Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Reports - Drainage - 10/15/2025
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT Touchmark Fort Collins Prepared for: Touchmark 4710 Cinquefoil Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 3325 South Timberline Road - Suite 130 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 822-7911 Kim I Y>>> Horn KH Project#:292068000 City Project#: FDP250009 Prepared: October 15,2025 Kimley>>>Horn October 15, 2025 Derek Lutz City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Development Review 700 Wood St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Touchmark Fort Collins Final Drainage Report Dear Andrew: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for your review as part of the Final Development Plan (FDP) submittal for the above referenced project. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the proposed drainage design for Touchmark Fort Collins conforms to the drainage patterns set forth by the master drainage report on file with the City of Fort Collins. This report and attached drainage plans have been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and the latest Mile High Flood District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Please contact us with any questions or concerns. Thank You, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Mary Carlson, P.E. Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPLIANCE STATEMENT I. GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISTING SITE INFORMATION................................1 II. MASTER DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION ......................................................1 III. FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION .............................................................................1 IV. EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE.................................................................................2 V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................2 VI. PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS........................................................................2 VII. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES..................................................................3 VIII. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA........................................................................4 IX. VARIANCE REQUESTS .......................................................................................5 X. EROSION CONTROL ...........................................................................................5 XI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................5 XII. REFERENCES......................................................................................................6 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A— Referenced Criteria Appendix B — Exhibits & Hydrologic Calculations Appendix C — Hydraulic Calculations kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, • :0 � : • Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins Compliance Statement "I hereby attest that this report for the final drainage design for the Touchmark Fort Collins project was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, in accordance with the provisions of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. I understand that the City of Fort Collins does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others." By: Mary Carlson, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 56766 kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline '• Suite 130, Fort Collins, • 80525 • 1 : • Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins I. General Location and Existing Site Information Touchmark Fort Collins (the"Project") an 18.82 acre project is located in the northeast quarter of Section 4, Township 6 North, Range 68 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, State of Colorado. The property is currently undeveloped and is generally bounded by Cinquefoil Lane to the West, Le Fever Drive to the South, an undeveloped farmstead to the North and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch to the East. A Vicinity Map is included in Appendix A. Surrounding properties include an undeveloped, historic farmstead to the North, Banner Health Medical Campus to the West, the future Savoy multifamily residential development to the South and the Wyatt multifamily residential development to the East. The Project is located within the McClellands Creek Basin, see copy of the City of Fort Collins Drainage Basins image included in Appendix A. There is an existing regional detention pond along the eastern boundary of the property. The site generally slopes from west to east with slopes ranging from 0 to 1 percent. A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for the project area was obtained to determine the soil characteristics of the site. The results of this study show that the majority of the site consists of hydrologic soil group (HSG) Type C with soils including Larimer- Stoneham complex (within the existing pond area)and Nunn clay loam. Therefore, HSG Type C soils were assumed for the entirety of the site for hydrologic calculations. A copy of the Custom Soil Resource Report is provided in Appendix A. A Final Geotechnical Engineering Report dated October 31, 2024, was prepared by Terracon. Per the report, there are no known significant geologic features at this site. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 22 to 28 feet below the existing ground surface in all of the test holes. Groundwater levels will not likely affect planned development at this site. II. MASTER DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION Per the "East Harmony Portion of the McClellands Creek Master Drainage Plan Update" final report prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc. dated August 1999, the Project site lies within the eastern portion of the City of Fort Collins McClellands Creek major drainage basin. Excerpts from the report are included in Appendix A. This basin outfalls to the Fossil Creek Reservoir. Per the "Banner Health Medical Campus Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report" prepared by Northern Engineering dated September 30, 2013 (Banner Report), a regional detention pond ("Pond 3") lies along the eastern side of the property. The site lies within basin 0-3 which is comprised of Tract K and contributes 5.5-acre feet to ODP Pond. Excerpts from the report are included in Appendix A. III. FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION The Touchmark Fort Collins site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 08069C0994F 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. 1 1 Kimley>>> Horn Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins IV. EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE Historically, the site drains from west to east, towards the existing regional detention pond. The Project site is located within the Harmony Corridor (HC) Zone District. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch borders the eastern portion of the property. No other major irrigation facilities are known to influence the local drainage. Sub-basin EX-A: The historic site was evaluated as one sub-basin, Sub-basin EX-A. Sub-basin EX-A drains to the east with slopes ranging from 0.5% to 5% into the existing regional detention pond. The Historic Drainage Exhibit is included in Appendix B. V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Touchmark is proposing to develop the site as commercial long-term care. Improvements include one main building with memory care, assisted living and independent living units, attached villas, detached cottages, as well as associated walks, access drives, parking and landscaping to support the development. VI. PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS The proposed sub-basin descriptions are described below and depicted on the Proposed Drainage Exhibit included in Appendix B. Offsite to onsite runoff does not exist at this project site. The rational calculations within Appendix B include areas, imperviousness, and other applicable information. Sub-basin A: Sub-basin A is located along the west and north portions of the site. Impervious areas consist of roof areas from the main building, villas and cottages, asphalt pavement, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalks, and landscaping. Drainage is anticipated to flow north where it will be collected and routed to Rain Garden A at design point A. The drainage will then be conveyed to the existing regional detention pond. Sub-basin B: Sub-basin B is located along the east-northeast portion of the site. Impervious areas consist of roof areas