDry Density: 115.2 pcf JEnding Moisture: 15.7% Swell Pressure: <1000 psf %Swell @ 1000: None 4.0 2.0 0.0 a, -2.0 3 U) Water Added -4.0 -6.0 m E d -8.0 c m L a -10.0 -12.0 O 14.0 0 Cn C O U -16.0 -18.0 -20.0 0.01 0.1 10 Load(TSF) 1 Project: Pedersen Toyota- Remodel ExpansionPM NON Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project#: 1142002 :�E E C Date: February 2014 SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Red Clayey Sand (SC) Sample Location: Boring 7, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 25 1 Plasticity Index: 11 % Passing#200: 39.8% Beginning Moisture: 18.1% JDry Density: 110.6 pcf JEnding Moisture: 14.9% Swell Pressure: <500 psf %Swell @ 150: None 10.0 8.0 6.0 a� 3 U) 4.0 2.0 c m E d 0.0 c m L a Water Added -2.0 -4.0 0 0 Cn a -6.0 U -8.0 -10.0 0.01 0.1 10 Load(TSF) 1 Project: Pedersen Toyota- Remodel Expansion Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project#: 1142002 Date: February 2014 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Sieve Analysis(AASHTO T 11&T 27/ASTM C 117&C 136) Sieve Size Percent Passing 3/8" (9.5 mm) 100 No.4 (4.75 mm) 95 No.8 (2.36 mm) 85 No.10 (2 mm) 82 No.16 (1.18 mm) 72 No.30 (0.6 mm) 60 No.40 (0.425 ram) 54 No.50 (0.3 mm) 48 No.100 (0.15 mm) 39 No.200 (0.075 mm) 31.4 Project: Pedersen Toyota-Remodel Expansion-4455 S.College Avenue Location: Fort Collins,Colorado Project No: 1142002 Sample ID: B-2,S-3, 14 Sample Desc.: Sand&Gravel(SP/GP) 400 Date: February 2014 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Standard Sieve Size 5" 3" 2" 1" 1/2" No.4 No.10 No.30 No.50 No.200 6" 4" 2.5" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" No.8 No.16 No.40 No.100 100 90 80 70 60 0 50 40 N c LL 30 20 10 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (mm) Gravel Sand Cobble Silt or Clay Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Project: Pedersen Toyota-Remodel Expansion-4455 S. College Avenue Location: Fort Collins,Colorado a Project No: 1142002 4 Sample ID: B-2,S-3, 14 i. Sample Desc.: Sand&Gravel(SP/GP) Date: February 2014 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Sieve Analysis(AASHTO T 11&T 27/ASTM C 117&C 136) Sieve Size Percent Passing 3/8" (9.5 mm) 100 No.4 (4.75 mm) 98 No.8 (2.36 mm) 94 No.10 (2 mm) 93 No.16 (1.18 mm) 89 No.30 (0.6 mm) 81 No.40 (0.425 ram) 76 No.50 (0.3 mm) 70 No.100 (0.15 mm) 57 No.200 (0.075 mm) 40.2 Project: Pedersen Toyota-Remodel Expansion-4455 S.College Avenue Location: Fort Collins,Colorado Project No: 1142002 Sample ID: B-5,S-4, 19 Sample Desc.: Clayey SAND(SC) 400 Date: February 2014 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LLC Summary of Washed Sieve Analysis Tests (ASTM C117 & C136) Standard Sieve Size 5" 3" 2" 1" 1/2" No.4 No.10 No.30 No.50 No.200 6" 4" 2.5" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" No.8 No.16 No.40 No.100 100 90 80 70 60 0 50 40 L 30 20 10 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Grain Size (mm) Gravel Sand Cobble Silt or Clay Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Project: Pedersen Toyota-Remodel Expansion-4455 S. College Avenue Location: Fort Collins,Colorado a Project No: 1142002 4 Sample ID: B-5,S-4, 19 i. Sample Desc.: Clayey SAND(SC) Date: February 2014 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_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>> Horn RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - EX. IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen 2/17/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 296073000 CALCULATED BY: RJP CHECKED BY: EPF 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 0.18 0.45 2.08 0.00 2.71 0.90 0.95 92% EX-B EX-B 0.29 0.00 1.78 0.00 2.07 0.84 0.89 86% BASIN SUBTOTAL 0.47 0.45 3.86 0.00 4.78 0.88 0.93 89% 10% 9% 81% 0% On-Site Basins Flowing Off-site OS1 OS1 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.20 0.31 2% BASIN SUBTOTAL 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.20 0.31 2% 100% 0% 0% 0% K:\NC0_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn 2-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 296073000 CALCULATED BY: RJP CHECKED BY: EPF SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(Ti) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN I AREA C2 LENGTH SLOPEI 