from the main building and cottages, asphalt pavement, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalks, and landscaping. Drainage is anticipated to flow east-northeast where it will be collected and routed to Rain Garden B at design point B. The drainage will then be conveyed to the existing regional detention pond. Sub-basin C: Sub-basin C is located along the east-southeast portion of the site. Impervious areas consist of roof areas from the main building and cottages, asphalt pavement, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalks, and landscaping. Drainage is anticipated to flow east-southeast where it will be collected and routed to Rain Garden C at design point C. The drainage will then be conveyed to the existing regional detention pond. Sub-basin D: Sub-basin D is located along the southeast portion of the site. Impervious areas consist of roof areas from the main building and cottages, asphalt pavement, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalks, and landscaping. Drainage is anticipated to flow southeast where it will be collected and routed to Rain Garden D at design point D. The drainage will then be conveyed to the existing regional detention pond. 21i� �ac� � Kimley>>> Horn Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins Sub-basin X: Sub-basin X primarily consists of the existing regional detention pond and onsite area to the north and east that is discharged to the existing regional detention pond without being treated by the proposed rain gardens. Impervious areas consist of the rear half of the cottage roof areas, concrete sidewalks and crusher fine paths. Drainage is anticipated to sheet flow to the existing regional detention pond. Sub-basin Y: Sub-basin Y primarily consists of landscaped area on the western portion of the site that is discharged into the Cinquefoil Lane right-of-way(ROW)without being treated by the proposed rain gardens. Impervious areas consist of asphalt pavement and concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk from the entrances that were not reasonably able to be captured by the proposed rain gardens. Drainage is anticipated to flow towards the existing inlet within Cinquefoil Lane and ultimately discharge into the existing regional detention pond. Inlet calculations are provided in Appendix C. Sub-basin Z. Sub-basin Z primarily consists of landscaped area on the southern portion of the site that is discharged into the Le Fever Drive ROW without being treated by the proposed rain gardens. Impervious areas consist of asphalt pavement and concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk from the entrances that were not reasonably able to be captured by the proposed rain gardens. Drainage is anticipated to flow towards the existing inlet within Le Fever Drive and ultimately discharge into the existing regional detention pond. Inlet calculations are provided in Appendix C. VII. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES Site grading is designed to convey stormwater to proposed inlets and storm drain lines via grass swales and curb and gutter. The proposed storm sewer system will convey runoff to Low Impact Development (LID) rain gardens located in the northeast corner, east of the loop road and the southeast corner of the site. The rain gardens will discharge into the existing regional detention pond. Minor and major flows will be conveyed to the rain gardens via the proposed storm sewer system. Street conveyance will be minimized wherever possible and will be designed to maintain access for emergency vehicles. Drainage easements encompassing the entire footprint of the rain gardens will be dedicated to the City of Fort Collins. The proposed rain gardens are placed in locations such that they are accessible for inspections. The modified FAA method was used to calculate the total detention volume from the developed site to the existing regional detention pond. The developed detention volume was calculated to be approximately 3.15 acre-feet, which is less than the 5.5 acre-feet allocated for the site per the Banner Report. A small portion on the north end of the existing detention pond is proposed to be regraded since the existing detention pond has excess volume. This will accommodate Rain Garden A and the walls behind the adjacent cottages. The reduction in volume was calculated using a volume surface in AutoCAD Civil 3D that compares the existing surface to the proposed surface. The resulting volume is 185 cubic yards or 0.11 acre- feet less than the existing pond. No negative impacts are anticipated from the regrading. The Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for the developed site was calculated using equation 7-1 in the FCSCM. Using a 40-hour drain time for the area draining to the rain garden, 31 Kimley>>> Horn Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins the volume was determined to be 16,084 cubic feet. According to the Banner Report, the existing regional detention pond has a WQCV of 1.10 acre-feet or 47,916 cubic feet. The existing regional detention pond WQCV capacity exceeds the required WQCV for the developed Project site. The area required to be treated with LID is calculated as 75% of the added or modified impervious area. The rain gardens are proposed to treat approximately 87% of the added or modified impervious area from the developed site. A summary of the detention, WQCV, and LID is shown in Table 1 below and calculations are included with the Rational Calculations in Appendix B. Table 1: Calculation Summary Detention Allocated Detention Volume 3.15 AC-FT Provided Detention Volume (existing) 5.50 AC-FT WQCV Required WQCV 16,084 CF Provided WQCV (existing) 47,916 CIF LID Required Impervious Area to LID 6.84 AC Provided Impervious Area to LID 7.84 AC Total Required Volume 8,696 CIF Total Provided Volume 9,219 CIF The UD-BMP spreadsheet from MHFD was used to size the rain gardens. Each rain garden was sized to treat the required volumes by adjusting the minimum filter media surface area for a 12-inch maximum WQCV depth. Copies of the UD-BMP spreadsheets are included in Appendix B. An exhibit showing the LID areas and summary table is included in Appendix B. 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). As previously discussed, the Project site was included in the regional pond design for the Banner Health Medical Campus. The developed site is designed to contribute less than the allocated 5.5 acre-feet. 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 Rain gardens are proposed that will provide treatment for the WQCV with slow release and partial infiltration. 4 � Page Kimley>>> Horn Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins 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 Site specific controls that will be implemented include locating material storage away from storm drainage facilities and installing construction fencing around the existing regional pond to protect areas that should not be compacted or disturbed. The Rational Method was used for all subbasins since the areas are 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. Rainfall intensities used for the rational calculations were obtained from Table 3.4-1 in the FCSCM. Rainfall depths for the 2-year, 1-hour and 100-year, 1-hour storm events are 0.82 and 2.86 inches, respectively. Hydraulic calculations are included in Appendix C. The storm pipe designed with the Savoy project that outfalls to the existing detention pond has been reconfigured to accommodate the outlet of Rain Garden D. 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 is included with the FDP. XI. CONCLUSION The Touchmark Fort Collins site is designed to conform to the criteria in the FCSCM and the USDCM. The proposed rain gardens will provide LID and are designed to treat the water quality for the proposed imperviousness within the Project. S1 Kimley>>> Horn Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins XII. REFERENCES City of Fort Collins Flood Maps, City of Fort Collins GIS, Accessed October 22, 2024, at <https://gisweb.fcgov.com/HTML5Viewer/Index.html?viewer=FCMaps&LayerTheme=floodpl ains> Custom Soil Resource Report, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. October 22, 2024. East Harmony Portion of McClellands Creek Master Drainage Plan Update Final Report, ICON Engineering, Inc., Englewood, Colorado, August 1999. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Banner Health Medical Campus, Northern Engineering, Fort Collins, Colorado, September 2013. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, December 2018. National Flood Hazard Layer Firmette, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Accessed October 28, 2024. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Mile High Flood District, Updated March 2024. 61Page Kimley>>> Horn Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins Appendix A — Referenced Criteria kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, • :0 � : • COUNTY Vicinity Map Enterprise G/S AW » 8733400905 � Subdivisions 8733328002'�. 'r � 3734300931 Tax Parcels SVV e 33 SF Railroads Major Road System E HARMONY RD — -- -- _--- Road System - _ Lakes and Ponds Major Rivers and Streams FORT COL \o Rivers and Streams �>•v—._ e�`� 'en�d. .:c'-f=xr1'� '-snr, C] 1860�3205002 I-1 o Y County Boundary 860400001813 Rocky Mountain National Park Incor orated Areas r( Pc - \ �� : - PLSS Township and Range C ` ,: - jPLSS Sections PLSS Quarter Sections 8604143001 City or Town - 8604130901 __ - PW COLL•fNS County ,ltr�, � �� � ■ State Ij+q LE _ .8603205003 8604000017 '� � rI^ Federal l uoY� _ ,' Other 30969E146467N.sid Ci p' ■ Red: Band-1 Cl N C, m� = r Z ■ Green:Band_2 rtr• ■ Blue: Band 3 30969E144091 N.sid 8603200001 < 860410800�1 # ��} CF;y 860415a H 1001' Uu. 4 M17��=7 A -1 m ` L' S, 8604148000 s 0.1 0 0.06 0.1 Miles This map was created by Larimer County GIS using data from multiple sources for informal purposes only.This map may not Date Prepared:1 0/22/2024 1 1:39:29 AM 1:4,800 reflect recent updates prior to the date of printing.Larimer County NAD 1983 HARN StatePlane Colorado North FIPS 0501 Feet makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy,or reliability of this content. UPPER COOPER SLOUGH BASIN DRY CREEK BASIN LOWER COOPER WEST VINE BASIN SLOUGH BASIN OLD TOWN BASIN CANAL IMPORTATION BASIN BOXELDER CREEK BASIN POUDRE RIVE BASIN SPRING CREEK BASIN FOOTHILLS BASIN MAIL CREEK BASIN FOX MEADOWS BASIN McCLELLANDS CREEK BASIN _ APPROX LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE FOSSIL CREEK BASIN Sou'�rce'*Esri DigitalGlo �oEye, Earth star Geographic s,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN,a�n'd the GIS'User Community 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 RCS Agriculture and other Larimer County Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Area, Colorado Conservation Stations, and local Service participants a� ♦ p upsy lwM t,� �t M--&Precision Dr 1 1. 1 i ,..* 1 F^ IT 40o n ;- r October 22, 2024 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres)or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice)or(202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11 MapUnit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado...................................................................... 13 62—Larimer-Stoneham complex, 3 to 10 percent slopes........................... 13 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................15 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes.................................................16 References............................................................................................................18 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 F 0 499M 4%370 499420 499470 4995M 4995M 49962D 49%70 499720 499770 499820 40°31'20"N >� - �il � t Ft���` 1*...�. 1 40°31'20"N o_ LA ■� n 1 - III _ • � 1� a _ y J r ■ t 5:t� . Soil a I may not be valid at this 40°31'9"N fl L ,, - _ 40°31'9"N 49932D 499370 499420 499470 499520 499570 499620 499670 499720 499770 499820 o Map Scale:1:2,350 if pnnted on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet N Meters o 0 30 60 120 1 w Feet 0 100 200 400 600 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 62 Larimer-Stoneham complex,3 8.7 39.2% to 10 percent slopes 73 Nunn clay loam,0 to 1 percent 2.7 12.3% slopes 74 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent 10.8 48.4% slopes Totals for Area of Interest 22.2 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or 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 62—Larimer-Stoneham complex, 3 to 10 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jpx7 Elevation: 4,800 to 5,800 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 local importance Map Unit Composition Larimer and similar soils: 35 percent Stoneham and similar soils:25 percent Minor components:40 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Larimer Setting Landform:Terraces, fans, benches Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam H2- 7 to 22 inches: loam H3-22 to 30 inches: gravelly sandy clay loam H4 -30 to 60 inches: very cobbly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 10 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 Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low(about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Stoneham Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile H1 -0 to 4 inches: loam H2-4 to 10 inches: clay loam H3- 10 to 14 inches: clay loam H4- 14 to 60 inches: gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 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: 15 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R067BY008CO - Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Cushman Percent of map unit:20 percent Ecological site: R067BY008CO- Loamy Slopes Hydric soil rating: No Fort collins Percent of map unit: 8 percent Ecological site: R067BY002CO- Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No Larim Percent of map unit: 7 percent Ecological site: R067BY063CO- Gravel Breaks Hydric soil rating: No Satanta Percent of map unit: 5 percent Ecological site: R067BY002CO- Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 14 Custom Soil Resource Report 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ting Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 152 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2- 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk- 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bk1 -31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2-47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 7 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:0.5 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY042CO- Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Wages Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R067BY002CO- Loamy Plains Hydric soil rating: No 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 16 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 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 17 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 18 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 19 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette (0FEMA Legend 105o0'38"W 409128"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT FL00DWA Without Base Flood Elevation(BFE) zone A.V.A99 SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth zone AE.AO.AH.VE,AR A ZDfiE?AE HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway t sat ` nN RAW 3 T7N R68W S34 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard,Areas 4850 4 FEET of 1%annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zoneX Future Conditions 1%Annual _ 4849.9 FEET ® Chance Flood Hazard Zone Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF Levee.See Notes.zone x FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Levee zone o NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x r Q Effective LOMRs 4849:2 FEET r OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o •;* GENERAL -—-- Channel,Culvert,or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES IIIIIII Levee,Dike,or Floodwall LO_MR 21_nq A777o F 4846.9 EET en �1��.— 0-2O=2 Cross Sections with 1%Annual Chance L0114R 4-08-0580P "•5 Water Surface Elevation Ciry of Fort Coums eii-MA iW20-4 e- - - Coastal Transect —5I3— Base Flood Elevation Line(BFE) 080102 EA-," MINIMA�LL00D D Limit of Study ZOR@�X Jurisdiction Boundary ' ---- Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature T&I R6&."!S3 TBN RAW94 2.5 E Digital Data Available N I 484 FET No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS Unmapped 0 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent Z{; an authoritative property location. 4842.5 FEET • This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of . digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. r The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap # accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the ! authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA.This map + -• s t ; was exported on 10/28/2024 at 9:35 PM and does not « ■} i reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time.The NFHL and effective information may change or a w�.� •�� - become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear:basemap imagery,flood zone labels, legend,scale bar,map creation date,community identifiers, i 10500'1"W 40031'1"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 Oty fcoulr� CoFC Flood Maps Legend a.