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 EX-A 2.71 0.90 175 2.5% 3.6 85 4.0% 0.195 2.9 0.5 4.1 260 3.0% 92% 11.4 5.0 EX-B 2.07 0.84 190 1.0% 6.6 350 2.0% 0.195 2.0 2.9 9.5 540 1.6% 86% 13.0 9.5 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 1 0.24 1 0.20 8 6.6% 2.5 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 2.5 8 6.6% 0% 10.0 5.0 K:\NC0_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>»Horn 100-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 296073000 CALCULATED BY: RJP CHECKED BY: EPF 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 I 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 2.71 0.95 175 2.5% 2.7 85 4.0% 0.195 2.9 0.5 3.2 260 3.0% 92% 11.4 5.0 EX-B 2.07 0.89 190 1.0% 5.3 350 2.0% 0.195 2.0 2.9 8.2 540 1.6% 86% 13.0 8.2 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 1 0.24 1 0.31 8 6.6% 2.2 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 2.2 8 6.6% 0% 10.0 5.0 K:\NC0_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>))Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN -RATIONAL METHOD 2 YEAR EVENT DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen PROJECT NUMBER: 296073000 CALCULATED BY: RJP Pt(1-Hour Rainfall), 0.82 CHECKED BY: EPF REMARKS N Q cn p I Q Z p Q c pm Wpa Q '"' � U U V �' On-Site Basins EX-A EX-A 2.71 0.90 5.00 2.44 2.78 6.79 Existing Drainage Flows EX-B EX-B 2.07 0.84 9.45 1.75 2.27 3.97 Existing Drainage Flows On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 I OS1 0.24 0.20 5.00 0.05 2.78 0.13 Undetained Flows K:\NC0_Civi1\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN -RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen PROJECT NUMBER: 296073000 CALCULATED BY: RJP Pt(1-Hour Rainfall)= 2.86 CHECKED BY: EPF REMARKS u_ V5fA (� Z W U OL LU < � 0 WQ ZD p m LU On-Site Basins EX-A EX-A 2.71 1 0.95 1 5.00 2.58 1 9.70 1 24.98 1 Existing Drainage Flows EX-B EX-B 2.07 0.89 9.45 1.85 7.91 14.65 Existing Drainage Flows On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 I OS1 0.24 0.31 5.00 0.08 9.70 0.73 Undetained Flows K:\NC0_Civi1\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>)Morn PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 296073000 CALCULATED BY: RJP CHECKED BY: EPF RATIONAL CALCULATIONS SUMMARY DESIGN POINT TRIBUTARY TRIBUTARY AREA IMPERVIOUSNESS PEAK FLOWS (CFS) BASINS (AC) % 02 0100 On-Site Basins Flowing On-Site EX-A EX-A 2.71 92% 6.79 24.98 EX-B EX-B 2.07 86% 3.97 14.65 TOTAL 4.78 89% 10.75 39.63 K:\NCO_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen 2/17/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: RJP CHECKED BY: EPF 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% 80% Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt,Concrete Gravel/Pavers Commercial TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) C(2) C(100) Imp% On-Site Basins Flowing On-site 1 A 1 A 0.12 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.87 0.92 90% 2A 2A 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.95 1.00 90% 3A 3A 0.05 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.85 0.90 86% 1 B 1 B 0.22 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.77 0.82 76% 2B 2B 0.31 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.71 0.76 68% 3B 3B 0.08 0.00 0.38 1 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.82 0.87 83% SUB BASIN A TOTAL A 0.17 1.03 1 1.35 0.00 1 0.00 2.55 1 0.90 0.95 89% SUB BASIN B TOTAL B 0.61 0.00 1.72 0.00 0.00 2.33 0.75 0.80 74% SITE TOTAL 0.78 1.03 3.07 0.00 0.00 4.88 0.83 0.88 82% 16% 21% 63% 0% 0% On-Site Basins Flowing Off-site 0S1 I OS1 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.20 0.31 2% K:\NCO_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\-Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn 2-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: RJP CHECKED BY: EPF SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(Ti) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN AREA C2 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 1A 1.16 0.87 180 1.8% 4.7 120 1.5% 0.195 4.7 0.4 5.1 300 1.7% 90% 11.7 5.1 2A 1.03 0.95 150 5.0% 2.0 0 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.0 2.0 150 5.0% 90% 10.8 5.0 3A 0.36 0.85 115 1.5% 4.5 75 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.3 