� Street Names I FEMA Floodplain i7t ` I" �. FEMA High Risk-Floodway r FEMA High Risk-100 Year ��qq ,M > - �•u #'! .a FEMA Moderate Risk-100/500 Y, City Floodplains yy f �+ ■ City High Risk-Floodway ' } City High Risk-100 Year City Moderate Risk-100 Year �; �:• � =` ❑ City Limits ❑ Approximate Site Boundary Cn Le Feuer Dr � t Q N N 0 i L 1: 3,430 e Z Notes .a.L 572.0 0 286.00 572.0 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. EAST HARMONY PORTION OF MCCLELLANDS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE FINAL REPORT AUGUST 1999 r Prepared for: City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility Division Ms. Susan Hayes 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80522 (970)221-6589 Prepared by: ]ICON En gineering, Inc. 7108-B South Alton Way t Englewood,CO 80112 (303)221-0802 r his unofficial copy was downloaded on Dec-02-2020 from the City of Port Collins Public Records Website:http://citydocs.fcgov.com or additional information or an official copy,please contact City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins,CO 80524 USA 1 , ro -FIGURE 2r 1 : VICINITY MAP , _CR42 78. A in ONO jYr w �1P, R 40 ' '. CR 40 CR A0 Y BIM m l °! G fit:: m.. :., 4_ � t'?% : C MARIAH LN cii I J ` �` t L Tim ath p . ... NY r MBER ELM T,J 18RflOf7 68 DIXON CAYON LAXEggi H y Road ISTUDY AREA CR sa • 88 t � i a A to l�.,•_„J o u Drainage Basin DivideCR-3a CR 36, ... -,`�x{G• �..• .• �,,e" y...,• 4 �,�^-- ~�.y �' R;, ti� CCU ' Fossl(Creek y olrlidel 'MatJGeeED1[ch JC' R 34E ' Fossil Creek Res'al r Wai CR � •.F. � nUSA DeLorme. trees his unofficial copy was downloaded on Dec-02-2020 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website:http://citydocs.fcgoor additional information or an official copy,please contact City ofFort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins,CO 805 NORTHERN September 20, 2013 City of Ft. Collins rov Plans • Approved By • Date FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS • Fort Collins, Colorado r Prepared for: • Banner Health 1801 16" Street Greeley, CO 80631 Prepared by: NORTHERN . ENGINEERING • 200 South College Avenue,Suite 10 Fort Collins,Colorado 80524 • Phone:970.221.4158 Fax:970.221.4159 www.northernenpjneering.com • This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF, • Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety. When a hard copy is absolutely necessa ,we recommend double-sided pri ' g. e e Project (Number: 306-003 Northern En gin eering.com II 970.221 1 NORTHERN ENGINEERING. Banner Health Medical Campus • Basin 20 Basin 20 consists of 1.05 acres; partially Lady Mood Drive R.O.W. (0.57 acres), and partially landscaped areas within the proposed site (0.48 acres). This basin drains . into the existing storm collection system within Lady Moon Drive. Basin 21 Basin 11 consists of 0.21 acres of LeFever Drive R.O.W. and drains into the existing • storm collection system within Lady Moon Drive. Basin 22 S Basin 12 consists of 0.76 acres of LeFever Drive R.O.W. Drainage is collected in a • storm collection system with Cinquefoil Lane, and directed east into the proposed Pond 3. Basin H-1 Basin H-1 consists of 1.05 acres of East Harmony Road R.O.W. A portion of drainage is collected in a storm collection system with Cinquefoil Lane, and directed east into i the proposed Pond 3. The remainder of flows continue east to the existing culvert just east of the Cinquefoil Lane entry, which is the historic collection point for this drainage. . A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of • this report. i B. Master Drainage Concepts 1. The intent of the master drainage plan done with this FDP submittal is to show the the overall drainage concept for adjacent sites as well as the current project site. The currently proposed detention ponds have been demonstrated to work in conjunction for . both the current development conditions and fully developed future conditions. The computer model EPA SWMM 5 has been utilized to model the overall drainage system. Table 1, below, summarizes master drainage SWMM modeling results. SWMM output is provided in the Appendix of this report. A full-size copy of the . Master Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. Table 1 — Detention/Water Quality Pond Summary Pond ID Detention Water Quality Total Volume Water Quality 100-yr Peak Volume Capture Volume WSEL WSEL Release Rate t (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (CFS) 1 3.62 0.30 3.92 4897.80 4902.10 0.70 2 2.24 0.38 2.62 4899.90 4903.20 9.30 3 7.29 1.10 8.39 4884.60 4887.10 28.20 . C. Specific Details . 1. Water quality treatment is being provided for the proposed development in the form of . extended detention as previously described. Additionally, a PLD bottom is being provided within each of the detention ponds. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report 9 I& HARMONY ROAD \_061 -TIMBERWO / - - -�®1-E= - - =E= -1== -r- ` 9\� H-1 - - �- r 1 7-i i s 7- zk O i90 _n �.f xg�� q�� c��ry �OC7 S �� rh cq s>,� uy�` �� c+,"° IA cy> __. _ . - - - m - - - - - -T- H 1 C� f _ 1`4� o ` 3.40 TOTACVOLUME--3.92 AC-FT 1 �( • .✓ I URFACE AREA 48,207 SF/ 1.10 AC� i ! ,6 r f ( T _ ® ® �- 1 RELEASE �2AT Q.7 F II�, I o o ,, a KEYMAP r BIL.1, A.r i$ ;ry pis, sHRRi w , ROPO DST M ! � NORTH 2 23 4 2.55 �, T 3 - - (- I' i` f 100 0 100 200 300 Feet 0.58 0.50 14. i ti fJ 1 1 U l 'f r` i J I ,. IN ET r. �, ' ' ( 1 ir� , PROPOSED-.D�- �, Ilrl1 � 5 I ` r L. _` HELIPAD i { - - _ _ - - -- _ ;;. ,,c•a�� _ 1 inch =E 100 ft. I II 6 7 - LEGEND: 5 PROPOSED STORM SEWER - PROPOSED INLET 0.64 �.rir 1 - `,� 0.33 PROPOSED CONTOUR 93 Lx J t I ,A, �, r 'IfAlff)LER, a TR .4s.� EXISTING CONTOUR - -- -- - 4953-- ---- -- --- - - y `�� ° PROPOSED SWALE PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER 41 OaYF, 9a // G. 1 t, \ \ 4 � °pq �r \ iAR210AIY i I 1 ga `� - t ;4� PROPERTY BOUNDARY xa o: Y�7WIrC3tytJ / 0.59 0. ~• DESIGN POINT \ ` a FLOW ARROWROPOSED w �1® BUILDING � � , \ . .\ \ � '� •., �, '� � ,�4: ��,� 5 K f I 9b dd 11 ( ° j ' j \ \ = m BASIN �k 1 I/'t 1 �4 \ \, \ \ \ � � F DESIGNATION 2 PROPOSED STORM LINE �\,,,, \\ 0.39 12 ` II `' �, , ' ;1 �, I \ '1 DRAINAGE BASIN LABEL r '� --- ._- ._, �.. ._.. .. ,-. . ::.,. .. ., 9b •- ., �j- .O. ` \``-_ a `.. ``` ���1\��A �\i BASIN .�5 8C TIMBERWOOD - '_ _ s �. 1.65 1 „ PRI ATE.DR � . - - ,• •I' __ . _.. _ _ ,.._ I Ij II \ r • ;'` � '' � \ -. - i �\, `''�" `'u DR. ��__. .. _ v_ - - - DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY• e / , I ! II I PROPOSED SWALE SECTION ULL ' t _ 3.44 1;� 1 �� �• w �., \ \- `,� ! r o , I BUI D 16 g. - ! rl , \ �vy \ �, \ \ ,. ��,�1 4 NOTES: _ -� 14 � it '! 1. REFER TO THE "FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL �\� `' � CAMPUS" BY NORTHERN ENGINEERING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 15 I z �,. \\\ tyw. . ; I PROPOSED BU�LDING I ,,.. T \ - j � \� �` \\\\ ° 2. THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE THE MINIMUM ELEVATIONS ( ; ( ! I ji ! .� \ \ �;\ \ REQUIRED FOR PROTECTION FROM THE 100-YEAR STORM. INA J I 15 +.N I ,• ;, 3. FULL BUILD AS SHOWN IS PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY TO INDICATE ULTIMATE BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS AND BOUNDARY AREAS. PROPOSED\PLD SECTION ` ;',�':!ll'i> r i'f i t - tD r R _...., ___ _ f ,.r: ..,s:sfr y• y. - _ \ __ ., ._+ .... ., ... ., _ � 4_ ,i \ ,,_ � � �_•.., ' ''V1/ITH UN DERDRAI FULL I I 2 (z UIL 17 -- ---- _ I i 1 PR POS T R LINE /� I S ii�� I ` a \\ � \ \,�\y t v \ �� \".�\AAA4 �.�k L i 1 I �! I {. r i ' I ' !'.! ' i \ TRACT K � `\,, � �� 1 � � �\ \ \ � �\\��\\,�� l �•� i I _ ,• I i \ � ODP POND CONTRIBUTIONS i f \ �} i` I, \ y �,\� 100-YEAR VOLUME TO EASEMENT AREA abs� i A FULL I / I 11 ? \ n �� RELEASE RATE ODP POND i U I LD 13 - 1I \ (CFS) SQFT ACRES \\t\ BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS 10.0 1.0 AC-FT 23,433 0.538 Al, Ain f`^a ,�\ \\� ;_ IMAGO TRACT 1 25.1 1.1 AC-FT IMAGO TRACT K / , \ \ � X,� •`. 'j>. \ � ',\ ' 1���,' '� 5.5 AC-FT i A j \ �1� � IMAGO TRACT M 1.56 D A j A �s.� \ \ \ +�\� Ai`�; �� 1.4 AC-FT �� ` �V IMAGO TOTAL 8.0 AC-FT 187,464 4.304 I 1� 4 TOTAL VOL E- 2 AC-F I I I I a s OND AREA-38,288 SF/0.90 ACRE ;Ili °�, ✓.°� \ \ ! _ `\ i: , \1\�\�` A. ODP POND TOTAL 9.0 AC-FT 210,897 4.842 \ ,!..`.. 10 RJRELEAaE FS 19 1 ' i 1 i FULL fly f - - 2.33 _�_Buip- TI- 'A i A IF ] 20 2222 1.05 �� TRACT M TRACT I �j � ill ,'• =>� � 20 �"' 21 F �� � / � ` � � \, l` �"�`" •�' �; -- ` ' � � -=- �` CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF 0.21 _�- ` 1 I �+ \ O-2 \. COLORADO 1 21 > 5.90 � • II , , • l 0-1 � 1 5.10 Know what's below. J �. •_... ___ - / 1 ' Tyr � Call before you dig. IN ADVANCE BEFORE PARCELVII _ tC)s41'_3 >I lX CALL YOU2DIG,SINESS GRA E,DORSEXCAVATE FOR THE _ _ ^�= V - - - ` MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. :. I ' I / f { l I - �, I I'' I /io :I,r/l y1� ll t � \ _, !1 1 ! ! 