4.8 190 1.3% 86% 11.1 5.0 1 B 0.91 0.77 150 2.0% 6.0 165 0.5% 0.195 2.7 1.0 7.0 315 1.2% 76% 11.8 7.0 2B 0.96 0.71 175 3.0% 6.7 25 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.1 6.8 200 2.8% 68% 11.1 6.8 3B 0.46 0.82 80 3.5% 3.1 80 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.3 3.4 160 2.3% 83% 10.9 5.0 SUB BASIN A TOTAL 2.55 0.90 180 1.8% 4.1 120 1.5% 0.195 4.7 0.4 4.5 300 1.7% 89% 11.7 5.0 SUB BASIN B TOTAL 2.33 0.75 175 3.0% 5.9 25 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.1 6.0 200 2.8% 74% 11.1 6.0 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 1 0.14 0.20 35 2.5% 7.3 0 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.0 7.3 35 2.5% 2% 10.2 7.3 K:\NC0_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn 100-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: RJP CHECKED BY: EPF SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(T;) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN 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. Min. Min. On-Site Basins 1A 1.16 0.92 180 0 3.7 120 0 0.195 4.7 0.4 4.1 300 1.7% 90% 11.7 5.0 2A 1.03 1.00 150 0 1.3 0 0 0.195 3.9 0.0 1.3 150 5.0% 90% 10.8 5.0 3A 0.36 0.90 115 0 3.6 75 0 0.195 3.9 0.3 3.9 190 1.3% 86% 11.1 5.0 1 B 0.91 0.82 150 0 5.1 165 0 0.195 2.7 1.0 6.1 315 1.2% 76% 11.8 6.1 2B 0.96 0.76 175 0 5.9 25 0 0.195 3.9 0.1 6.0 200 2.8% 68% 11.1 6.0 3B 0.46 0.87 1 80 0 2.5 80 0 1 0.195 3.9 0.3 2.9 160 2.3% 83% 10.9 1 5.0 SUB BASIN A TOTAL 2.55 0.95 180 0 3.1 120 0 0.195 4.7 0.4 3.5 300 1.7% 89% 11.7 5.0 SUB BASIN B TOTAL 2.33 0.80 175 0 5.1 25 0 0.195 3.9 0.1 5.2 200 2.8% 74% 11.1 5.2 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 1 0.14 0.31 35 2.5% 6.4 0 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.0 6.4 35 2.5% 2% 10.2 6.4 K:\NC0_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>Morn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN -RATIONAL METHOD 2 YEAR EVENT DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: RJP Pt(1-Hour Rainfall)= 0.82 CHECKED BY: EPF REMARKS u_ LL � Z CZ7 ~ a oLLL cvv cna (n5 � Q Zp Q - = CJ Wpm LU Qom'' � 0 On-Site Basins Northeastern portion of the site.Runoff drains north to a Type 1A 1A 1.16 0.87 5.12 1.01 2.76 2.80 R Inlet. Existing building and building addition.Runoff drain to 2A 2A 1.03 0.95 5.00 0.98 2.78 2.72 downspouts and directly into private storm system Southeastern portion of the site.Runoff drains south east to a 3A 3A 0.36 0.85 1 5.00 0.30 1 2.78 0.85 1 Type R Inlet. Northwestern portion of the site.Runoff drains northwest to a 1 B 1 B 0.91 0.77 7.03 0.70 2.52 1.76 Type R Inlet. West central portion of the site.Runoff drains east to a Type R 2B 2B 0.96 0.71 6.83 0.68 2.54 1.73 Inlet. Southwestern portion of the site.Runoff drains east to a Type 3B 3B 0.46 0.82 1 5.00 0.38 1 2.78 1.05 1 R Inlet. Eastern basin. Runoff drains to an underground storage LID SUB BASIN A TOTAL A 2.55 0.90 5.00 2.30 2.78 6.38 facility. Western basin.Runoff drains to an underground storage LID SUB BASIN B TOTAL B 2.33 0.75 6.05 1.76 2.64 4.63 facility. On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 I OS1 0.14 0.20 1 7.34 0.03 1 2.48 0.07 Flows North to College Ave and Kensington Dr K:\NC0_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>))Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN -RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT DATE:2/7/2025 PROJECT NAME:Toyota Pedersen PROJECT NUMBER:96315014 CALCULATED BY: RJP Pt(1-Hour Rainfall). 2.86 CHECKED BY: EPF REMARKS zLL ILL Z � v zW Q _ _ •�' E CJ O00 pa Qa � V On-Site Basins Northeastern portion of the site.Runoff drains north to a Type 1A 1A 1.16 0.92 5.12 1.07 9.64 10.32 R Inlet. Existing building and building addition.Runoff drain to 2A 2A 1.03 1.00 5.00 1.03 9.70 9.99 downspouts and directly into private storm system Southeastern portion of the site.Runoff drains south east to a 3A 3A 0.36 0.90 5.00 0.32 9.70 3.13 Type R Inlet. Northwestern portion of the site.Runoff drains northwest to a 1 B 1 B 0.91 0.82 7.03 0.75 8.78 6.54 Type R Inlet. West central portion of the site.Runoff drains east to a Type 2B 2B 0.96 0.76 6.83 0.73 8.86 6.45 R Inlet. Southwestern portion of the site.Runoff drains east to a Type 36 313 0.46 0.87 5.00 0.40 9.70 3.88 R Inlet. Eastern basin. Runoff drains to an underground storage LID SUB BASIN A TOTAL A 2.55 0.95 5.00 2.42 9.70 23.50 facility. Western basin.Runoff drains to an underground storage LID SUB BASIN B TOTAL B 2.33 0.80 6.05 1.87 9.20 17.22 facility. On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 I OS1 0.14 0.31 7.34 0.04 8.66 0.38 Flows North to College Ave and Kensington Dr K:\NC0_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: RJP CHECKED BY: EPF RATIONAL CALCULATIONS SUMMARY DESIGN POINT TRIBUTARY BASINS TRIBUTARY AREA IMPERVIOUSNESS PEAK FLOWS (CFS) (AC) % Q2 Q100 On-Site Basins Flowing On-Site 1 A 1 A 1.16 90% 2.80 10.32 2A 2A 1.03 90% 2.72 9.99 3A 3A 0.36 86% 0.85 3.13 1 B 1 B 0.91 76% 1.76 6.54 2B 2B 0.96 68% 1.73 6.45 3B 3B 0.46 83% 1.05 3.88 A SUB BASIN A TOTAL 2.55 89% 6.38 23.50 B SUB BASIN B TOTAL 2.33 74% 4.63 17.22 TOTAL 9.76 82% 21.92 81.03 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site OS1 I 0S1 0.14 2% 0.07 0.38 K:\NC0_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley)))Horn PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: RJP CHECKED BY: EPF WQCV Calculation Basin A Inputs Results Imperviousness: 89% a: 0.8 WQCV: 0.314 in Drain Time: 12 hours WQCV: 3493.38 ft3 Area: 2.55 acres Low Impact Development Area Calculation Inputs Results Total Site Area: 2.55 acres Req'd Imp Area for LID Treatment: 1.79 acres Total Site Impervious Area: 2.38 acres Total Site Area to LID: 2.5 acres Added/Modified Impervious Area: 2.38 acres Provided Impervious Area to LID: 2.4 acres WQCV=a(0.91J 1.1''aJ4 0.781) Where:WQCV=Water Quality Capture Volume,watershed inches a —Coefficient corresponding to WQCV drain time(Table 5.4-1) 1=Imperviousness(%/100) V= lWQcv A.x1.2 Equation 7-2 Where:V=required volume,acre-ft A=tributary catchment area upstream,acres WQCV=Water CluaIity Capture Volume,watershed inches 1.2=to account for the additional 20%of required storage for sedimentation accumulation 1} 50%of the newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques and 25%of new paved(vehicle use)areas must be pervious. 2)I 75%of all newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LlDtechniques. Impervious surfaces are defined as hardscape surfaces that do not allow stormwvater 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 must then be included in LID calculations.) K:\NCC_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Chamber Configuration Summary Basin A 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 Inflow' Chamber Release Rate` Unit Volume° Aggregate` of Chambers Release Rate' FAA Method' Design Chambers Release Rate' Volume' Volume' ID (cf" (cfs) Type (`f:) (cf) (cf) for WQCV I (cfs) I (cf) I Control' Provided (cfs) (cf) (cf) 1 3493 3.18 MC-3500 0.036 109.90 175.00 20 0.72 3493 solatorRow 21 0.75 2308 3675 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 accounting for void spaces in surrounding aggregate.The Isolator Row(s)are sized per this unit volume. e.Volume includes chamber and void spaces(40%)in surrounding aggregate,per chamber unit.The total system WQCV is sized per this unit volume. 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 atthe'outletcontrol'for the 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. j. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers provided.This is the approximate controlled discharge from the WQ event. 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 required 12-hr WQCV. Kimley)))Horn PROJECT NAME: Toyota Pedersen DATE: 2/7/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 96315014 CALCULATED BY: RJP CHECKED BY: EPF WQCV Calculation Basin B Inputs Results Imperviousness: 74% a: 0.8 WQCV: 0.235 in Drain Time: 12 hours WQCV: 2389.67 ft3 Area: 2.33 acres Low Impact Development Area Calculation Inputs Results Total Site Area: 2.33 acres Req'd Imp Area for LID Treatment: 1.29 acres Total Site Impervious Area: 1.72 acres Total Site Area to LID: 2.3 acres Added/Modified Impervious Area: 1.72 acres Provided Impervious Area to LID: 1.7 acres WQCV=a(0.91J 1.1''aJ4 0.781) Where:WQCV=Water Quality Capture Volume,watershed inches a —Coefficient corresponding to WQCV drain time(Table 5.4-1) 1=Imperviousness(%/100) V= lWQcv A.x1.2 Equation 7-2 Where:V=required volume,acre-ft A=tributary catchment area upstream,acres WQCV=Water CluaIity Capture Volume,watershed inches 1.2=to account for the additional 20%of required storage for sedimentation accumulation 1} 50%of the newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques and 25%of new paved(vehicle use)areas must be pervious. 