1 1_�' { J ,� r ] , r Healdf `, i I ®ram■ ®� _ _ _ - == F Y. � / � i = I ( ��� ( ?��.` ' '�=-'\''-�'��'�� �'® ` t ,` / � � ' � OR DRAINAGE REVIEW ONLY. s,,- ' I � NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ®Vdim 0 � ,, 4 (U I ff �'(; �® City of Fort Collins, Colorado i. _ _ ,e ( , , , BANNER HEALTH MEDICAL CAMPUS �] { z { ; , R.- g // { I j,, ;- i UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL ' ! ` HARMONY RD - 8< LADY MOON D R- O �� . l� I �I a, � � I / i , PROVED_ }yce t !I i ( i I, I I��' � _ CityEngineer Da / r ✓ fl ' �. - ngin t' PARCEL V PrjRT 6F O RT C O L L I N S C O L C> R A C7 NECKED BY: i _._ !!, � ,i l � ' I; � , . // / C -\ I I /: h /t\�\ - ^�-.�-- - -.�r .,.� `- -_ - ,�-,.__ � r,•- -- -, - - �' i4 � �� ' � Water & Wastewater Utility Dat, J �I �( ✓ / ` ! -� J - x_ __ ._. ___ __ "" *7 ' - }i 1>�\i BOULDER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1 426 PEARL ST., SUITE 300 BOULDER, CO 303.499.7795 NECKED BY. -- _I _- ---.•\ - --- -- Stormwater r MASTER DRAINAGE C • •_ �' r✓ ( ( Parks & Recreation Datri NECKED BY EXHIBIT ; ,Q; la I CHECKED BY: Traffic Engineer Dat SHEET C 6 O O O F 60 I I I ARCHITECTS CHECKED BY SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 kEnvironmental Planner Dat,� r Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins Appendix B — Exhibits & Hydrologic Calculations kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, O 80525 � : • LEGEND: W Q 0 PROPERTY LINE m I I # = BASIN DESIGNATION I I i I I AC = AREA IN ACRES I I I AC I I = % IMPERVIOUSNESS I I I I I I I O # = DESIGN POINT w I J I i I / I I EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY i I I EXISTING FLOW ARROW -� Z o ooOwwr� 0. 0� 489 `489748gp 4889 48g8 vd8> `•\ 0O o co g� 2_ _ \ o� RATIONAL CALCULATIONS SUMMARY z IMPERVIOUSNESS PEAK FLOWS(CFS) \ DESIGN POINT TRIBUTARY TRIBUTARY AREA LU ! a I o� \ yA�`� �-�-- ------ v v y �vA��� BASINS (AC) % o 02 Q100 o `v v vv vv\v � ¢ �v vvvvAv�` `w V'v�� vv Av 1 EX.A 18.82 2% 7.20 31.37 TOTAL 18.82 2/0 7.20 31.37 zrr I w o v_ y vA w� v `�'. ` ��.A� � �� �`� A o o I v \ \\ \\\\\ \\ \ \ \\\ \\\ \ > `, I \ \ o I I- u� J I \ \ Q mr w I N rn \ \� v\; v � v VZ 04 O , �! ONO \ F- ♦— 8� \ As \ \ 0 CD z v v v A 9 906_ \ V A v\�A`.�v v A q8 V v V A co v�� \ .� A ¢ v A �v A \ Av v�.. V V 0 _ U \ _\ ��\vim �� Z z z 48go 0 W 0 CO w i vvv 0 0 ov � v N (n N O � � a - _ 4g00A� ,A \�, ` vvVvv`\ \ N N ❑ v � ,� �v` v `�y'v� CO O LL z � DESIGNED BY: MC LW a I �.A�; .`\ ,. ,� �. DRAWN BY: o EX. AvA`,. A I v, Vvv `y�v�\ \v v CHECKED BY: AR Z DATE: OCT 15, 2025 w p 4g �V`Vv vvvv A o p �� 18.82 0.25 gg rn o � � � \ \ w U v v 4906 \ ��\ v � VAIv �y\ vvvv A A\ z 0 0 \ �� ; v A vv A. \ \. z w � \ \ FD a �w ° a i I 11 , �I � 1 1� 1 � � n i w co co W COD ❑ o � � I��i A v `V v\v �\ J I o. c,� i'1 I 1 A V \ A \ I I \\ \ \\I Uj \ r , w EL a \ \ \ U j� V\ \ 'V z \ \ cc 0 0�I I \ \ \ \11\\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ LL w ` \,vvvVvv 1vvV`vA vv vA`vv�v \ � I ❑ L v� Z — L.L LLJ \\ \\ \. \\\\\\\\\1 \\\ \\\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\\ \ a LL V A AA \ y V A \ \ VA A a \ vvvA vv vv\� v vv \ A v v li\ \ 1 AVAAA 1 \ \v�"\vv vv v v v v 88s v v vvvv I LL LU o O vvvv vv vv vv \ vvvv v s>VA oo r cn 1Vvv�vv�" vv\� vv \vvvv\ vr' \vv v , w 1 p A 1 A 1 A vA VAS\�A AA\�VAAV Vv. AAAA \\\ \VAeP�VAAA 1 O 1 U) w \ - --- - - - -� - - - J �i��v " vim��A88 sy�yv\vvvvvwVw�vvvV n — 1 vv vv v vAav s vvv vvvv I z cD I A v v ON I LOO rn \� �\A8\` \\\ � - O O o v 9vv� �v\v 1 -� �- —i� vvv v �� \ \ 1 O � \ 04_ - - \ \� - - I O m I, 7`90 , \ \ \ \\\\`- \ - ,_p8 `berry 1 /i/// `� 00 z 8 ag— A°�� W- 9�6 p5 O¢ nm - - - _ �9 N W _4904- ;^' A9�A W A9�3 o rna - E E E \ v v v v'�•1 � ', li t Nz - - - - — _ G G w � , — — - -- - ❑ I I - - ,� I Icy � I � I, I, ', V' w _ Y iri �� �� I I ��Ilvvyi,�, 1vv1vv A v 1 � z (D a Ew AfRY 0 z I / Cn 0 �, � I W _- FOR REVIEW ONLY Q � I� I r-I r-I � I � � 1 � � II - v v ❑ _01 , CONSTRUCTION ❑ — --- NOT FOR \ 1 I 1 ® ® -- --\ _ a--- =_ - - — —_ - - - - - - - a � - - - - -- — - -� I - _,�� _ IGm Horn — i - - 0 o \ ! , 1 1 1 j Kimley Horn and Associates,Inc. - -- - - - - - - NORTH O'er ( � o z I h I �1 --. v J _ _ I I O_ I � I I I I / - _i I _ _ I 1 I 1 PROJECT NO. o w I III y C r�l �� � �� . ® ; I I' "� — s —i', I I -- _` � I 1 I I 1 292068000 CN N GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SHEET 2! 0 30 60 120 Know what's below. U Z ® Call before you dig. Iz 0 � U O Z❑ i Ln Y � LEGEND: W Q 0 PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED STORM LINE 00 Ii PROPOSED CATCH CURB AND GUTTER i I I # = BASIN DESIGNATION I � I I AC = AREA IN ACRES z I O I HARMONY ROAD 5 LLC AC I REC. NO. 20240014424 I = IMPERVIOUSNESS > I � I w I I # = DESIGN POINT I � / \ 1 / - O PROPOSED BASIN BOUNDARY 8 4905 �� s 099 98 \ 90� � - - -_ `\� ►OUTLET STRUCTURE PROPOSED FLOW ARROW \� \ W �� RAIN GARDEN A EXISTING FLOW ARROW BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5 o / \ A2 \ \ \ Z , 0 4soo \ \`\\ \ RATIONAL CALCULATIONS SUMMARY \ TRIBUTARY TRIBUTARY AREA IMPERVIOUSNESS PEAK FLOWS (CFS) °_ I 0.94 0.53 \ \ 4\ \ DESIGN POINT BASINS (AC) % Q2 Q100 I A2 \ a Y / On-Site Basins Flowing // \ 1 INLET BLDG ; \ \ ,` \ \ \ On-Site a / 1 Al \ 4890 I Al Al 4.44 80% 8.66 44.22 U ti \ CF WYATT MULTIFAMILY DST o Z o N o I � r INLET BLDG 7 � � `. \\ A2 A2 0.94 53/0 1.64 7.16 CO ap 4 N - \ \ REC. NO. 20210032178 \` 9°s 1 c, \ ® \\ 0`. ,(� B1 B1 0.81 90% 2.20 8.10 ^ Uj LU o 0S ` B2 B2 0.87 48% 1.38 6.01Lo Q • h z I BLDG 32 BLDG 31 IBLDG 8 \ �� (�/ \ B3 B3 0.47 52% 0.79 3.45 Up C1 C1 0.29 87% 0.76 2.89 cnQCO� -o 0. . . Z c , I - BLDG 9 X ` \ C3 C3 0.56 63% 1.02 4.75 Q Z z 1 4 \ \\ �\ \ \\ D1 D1 0.77 90% 2.08 7.66 Z _j OJ zI Q- 48°o n \ `�� \ ` �� D2 D2 0.50 67% 0.92 4.30 O pwp ° I ♦ OUTLET STRUCTURE 7'03 0.13 \ \ S \ _ } 98 \ D3 D3 0.42 38% 0.49 2.40 - BLDG 10 \\ W B3 � � RAIN GARDEN B \ \ � \ � \ w 6 w 4 \ TOTAL 10.79 70% 21.06 95.78 J 2 z I OUTLET STRUCTURE \ \� \ � o Combined On-Site Basins co I o, U. 0.52 w RAIN GARDEN C `` \ \ ■ Y O O \ �\ c Flowing On-Site N U o I 1 v 4 1 4 0 LO FES 9°° \ \ \\ \ N c�i 0 I BLDG 30 BLDG 29 0 �s /� / \ \\ \ A A 5.39 75% 10.04 52.05 0 Co LL z i �, B2 INLET a9oo �° \\ \ \\\ B B 2.16 65%o \ `\ Q 3.86 19.04 DESIGNED BY: MC - o I C9 1 FES \ \ C C 1.56 60/0 2.78 12.93 DRAWN BY: LW � 2 Q p \ \ LU O.U 7 0.48 \� o o I 63 \ \ \ D D 1.69 70/0 3.65 15.94 AR Z 2 �\ CHECKED BY: J �o �6 1 BLDG 11 �Ao \ `\ \ On-Site Basins Flowing DATE: OCT 15, 2025 W I Q o w �9 - n B2 2 o0 99 \ \ \ \ Off-Site I J_ Y 6 os Ln INLET 2 INLET �0 X X 7.03 13% 5.85 25.51 L�L1 O C2 C3 BLDG 12 Y Y 0.38 33% 0.40 1.75 z I D , ® 131 A 1,� , \ \\ ` \\ \ Z Z 0.62 13% 0.43 1.88 I _ \\ ` \ \ TOTAL 8.03 14% 6.68 29.14 Z BLDG 28 BLDG 27 B1 INLET C3 BLDG 13 \ \ 04905 `\\ \ o J O w Q C) I O 0 BLDG 101 °° , W I I Al °°°o° ,(`�@�� C2 BLDG 14 0 6- Q 4.44 0.76 \\ o m W 0.38 0.33 \'� 0.71 0.48 I \ \ \ 0 7 00 # BLDG 15 P w I ev .o w °' V A Z COco m ° ` \ a BLDG 26 BLDG 25 BLDG 24 8 �o , w \' `\ \\ \ {i1 C1 \ a I \ \ \ QO61 \ �¢ �, 0.29 0.90 BLDG 16 C)` - \ V I l I \ 6 \ \\ \ \ L.L 10 I LL ���� \ BLDG 17 h \ �°�> \ ``\\ \ \\ 8 1 i o \\ \ LLJ p I ;� 7 , 0. \ \ \ a 50 0.67 1 0.42 0.38IL BLDG 18 P. I LLJ w I 48 \ \ U U) \ 8 BLDG 20 D \ s o BLDG 23 BLDG 22 BLDG 21 BLDG 19 A89s \ \ a \' \` O o rn M 0.77 0.90 INLET _ RAIN GARDEN D \ \ \ `p INLET i Xo 9.0 9 MH 6 Z I 3 \ OUTLET STRUCTURE \ F I i Z dQ INLET D1 FES ' W D3 - --- -- -- 4�9� X 0.62 0.13 -- �I �� -� uo / - 9� s 0' - hv \ I I Q0 4905 \ 1 F- \ 1n I� CPO LO LE FEVER DRIVE Z - - -- \\ o �o \\ O¢Uj v yj w L0I MORNINGSIDE VILLAGE MASTER ASSOCIATION MORNINGSIDE VILLAGE MASTER ASSOCIATION a � I IMAGO ENTERPRISE INC �, ! I ��" i LINMAfRY Q � U r� REC. NO. 2024005414 I - - o I - I FOR REVIEW ONLY Q � �� �� i i �i w ' �' NOT FOR Y o m O - --- --- I - - L Z N - - ---- I I - CONSTRUCTION a > ® --- lo= N I o U i, m J � I 0 o W I - _ - - _ ® ( - _ __ , I I -` I Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. IW I I i NORTH C:) � 00W ' i 0 i ® - PROJECT NO. 04 _ ► \\\ Q � 1 TT I�\\ I ,�� � 292068000 N(D GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SHEET 0 30 60 120 Know what's below. UI� 0 0 ® C111 before you dig. ci 0 .0 Q z V. ,_ Y F 53 F 53 RAIN GARDEN A TREATMENT AREA:5.39 AC GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 4905 3 �_`,� + REQUIRED VOLUME:4,684 CF 0 50 100 200 _ PROVIDED VOLUME:4,823 CF NORTH BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5 0 900 \ \ v I �` � �� LEGEND 3� _ 2_ BLD `� �\\ \ PROPERTY LINE N �� \ BLD � � RAIN GARDEN B 4 d� TREATMENT AREA:2.16 AC A - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 488 z � i ` \� REQUIRED VOLUME: 1,594 CF — — EASEMENT LINE F OG 32 BLDG 31 I D 8 488• PROVIDED VOLUME: 1,605 CF � Q � \ �. � 8& CENTERLINE I '�`�� Q RAIN GARDEN C EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR I \ 4 BLD �� TREATMENT AREA: 1.56 AC \ EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR \ REQUIRED VOLUME: 1,070 CF I- -�— - BL 10 9g, ° > � PROVIDED VOLUME: 1,240 CF \ ----4200 PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR w - o 98 7 ����\ �� 4201 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR RAIN GARDEN AREA BLI�O 30 BLDG29 1 -0 �\ \\ \ 4900 RAIN GARDEN TREATMENT AREA BL 11 �\ \\ \\\ \ TRADITIONAL WQ TREATMENT AREA 6 +� 6 9s PROJECT LID SUMMARY w I- �\\ TOTAL SITE IMPERVIOUS AREA 8.98 AC Z b49os<v28 BL - �� v vv � MINIMUM AREA TO BE TREATED BY LID MEASURES Q " DG 27 ` 9p5 BL G 13 \� �\ ` TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA TO LID 7.84 AC 87.0% MINIMUM REQUIRED IMPERVIOUS AREA TO LID 6.74 AC 75.0% 0 — BL C 101 � ,q __ BL G 14 II \ u� Z. LIJLL CO o Zg6g�g w 1 D 7 ` BL 15 o \ •` () � 'BLDG BLDG b � IQ \ w LDG 26 8 BL 16 I 1\ \\ BL 17 7 to `r��3 \ \ I o 8 R co (0 �, BL 18 .L BLDG BLDG BLDG 20 1 DIG 23 22 21 I 1 \ RAIN GARDEN D BL 19 Q9 TREATMENT AREA: 1.69 AC \\ -, 3 C\1 REQUIRED VOLUME: 1,348 CF � \ .1 \ PROVIDED VOLUME: 1,500 CF \ LE FEVER DRIVE - - IL LID EXHIBIT TOUCHMARK FORT COLLINS Kimley Morn ©2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES,INC. 3325 S.TIMBERLINE RD,SUITE 130,FORT COLLINS,CO,80525 DATE:October 15,2025 PROJECT NUMBER:292068000 PHONE:(970)822-7911 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\292068000_Touchmark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - EX. IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins 1/31/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC CHECKED BY: AGR SOIL: GROUP C Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers LAND USE: AREA AREA AREA AREA 2-YEAR COEFF. 0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 100-YEAR COEFF. 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.63 IMPERVIOUS% 2% 90% 100% 40% Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt,Concrete Gravel/Pavers TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) C(2) C(100) Imp% On-Site Basins Flowing On-site EX.A 1 18.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.82 0.20 0.25 2% BASIN SUBTOTAL 18.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.82 0.20 0.25 2% 100% 0% 0% 0% K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touchmark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn 2-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins DATE: 1/31/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC CHECKED BY: AGR SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(Ti) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN I AREA C2 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN Ac Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. On-Site Basins EX.A 1 18.82 0.20 1 475 0.8% 40.4 1 275 2.0% 1 0.195 2.0 2.3 1 42.6 750 1.2% 2% 14.2 14.2 K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touchmark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx 'Kimley>»Horn 100-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins DATE: 1/31/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC CHECKED BY: AGR SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(Ti) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN I AREA C100 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN AC Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. On-Site Basins EX.A 1 18.82 0.25 475 0.8% 1 38.1 275 2.0% 0.195 2.0 2.3 40.4 750 1.2% 2% 14.2 14.2 K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touchmark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>))Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 2 YEAR EVENT DATE: 1/31/2025 PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC P,(I-HourRainfall)= 0.82 CHECKED BY: AGR REMARKS zZ z LL � Q .� u- � v W cep WQ Zp E Q — c Cl pm LU Qv � 0 On-Site Basins EX.A 1 18.82 1 0.20 14.17 3.76 1.91 1 7.20 Existing Drainage Flows K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touch mark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT DATE: 1/31/2025 PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC P,(1-Hour Rainfall)= 2.86 CHECKED BY: AGR REMARKS CY Fcn — Z W U O �j _ �C u� m Cl) a of O V v On-Site Basins EX.A 1 18.82 1 0.25 1 14.17 4.71 6.67 1 31.37 Existing Drainage Flows K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touch mark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\EX CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley}>> Horn RAINFALL INTENSITY Time Intensity Frequency Tabulation TIME 2 YR 10 YR 100 YR 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 7 2.52 4.31 8.80 8 2.40 4.10 8.38 9 2.30 3.93 8.03 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 12 2.05 3.50 7.16 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 20 1.61 2.74 5.60 25 1.43 2.44 4.98 30 1.30 2.21 4.52 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 50 0.92 1.58 3.23 60 0.82 1.40 2.86 120 11 0.49 0.86 1 1.84 Note: Intensity values from the City of Fort Collins Intensity-Duration-Frequency Tables; Chapter 5, Section 3.4 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, 2018 Edition. K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touchmark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>»Horn RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS-IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION PROJECT NAME:Touchmark Fort Collins 10/14/2025 PROJECT NUMBER:292068000 CALCULATED BY:MEC CHECKED BY:AGR SOIL:GROUP C Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt,Concrete Gravel/Pavers LAND USE: AREA AREA AREA AREA 2-YEAR COEFF. 0.20 0.95 0.95 i0.50 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 Al Al 0.82 1.06 2.57 0.00 4.44 0.81 1.00 80% A2 A2 0.43 0.25 0.27 0.00 0.94 0.61 0.76 53% B1 B1 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.95 1.00 90% B2 B2 0.46 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.87 0.55 0.69 48% B3 B3 0.22 0.09 0.16 0.00 0.47 0.59 0.74. 52% C1 C1 0.01 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.92 1.00 87% C2 C2 0.38 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.71 0.55 0.69 48% C3 C3 0.20 0.14 0.22 0.00 0.56 0.68 0.85 63% D1 D1 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.95 1.00 90% D2 D2 0.17 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.50 0.69 0.87 67% D3 D3 0.25 O.OB 0.08 0.00 0.42 0.49 0.62 38% BASIN SUBTOTAL 2.95 3.46 4.38 0.00 10.79 0.75 0.93 70% 27% 32% 41% 0% Combined On-Site Basins Flowing On-site A A 1.24 1.30 2.94 0.00 5.39 0.78 0.97 75% B B 0.69 0.90 0.57 0.00 2.16 0.71 0.89 65% C C 0.59 0.42 0.55 0.00 1.56 0.67 0.83 60% D D 1 0.43 0.85 0.41 1 0.00 1.69 0.76 0.95 70% On-Site Basins Flowing Off-site X X 1 6.07 0.42 0.38 1 0.15 7.03 0.29 1 0.36 13% Y Y 0.26 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.38 0.44 0.54 33 Z Z 0.55 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.62 0.29 0.3 113% BASIN SUBTOTAL 6.89 0.42 0.57 0.15 8.03 0.30 0.37 14% 86% 1 5% 1 7% 2% TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 9.84 1 3.88 4.95 0.15 18.82 0.55 0.69 46 Notes: 1. Imperviousness,I,values per UDFCD Criteria Manual Volume 1,Table 6-3 2. Runoff Coefficient values are from the City of Fort Collins Runoff Coefficient Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-3;Chapter 5,Section 3.2 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual,2018 Edition.Frequency adjustment factor has been applied to composite C values per Table 3.2-3. K:\NCO_Civil\292069000 Touchmark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.zlsx Kimley>>>Horn 2-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins DATE: 10/14/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC CHECKED BY: AGR SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(Ti) (Tt) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN I AREA LENGTH SLOPE TI LENGTH I SLOPE I VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL I Tc BASIN Ac C2 Ft % Min. Ft. % R fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. On-Site Basins Al 4.44 0.81 115 2.0% 4.6 630 0.5% 0.195 2.7 3.9 8.4 745 0.7% 80% 14.1 8.4 A2 0.94 0.61 25 2.0% 3.6 240 1.3% 0.195 4.3 0.9 4.6 265 1.3% 53% 11.5 5.0 B1 0.81 0.95 35 2.0% 1.3 0.0 1.3 35 2.0% 90% 10.2 5.0 B2 0.87 0.55 60 10.4% 3.6 210 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.9 4.5 270 3.1% 48% 11.5 5.0 B3 0.47 0.59 30 6.0% 2.9 190 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.8 3.7 220 1.7% 52% 11.2 5.0 C1 0.29 0.92 35 2.0% 1.5 0.0 1.5 35 2.0% 87% 10.2 5.0 C2 0.71 0.55 80 8.0% 4.6 260 1.2% 0.195 4.2 1.0 5.6 340 2.8% 48% 11.9 5.6 C3 0.56 0.68 65 2.0% 5.0 280 1.2% 0.195 4.2 1.1 6.1 345 1.4% 63% 11.9 6.1 D1 0.77 0.95 35 2.0% 1.3 0.0 1.3 35 2.0% 90% 10.2 5.0 D2 0.50 0.69 125 3.0% 5.9 150 0.5% 0.195 2.7 0.9 6.8 275 1.6% 67% 11.5 6.8 D3 0.42 0.49 1 65 2.0% 7.3 150 0.5% 0.195 2.7 0.9 8.2 215 1.0% 1 38% 1 11.2 8.2 Combined On-Site Basins A 5.39 0.78 115 2.0% 5.1 630 0.5% 0.195 