2)I 75%of all newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LlDtechniques. Impervious surfaces are defined as hardscape surfaces that do not allow stormwvater 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 must then be included in LID calculations.) K:\NCC_Civil\296073000_Pedersen Toyota\_Project Files\Eng\Drainage\Rational Method\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Chamber Configuration Summary Basin B 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 Inflow' Chamber Release Rate` Unit Volume° Aggregate` of Chambers Release Rate' FAA Method' Design Chambers Release Rate' Volume' Volume' ID (cf" (cfs) Type (`f:) (cf) (cf) for WQCV I (cfs) I (cf) I Control I Provided (cfs) (cf) (cf) 1 2390 2.27 MC-3500 0.036 109.90 175.00 14 0.50 2390 solator[low 14 0.50 1539 2450 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 accounting for void spaces in surrounding aggregate.The Isolator Row(s)are sized per this unit volume. e.Volume includes chamber and void spaces(40%)in surrounding aggregate,per chamber unit.The total system WQCV is sized per this unit volume. 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 atthe'outletcontrol'for the 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. j. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers provided.This is the approximate controlled discharge from the WQ event. 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 required 12-hr WQCV. GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 40 80 160 NORTH m I I UNDERGROUND SYSTEM A _ TREATMENT AREA:2.55 AC LEGEND REQUIRED VOLUME:3,496 CIF cn PROVIDED VOLUME:3,675 CIF — — PROPERTY LINE UNDERGROUND SYSTEM B — — RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TREATMENT AREA:2.33 AC EASEMENT LINE REQUIRED VOLUME:2,390 CIF I — CENTERLINE PROVIDED VOLUME:2,450 CF _. S rl I EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR \ I I I I I I i 4200 PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR \\ Z 4201 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR C \ 1 W `J li \ / I UNDERGROUND CHAMBER SYSTEM el w Ur UNDERGROUND CHAMBER TREATMENT AREA /f_ w\ ' I !0 J �.n UNTREATED AREA II p U :;y` �� --- -- _ -_ _ . I KENSINQTON DRIVE w PROJECT LID SUMMARY BASIN A PROJECT LID SUMMARY BASIN B TOTAL DISTURBED IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR BASIN IMPROVEMENTS 103,673 SF TOTAL DISTURBED IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS �74,923 SF MINIMUM AREA TO BE TREATED BY LID MEASURES MINIMUM AREA TO BE TREATED BY LID MEASURES TOTAL REQUIRED TREATED IMPERVIOUS AREAS BY UNDERGROUND 77,754 SF 75% TOTAL REQUIRED TREATED IMPERVIOUS AREAS BY UNDERGROUND 56,192 SF 75% SYSTEM SYSTEM TOTAL PROPOSED TREATED IMPERVIOUS AREAS BY UNDERGROUND 103,673 SF 100% TOTAL PROPOSED TREATED IMPERVIOUS AREAS BY UNDERGROUND 74,923 SF 100% SYSTEM SYSTEM LID EXHIBIT TOYOTA PEDERSEN Kimley Morn ©2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES,INC. 3325 S.TIMBERLINE RD,SUITE 130,FORT COLLINS,CO,80525 DATE:February 4,2025 PROJECT NUMBER:296073000 PHONE:(970)822-7911 W H Q DO LEGEND 4301 S.COLLEGE AVE. PROPERTY LINE LOT 2,FOSSIL CREEK COMMERCIAL 6'UTILITY EASEMENT PLAZA 1ST REPLAT 20'ACCESS EASEMENT / EXISTING EASEMENT REC.NO.297855 REC. NO.278737 f 18"RCP STORM PIPE Z CON- EXISTING COMMUNICATIONS LINE 0 I 18"RCP STORM PIPE I E EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE W E PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LINE - - z (0 z ~• B _ 2 w co G EXISTING NATURAL GAS LINE ' \, WESTERN BASIN <CQ d �e Q N 3� w o o "' S EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE rn � s S 0 S OUTFALL rn o p o �O --- rn W LO Cn C)o o 'o o�o� h _ W o0o W ors 03u W -W -- ® -W— o� - - W`� � ? `' 7iW °° 0 o �, �, �„� h W\ `r z `Np W o W w W p \ — \ S EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE Hoz, \ w � x o O W EXISTING WATER LINE . _ ��Q -t om o — �r� CO t �� — LU I ---- - --- - --- - --- - p - - --- �.. . 1•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 7 . r EXISTING STORM LINE --- z Z - --- -- - w "�_ #--E - �' .. ,.. . . . . . PROPOSED STORM LINE =) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W I o \ I U UO ! ;' t - �� _' �,' •.J. •. . . . CO . . . . . . . . . . . . I / W EXISTING STORM INLET e / EASTERN BASIN z ® EXISTING STORM INLET . . . . . . . . . I OUTFACE #= BASIN DESIGNATION a l /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . z �:� . . . . -- „-.——————:-. .-.-- .--- .-.-. -. - .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o W I i: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \. `. AC =AREA IN ACRES _ EXISTING STORM INLET AC I w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXISTING STORM INLET ✓ :I E ■ , � . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ■ U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1 = % IMPERVIOUSNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W-t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o EXISTING STORM INLET. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F \ . . .\\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ,. . . . . . i. ---- --- -_--- . . . . . .,n . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e I 36"RCP STORM PIPE m \ \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W \ I t r \ ' . ` / ' O # # = DESIGN POINT z N o \ \ \ . _, EXISTING BASIN . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O U — o N e: Co I 1 \ \ 1 .. BOUNDARY . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . U 00 m \\ \\ . . . . . . . . . \, . � j }I. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . M Io \ . . . . -\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. \ ■ � � � � � � � � � � � ■ EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY Q — a� a \ LO . . . . . . . . . �. . . . . . . . . . N I - 5039- . . . . . . l . . . . . . E . m U (n N Z 1 . . . . "E'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ 1. . . . . . 16'RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING FLOW ARROW U) o N \ �\ \ . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . T . . . . a . . . . . :\\ . . . . . . . . REC.NO.88032686 I Q . — - -. v \ \\ \ J _ ` . . . . . . . . . \. .�. t\\. VARIABLE WIDTH R.O.W. W' 0 o \ ---I lil i� S STATE HIGHWAY 287 Z LU \ \ \. ' \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, . . . . . . . . —\ a / v oP " v v v �, - �� . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v. . . . . 0W0 \ \ cs \ \\\ \ \\ DRAINAGE EASEMENT s0 � . . . . . . - � . . . . . . . . \ . . . . . . O WIDTH VARIES _ sp m ' I, E/�—B / . . . . . . . . . J ° \ \ \ REC. NO.565864 O.. \ / . . . - rn / T E X—A . . . . . . . . . . \. _ O'+ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( ) O I �, _ ° \. \. w A \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ /- .\. �\ .\. _I o / — . . . .o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`S03 .\ . . . . I U) \ . 2.07 ss% I " -o: . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . . . . . . I o NOTES: J z Y \ \. \ \ \ \ \ \. S ` \.. J _. .� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I = — _ . . . . _ 2.71 92% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _� \ s `. �� W ` ' __ � • ' 1. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE BASED ON THE SURVEY PREPARED o \ \\ \\�o \\ (.L \\ s . . . . . v _ \ ; \. . . . . BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED 10/29/2024. � U U ,\ F 6) \ \ \ OU,O . . . \\ _i` \\ al \` \ ` . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . fTl N \ \ . . . . . . . . . CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AS-BUILTS AND VERIFY EXISTING o •• \ \ \ `\ . . . . CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. @ c� 0 a i �.. \\� \ \ \ \\ �. \ / \ \ \ \ 1. N N i \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ / I ..II \4 \ \ LL Z \ \ , \ • • • • • • • I I I ' . ' 2. PIPE LENGTHS PROVIDED REPRESENT HORIZONTAL DISTANCES `'' o `\` \\\\ I I\ _, .' I� I i I,1 I FROM FITTING TO FITTING AND DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR DESIGNED BY: RJP .. \ \ \ ' ' I VERTICAL ELEVATION CHANGES, BENDS, ETC. ,.� . . . . . . . . . . q DRAWN BY: ANP \\ a EXISTING STORM INLET . . 