2.7 3.9 9.0 745 0.7% 75% 14.1 9.0 B 2.16 0.71 159 2.5% 6.8 85 0.9% 0.195 3.6 0.4 7.2 244 1.9% 65% 11.4 7.2 C 1.56 0.67 65 2.0% 5.2 280 1.2% 0.195 4.2 1.1 6.3 345 1.4% 60% 11.9 6.3 D 1.69 0.76 65 2.0% 4.1 150 0.5% 0.195 2.7 0.9 5.0 215 1.0% 70% 11.2 5.0 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site X 1 7.03 1 0.29 65 1 25.0% 1 4.2 1 1 0.0 4.2 1 65 1 25.0% 1 13% 1 10.4 1 5.0 Y 0.38 0.44 75 3.6% 7.0 270 1.0% 0.195 3.9 1.2 8.2 345 1.6% 33% 11.9 1 8.2 Z 0.62 0.29 70 2.9% 8.9 100 90.0% 1 0.195 1 36.6 0.0 9.0 170 54.1% 0% 10.9 1 9.0 K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touch ma rk\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx 'Kimley>»H©rn 100-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins DATE: 10/14/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC CHECKED BY: AGR SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME(Ti) (TO (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN I AREA I LENGTH SLOPE T; LENGTH I SLOPE I VEL I Tt COMP. I TOTAL I TOTAL I TOTAL I Tc BASIN Ac C100 Ft % Min. Ft. % R fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. On-Site Basins Al 4.44 1.00 115 2.0% 1.6 630 0.5% 0.195 2.7 3.9 5.4 745 0.7% 80% 14.1 5.4 A2 0.94 0.76 25 2.0% 2.5 240 1.3% 0.195 4.3 0.9 3.4 265 1.3% 53% 11.5 5.0 B1 0.81 1.00 35 2.0% 0.9 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.9 35 2.0% 90% 10.2 5.0 B2 0.87 0.69 60 10.4% 2.7 210 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.9 3.6 270 3.1% 48% 11.5 5.0 B3 0.47 0.74 30 6.0% 2.0 190 1.0% 0.195 3.9 0.8 2.8 220 1.7% 52% 11.2 5.0 C1 0.29 1.00 35 2.0% 0.9 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.9 35 2.0% 87% 10.2 5.0 C2 0.71 0.69 80 8.0% 3.4 260 1.2% 0.195 4.2 1.0 4.5 340 2.8% 48% 11.9 5.0 C3 0.56 0.85 65 2.0% 2.9 280 1.2% 0.195 4.2 1.1 4.1 345 1.4% 63% 11.9 5.0 D1 0.77 1.00 35 2.0% 0.9 0 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 0.9 35 2.0% 90% 10.2 5.0 D2 0.50 0.87 125 3.0% 3.4 150 0.5% 0.195 2.7 0.9 4.3 275 1.6% 67% 11.5 5.0 D3 0.42 0.62 65 2.0% 5.8 150 0.5% 0.195 2.7 0.9 6.7 215 1.0% 1 38% 1 11.2 6.7 Combined On-Site Basins A 5.39 0.97 115 2.0% 2.1 630 0.5% 0.195 2.7 3.9 5.9 745 0.7% 75% 14.1 5.9 B 2.16 0.89 159 2.5% 3.7 85 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 3.7 244 1.6% 65% 11.4 5.0 C 1.56 0.83 65 2.0% 3.2 280 0.5% 0.195 2.7 1.7 4.9 345 0.8% 60% 11.9 5.0 D 1.69 0.95 65 2.0% 1.8 150 0.0% 0.195 0.0 0.0 1.8 215 0.6% 70% 11.2 5.0 On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site X 1 7.03 1 0.36 65 1 25.0% 1 3.8 1 0.195 0.0 1 0.0 3.8 65 25.0% 1 13% 10.4 1 5.0 Y 1 0.38 1 0.54 75 1 3.6% 1 5.9 270 1.0% 1 0.195 3.9 1 1.2 7.0 345 1.6% 1 33% 11.9 1 7.0 Z 1 0.62 1 0.36 70 1 2.9% 1 8.1 100 1 90.0% 1 0.195 1 36.6 1 0.0 8.2 170 54.1% 1 0% 10.9 1 8.2 K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touch ma rk\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>)Morn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN -RATIONAL METHOD 2 YEAR EVENT DATE: 10/14/2025 PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC Pt(1-Hour Rainfall)= 0.82 CHECKED BY: AGR REMARKS � Z Z � a _ LL LL C7 C� Z WU OLU f0 c y CO m LU a Q a O e V U On-Site Basins Al Al 4.44 0.81 8.43 3.61 2.40 8.66 A2 A2 0.94 0.61 5.00 0.58 2.85 1.64 B 1 B 1 0.81 0.95 5.00 0.77 2.85 2.20 B2 B2 0.87 0.55 5.00 0.48 2.85 1.38 B3 B3 0.47 0.59 5.00 0.28 2.85 0.79 C1 C1 0.29 0.92 5.00 0.27 2.85 0.76 C2 C2 0.71 0.55 5.62 0.39 2.85 1.11 C3 C3 0.56 0.68 6.10 0.38 2.67 1.02 D1 D1 0.77 0.95 5.00 0.73 2.85 2.08 D2 I D2 1 0.50 0.69 6.79 0.35 2.67 0.92 D3 I D3 0.42 1 0.49 1 8.18 1 0.21 1 2.40 1 0.49 Combined On-Site Basins A A 5.39 0.78 9.00 4.18 2.40 10.04 Flows north to Rain Garden A via curb,gutter and storm sewer B B 2.16 0.71 7.16 1.53 2.52 3.86 Flows east-northeast to Rain Garden B via curb,gutter and storm sewer C C 1.56 0.67 6.28 1.04 2.67 2.78 Flows east-southeast to Rain Garden C via curb,gutter and storm sewer D D 1.69 0.76 5.00 1.28 2.85 3.65 Flows southeast to Rain Garden D via curb,gutter and storm sewer On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site X X 7.03 0.29 5.00 2.05 2.85 5.85 Flows east to the existing regional detention pond Y Y 0.38 0.44 8.19 0.17 2.40 0.40 Flows towards an existing inlet within Cinquefoil Lane Z Z 0.62 0.29 8.96 0.18 2.40 0.43 Flows towards an existing inlet within Le Fever Drive K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touch mark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>>Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN -RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT DATE: 10/14/2025 PROJECT NAME:Touchmark Fort Collins PROJECT NUMBER:292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC Pi(1-Hour Rainfall)= 2.86 CHECKED BY:AGR REMARKS ZZ ZH Q LLLL c ci � Mn y ? w� c� Zw Wpm LUa Qa FLU U v On-Site Basins Al Al 4.44 1.00 5.44 4.44 9.95 44.22 A2 A2 0.94 0.76 5.00 0.72 9.95 7.16 B1 B1 0.81 1.00 5.00 0.81 9.95 8.10 B2 B2 0.87 0.69 5.00 0.60 9.95 6.01 B3 B3 0.47 0.74 5.00 0.35 9.95 3.45 C1 C1 0.29 1.00 5.00 0.29 9.95 2.89 C2 C2 0.71 0.69 5.00 0.49 9.95 4.84 C3 C3 LOA LO.6 5.00 0.48 9.95 4.75 D1 D1 5.00 E 9.95 7.66 D2 D2 5.00 9.95 4.30 D3 D3 6.71 0.26 9.31 2.40 Combined On-Site Basins A A 5.39 0.97 5.91 5.23 9.95 52.05 Flows north to Rain Garden A via curb,gutter and storm sewer B B 2.16 0.89 5.00 1.91 9.95 19.04 Flows east-northeast to Rain Garden B via curb,gutter and storm sewer C C 1.56 0.83 5.00 1.30 9.95 12.93 Flows east-southeast to Rain Garden C via curb,gutter and storm sewer D D 1.69 0.95 5.00 1.60 9.95 15.94 Flows southeast to Rain Garden D via curb,gutter and storm sewer On-Site Basins Flowing Off-Site X X 7.03 0.36 5.00 2.56 9.95 25.51 Flows east to the existing regional detention pond Y Y 0.38 0.54 8.19 0.21 8.38 1.75 Flows towards an existing inlet within Cinquefoil Lane z z 0.62 0.36 8.96 0.22 8.38 1.88 Flows towards an existing inlet within Le Fever Drive K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touch mark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>)Horn PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins DATE: 10/14/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC CHECKED BY: AGR WQCV & LID Calculations Total Site Area: 18.82 acres Imperviousness 46% a:(40 hours draintime) 1 Total Impervious Area: 8.98 acres WOCV 0.196 Total Impervious Area to LID 7.84 acres Total WQCV Req. 16084 CF Required Impervious Area to LID 6.74 acres Total WQCV Provided(Existing) 47916 CF WQCV=a(0.91A-1.104 0.791) Where:WQCV=Water Quality Capture Volume,watershed inches u-Coefficient corresponding to WQCV drain time(Table SA-1) 1=Imperviousness(%/100) V= (wiac)A.1.2 Equation 7-2 Where:V=required volume,acre-ft A=tributary catchment area upstream,acres WQCV=Water Quality Capture Volume,watershed inches 1.2=to account for the additional 20%of required storage for sedimentation accumulation Table 5.4-1.Drain Time Coefficients for WQCV Calculations Drain Time(hrs) Coefficient(a) 12 0A 40 1.0 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) 7S%of all newly added or modified impervious area must be treated by LID techniques. Impervious surfaces are defined as hardscape surfaces that do not allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Impervious surfaces include asphalt and concrete surfaces, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks,patios and rooftops.(Impervious surface areas must be assumed for single family residential lots when overall impervious areas are being determined for residential developments. The assumed areas must then be included in LID calculations.) K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touchmark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>> Horn PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins DATE: 10/14/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC CHECKED BY: AGR FAA Detention Pond Volume Calculation Developed Total Volume to Regional Pond Inputs Results Design Point: 1 WQCV: 16084 ft3 Design Storm: 100-yr Det. Vol.: 120952 ft3 Developed "C": 0.69 Total Vol. 137036 ft3 Area (A): 18.82 acres 3.15 ac-ft Max. Release (QouT): 7.2 cfs Provided Vol. 5.50 ac-ft Inflow(Runoff) Outflow Storage Volume (Release) Detention Time Time 100-yr Intensity Q100 Volume Volume (Minutes) (Seconds) (in/hr) (cfs) ft3 ft3 ft3 5 300 9.95 129.78 38933 2160 36773 10 600 7.72 100.69 60415 4320 56095 15 900 6.52 85.04 76536 6480 70056 20 1200 5.60 73.04 87648 8640 79008 25 1500 4.98 64.95 97430 10800 86630 30 1800 4.52 58.95 106117 12960 93157 35 2100 4.08 53.21 111751 15120 96631 40 2400 3.74 48.78 117073 17280 99793 45 2700 3.46 45.13 121846 19440 102406 50 3000 3.23 42.13 126385 21600 104785 55 3300 3.06 39.91 131707 23760 107947 60 3600 2.86 37.30 134289 25920 108369 65 3900 2.71 35.35 137850 28080 109770 70 4200 2.59 33.78 141880 30240 111640 75 4500 2.47 32.22 144971 32400 112571 80 4800 2.38 31.04 149002 