1 li ��, `. \\ w o v `� . \. �. r ,v, CHECKED BY: EPF o \. _j N cn DATE: 2/19/2025 W \ \ \`, \ \. h i�� . . . . . . z } w . . . . . . . \ . . . . . .o, , . . . . . } ;Tho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5036 ' . . . . . . . Q = > 0 w O �. U w = � \ \ •: _ . . . . . . . . . 1 °� o I __ .L . . . . . p � U w \ \ \ > . . . . . .I _ (nJ 0 \ f\\ .I. . . . . . . . . . U p Y d o O , ", EXISTING STORM INLET I I w .. �' 4455 S.COLLEGE AVE. G�� . ♦ . . . . . . , . ... II. . . . . . PEDERSEN TOYOTA L, o S �O�p�9cP P\/ BUILDING c w O, O \ 44,075 SF TOTAL I O J z p 02, H �� J \\. . , , .\\. our � �.24 2% i e�. . . \ c9 ,, .I . . . . . . . . . co .1v ` v. . . ,.I. w � . . . J M w . . . . \ {I'. l I. . . . . C7 J Z W v. :y l \ . . . . 0 c) IL G L . a \ \. �I �. _ . . . . . . . , . . W \\ i. I O O \ \ . . . . Lu OS 4455 S. MASON ST. 1 :\. "�• LOT 1, PEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA e: /, `/ SUBDIVISION 2ND FILING ' •, \ .\\ ` . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 o : .� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .y. . . . . . . . Z LLJ F 1V A ■' V A� c W Cl) W W _ CPO LL o `\ ENT LLJvS\L�� O 56 u0 I _. �� -- �I i v) o REC N O :\ . I W w IL \ , _ -.- . . . . . . . . . . Z L.L \ I NORTH w 0 U EXISTING STORM INLET _ ���. C) Uj a- AA II, J w \ . . . . . Uj J J J ® . . . . . . --- _ . ,. . . . . \\ I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O If o . . . . . /. L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ e > LL I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET U U z U 0 15 30 60 '^ Z I \. . . ... . . . . . . . .. \ . I. . . _ . . . o I vJ_q o ,� \.\ Zw Y u \ a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 'J �:� \\\ ; \il. i s0� I SCALE: 1" = 30' LO 0 w 1\ \\ \\ i . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i W X � \ . . . . . . . . . . C, . . . . . . . . . LL `: ` \ 1 I .�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ° cn , CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO � j a - - - - - \. - z - - UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL Q \ o r . , . - APPROVED: +�+ Z CV N UT —__ w N , S 36"RCP STORM PIPE CITY ENGINEER, APPROVED SHEETS DATE o Lr) o - 5041 Z , , 6040, 5039 1/U 5038, S03 j 036- 03S O Wo N W _ C) - �� 0 7. j W KENSINGTON DRIVE p W �_ —o _ . . — .� - (PUBLIC R.O.W.VARIES) W APPROVED: ch Q WATER&WASTEWATER UTILITY, APPROVED SHEETS DATE i < W i pm O Uaa W _ _ 0 N � ' 224 W. HARMONY RD. I - - FOR REVIEW ONLY 0 o LOT 1, FORT COLLINS JEEP ,' U - -f— APPROVED: I - 2' d STORMWATER UTILITY, APPROVED SHEETS DATE NOT FOR S _ N S CONSTRUCTION 4512 S. MASON ST. APPROVED: 1MLOY)M"n N o LOT 1,THE GATEWAY 103 KENSINGTON DR. PARK PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, APPROVED SHEETS DATE Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. �-1= I AT HARMONT ROAD LOT 1, KENSINGTON COMMONS o P.U.D.3RD FILING o APPROVED: PROJECT NO. o = 296073000 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, APPROVED SHEETS DATE F Know what's b@IOW. APPROVED: SHEET Uj ® Call before you dig. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER, APPROVED SHEETS DATE OQ C8 .0 Zm YT W H Q 00 LEGEND 4301 S.COLLEGE AVE. I PROPERTY LINE LOT 2,FOSSIL CREEK COMMERCIAL 6'UTILITY EASEMENT PLAZA 1ST REPLAT 20'ACCESS EASEMENT / EXISTING EASEMENT REC.NO.297855 REC. NO.278737 f 18"RCP STORM PIPE Z CON- EXISTING COMMUNICATIONS LINE O I 18"RCP STORM PIPE I E EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE w E PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LINE B z _ __ wrn wl� - LU I� G EXISTING NATURAL GAS LINE f"'� WESTERN BASIN Q a e Q Cj h ro o M ter S EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE LID cn o o coin � �� r�i p r0 S03 OUTFACE -- ® -W rn �O�D O _how hJ ------ W m rn- W o �e �o� ho W o �� W-ems 4dU W W -__ W it W z / z p- _ - _ _ _j U p II _ S EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE --- b [0W EXISTING WATER LINE -" -- z �- _ c� r EXISTING STORM LINE Z I __ w �- ---- I 1B b \ 7 LU I PROPOSED STORM LINE W I M So p I I I 0 I J S `o o `. � 1 I II illil p�'y EASTERN BASIN ® C Cn co so il'', OUTFALL #= BASIN DESIGNATION v a) a I I \o 0 0 0 ' I _ 5034 ' 0 w �� �j M AC =AREA IN ACRES LU AC Uj 1 WESTERN BASIN a a S A I I = % IMPERVIOUSNESS I 0 UNDERGROUND LID\ • yl I ADS CHAMBERSmr 36"RCP STORM PIPE 6" a h ... 1 \ / 5035 O S 1 o I :.1 1 / PROPOSED BASIN 1 EASTERN BASIN # = DESIGN POINT z p N F e \ BOUNDARY 5035 UNDERGROUND LID 0.14 2% _ 00 � 1B01 W 1 ADS CHAMBERS I ^ W W O I \ \ \ o -� .16 90% PROPOSED BASIN BOUNDARY ^ Q a \ / 0.91 76% 1 b � 'n .a. � � � � m �i --- --- - ---- -- z PROPOSED SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY p U) N 16'RIGHT-oF-WAY U) C) U-) REC. NO.88032686 Q a '. \ \ ►VARIABLE W PROPOSED FLOW ARROW Q O O IDTH R.O.W. o STATE HIGHWAY 287 ` \ \ \ o EXISTING FLOW ARROW Q z a \ \ \ o ''A' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 5036 2A Im z p4 \ \ (WIDTH VARIES) - � , O= CO ° o \ REC. NO.565864 \ PROPOSED 603g / } U) LU SUB-BASIN NOTES: w z m \ \ BOUNDARY S S S S S S- I. z "U -- - 1. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE BASED ON THE SURVEY PREPARED Y O o ;. \ - -- BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED 10/29/2024. Ln O0 U 5037 I Y r1' CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AS-BUILTS AND VERIFY EXISTING o IUD ~ ' \ \ \ // II 1 CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. N M O o .. \ \ ❑ %le B O� m LL / ❑} A 2. PIPE LENGTHS PROVIDED REPRESENT HORIZONTAL DISTANCES a \ + FROM FITTING TO FITTING AND DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR DESIGNED BY: RJP Z , 2.33 74% 2.55 89% DRAWN BY: ANP VERTICAL ELEVATION CHANGES, BENDS, ETC. a �, \ 3. THE TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEMENTS SHOWN ARE THE MINIMUM/� \��`� w ELEVATIONS REQUIRED FOR PROTECTION FROM THE 100-YEAR CHECKED BY: EPF a �I N STORM. DATE: 2/26/2025 w w � w \ \ ID 2A 1 w = Q 31� 2B7 '4 1;. J > 2B 0 1.03 90% I Q •.� \ \ U z 0.96 � U 6s% LU BUILDING EXPANSION Q 11,347 SF , O Y a W o �OG�, :. \ \\ \ 4455 S.COLLEGE AVE. �I I a PEDERSEN TOYOTA .I x e`' \s A O��o� CID 9s \ \ \ \ BUILDING N � o� 2 A 0 44,075 SF TOTAL BUILDING EXPANSION o ; z O O 2 . \ 20,485 SF a a J �� % S� cA� 36 to LO , U IL I a 0 \ V J - I 1F. Q J z J Q o •e. w 1 , O Q J O U a � � I . . 5036 w , �� a '. Cn .f O Cp O� O 4455 S. MASON ST. � I LOT 1, PEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA i:r' \ \ \ \ f U_ C? U SUBDIVISION 2ND FILING \ \ 5037 z z •� �! V - - - LLi W Q\� 5037 . Q 5037 ��/� LU IL $REG N0.56r 1 1 I . \ W NLu v J L.L P I..L rn \ W z V LL 1 1 36 NORTH NORTH w J 1 \ \ J U LU x \ 5038 SO �� I w J J \ 3 B �j ° ° 3 A 5036 ^^ \ z 0 1 LJ.. O 1 I 1 I ■ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET FIRE FIRE U z (D ..•. \\ I p ' 0 15 30 60 (� LL. J, 0.46 83% . U) z So�B 5p35 /� SCALE: 1" = 30' L0 U) L0 U K 3 ILL! I a• 1 3A V Z z '•I W s o� z < Cl, -- U)a � � vr- - t•� �f � �a \� •. •• � � \ �� - 36"RCP STORM PIPE 0 z O O N 0 N _ U, S W -� N w -- 5041 § z 5040, W Sp30 036, 0O CITY OF FORT COLLINS,COLORADO 0 z I I �� -� w� -I I- KENSINGTON DRIVE UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL o J) RATIONAL CALCULATIONS SUMMARY Q - (PUBLIC R.O.W.VARIES) W W U a, p / APPROVED: U a TRIBUTARY AREA IMPERVIOUSNESS PEAK FLOWS (CFS) LU o N - / / CITY ENGINEER, APPROVED SHEETS DATE • o DESIGN POINT TRIBUTARY BASINS (AC) DAD Q2 Q100 _ -- - FOR REVIEW ONLY 0 0 - - - APPROVED: NOT FOR z 1A 1A 1.16 9oDio 2.80 10.32 - ° - CONSTRUCTION WATER 8 WASTEWATER UTILITY, APPROVED SHEETS DATE m U) 2A 2A 1.03 90% 2.72 9.99 N S _ y; LU 3A 3A 0.36 86% 0.85 3.13 4512 S. MASON ST. NmWp)H"n m z APPROVED: D LOT 1,THE GATEWAY 103 KENSINGTON DR. Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. 0- W 1 B 1 B 0.91 76/D 1.76 6.54 AT HARMONT ROAD LOT 1, KENSINGTON COMMONS STORMWATERUTILITY, APPROVED SHEETS DATE C) 2B 2B 0.96 68% 1.73 6.45 P.U.D.3RD FILING CO APPROVED: PROJECT NO. 3B 3B 0.46 83% 1.05 3.88 PARK PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, APPROVED SHEETS DATE 296073000 Doz c(o= A SUB BASIN A TOTAL 2.55 89% 6.38 23.50 UJ N 0 B SUB BASIN B TOTAL 2.33 74% 4.63 17.22 APPROVED: SHEET '> ~ Know what's below. U W T 9.76 82% 21.92 81.03 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, APPROVED SHEETS DATE OIL OS1 OS1 0.14 2% 0.07 0.38 ® C111 before you dig. APPROVED: C8 .0 U 0 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER, APPROVED SHEETS DATE ZLn YT Final Drainage Report Drake and College Mixed-Use — Fort Collins, Colorado Appendix C— Hydraulic Calculations (to be included with next submittal) Kimley>>>Horn