34560 114442 85 5100 2.29 29.87 152328 36720 115608 90 5400 2.21 28.82 155654 38880 116774 95 5700 2.13 27.78 158353 41040 117313 100 6000 2.06 26.87 161210 43200 118010 105 6300 2.00 26.09 164340 45360 118980 110 6600 1.94 25.30 167001 47520 119481 115 6900 1.88 24.52 169192 49680 119512 120 7200 1.84 24.00 172792 51840 120952 K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touchmark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Kimley>>Morn PROJECT NAME: Touchmark Fort Collins DATE: 10/14/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 292068000 CALCULATED BY: MEC CHECKED BY: AGR Forebay Summary Rain Garden WQCV(ft3) 1%WQCV(ft3) Depth in Length(ft) Width ft Volume(ft) A 4684 47 12 7 7 49 B 1594 16 12 4 4 16 C 1070 11 12 4 4 16 D 1348 13 12 4 4 16 K:\NCO_Civil\292068000_Touchmark\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs.xlsx Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden(RG) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Designer: MEC Company: KH Date: October 14,2025 Project: Touchmark Fort Collins Location: RG A 1.Basin Storage Volume A)Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area,la la= 75.0 % (100%if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio(i=IJ100) i= 0.750 C) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV= 0.24 watershed inches (WQCV=0.8*(0.91*i3-1.19*i2+0.78*i) D) Contributing Watershed Area(including rain garden area) Area= 234,565 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQCV= 4,684 cu ft Vol=(WQCV/12)*Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region,Depth of de=0 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCV OTHER=0cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQCV USER= cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2.Basin Geometry A)WQCV Depth(12-inch maximum) DWQcv= 12 in B)Rain Garden Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.dist per unit vertical) Z= 4.00 ft/ft (Use"0"if rain garden has vertical walls) C)Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;,,= 3518 sq ft D)Actual Flat Surface Area AA.t y= 4300 sq ft E)Area at Design Depth(Top Surface Area) Arop= 5345 sq ft F)Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 4,823 cu ft (Vr=((AT.,+AAct"w)/2)*Depth) 3.Growing Media Choose One 18"Rain Garden Growing Media Q Other(Explain): 4.Underdrain System Choose One A)Are underdrains provided? *YES Q NO B)Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i)Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= 2.7 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii)Volume to Drain in 12 Hours V0112= 4,684 cu ft iii)Orifice Diameter,3/8"Minimum Do= 1 1/2 in UD-BMP v3.07 RG A.xlsm,RG 10/14/2025,10:12 AM Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden(RG) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Designer: MEC Company: KH Date: October 13,2025 Project: Touchmark Fort Collins Location: RG B 1.Basin Storage Volume A)Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area,la la= 65.0 % (100%if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio(i=IJ100) i= 0.650 C) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV= 0.20 watershed inches (WQCV=0.8*(0.91*i3-1.19*i2+0.78*i) D) Contributing Watershed Area(including rain garden area) Area= 94,090 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VQCCV= 1,594 cu ft Vol=(WQCV/12)*Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region,Depth of de=0 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQcvoTHER=0cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQCV USER= cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2.Basin Geometry A)WQCV Depth(12-inch maximum) DWQcv= 12 in B)Rain Garden Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.dist per unit vertical) Z= 4.00 ft/ft (Use"0"if rain garden has vertical walls) C)Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;,,= 1223 sq ft D)Actual Flat Surface Area AActua,= 1320 sq ft E)Area at Design Depth(Top Surface Area) AT,= 1890 sq ft F)Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 1,605 cu ft (Vr=((ATap+AA,.w)/2)*Depth) 3.Growing Media Choose One 18"Rain Garden Growing Media Q Other(Explain): 4.Underdrain System Choose One A)Are underdrains provided? *YES Q NO B)Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i)Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y=F 2.4 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii)Volume to Drain in 12 Hours V0112= 1,594 cu ft iii)Orifice Diameter,3/8"Minimum Do= 7/8 in UD-BMP v3.07 RG B.xlsm,RG 10/13/2025,6:42 PM Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden(RG) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Designer: MEC Company: KH Date: October 16,2025 Project: Touchmark Fort Collins Location: RG C 1. Basin Storage Volume A)Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area,la le= 60.0 % (100%if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio(i=1a/100) i C) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV= 0.19 watershed inches (WQCV=0.8*(0.91*i3-1.19*i2+0.78*i) D) Contributing Watershed Area(including rain garden area) Area= 67,954 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VwoOv= 1,070 cu ft Vol=(WQCV/12)*Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region,Depth of d6 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VwocvOTHER=0cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQCV USER=0cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A)WQCV Depth(12-inch maximum) Dwocv= 12 in B)Rain Garden Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.dist per unit vertical) Z= 4.00 ft/ft (Use"0"if rain garden has vertical walls) C)Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;,,= 815 sq ft D)Actual Flat Surface Area AA.1,.1= 920 sq ft E)Area at Design Depth(Top Surface Area) AT p= 1560 sq ft F)Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 1,240 cu ft (VT=((ATOP+AAcwa1)/2)*Depth) 3. Growing Media Choose e it 18"Rain Garden Growing Media Q Other(Explain): 4. Underdrain System Choose une A)Are underdrains provided? 0 YES Q NO B)Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i)Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= 2.4 It Volume to the Center of the Orifice ill Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol12= 1,070 cu ft iii)Orifice Diameter,3/8"Minimum Do= 3/4 in UD-BMP_v3.07_RG C.xlsm,RG 10/16/2025,11:19 AM Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden(RG) UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Designer: MEC Company: KH Date: October 14,2025 Project: Touchmark Fort Collins Location: RG D 1.Basin Storage Volume A)Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area,la la= 70.0 % (100%if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio(i=IJ100) i= 0.700 C) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV= 0.22 watershed inches (WQCV=0.8*(0.91*i3-1.19*i2+0.78*i) D) Contributing Watershed Area(including rain garden area) Area= 73,529 sq ft E) Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQcv= 1,348 cu ft Vol=(WQCV/12)*Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region,Depth of de=0 in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQcvoTHER=0cu ft Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)Design Volume VWQCV USER= cu ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2.Basin Geometry A)WQCV Depth(12-inch maximum) DWQcv= 12 in B)Rain Garden Side Slopes(Z=4 min.,horiz.dist per unit vertical) Z= 4.00 ft/ft (Use"0"if rain garden has vertical walls) C)Mimimum Flat Surface Area AM;,,= 1029 sq ft D)Actual Flat Surface Area AActua,= 1060 sq ft E)Area at Design Depth(Top Surface Area) AT,= 1940 sq ft F)Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 1,500 cu ft (Vr=((ATap+AA,.w)/2)*Depth) 3.Growing Media Choose One 18"Rain Garden Growing Media Q Other(Explain): 4.Underdrain System Choose One A)Are underdrains provided? *YES Q NO B)Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i)Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y= 2.7 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii)Volume to Drain in 12 Hours V0112= 1,348 cu ft iii)Orifice Diameter,3/8"Minimum Do= 13/16 in UD-BMP v3.07 RG D.xlsm,RG 10/14/2025,11:42 AM Final Drainage Report Touchmark Fort Collins Appendix C — Hydraulic Calculations kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, • :0 � : • MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.03(August 2023) INLET MANAGEMENT INLET NAME Inlet Al Inlet A2 Inlet 61 (DP 6 Site Type Urban or Rural URBAN URBAN URBAN Inlet Application Street or Area STREET STREET STREET Hydraulic Condition In Sump In Sump In Sum Inlet Tye CDOT/Denver 13 Combination CDOT/Denver 13 Combination CDOT/Denver 13 Combination USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Design Flows Minor QKmn(cfs) 8.7 1.6 1.4 Major QKw.n Ws) 44.2 7.2 6.0 Bypass Car -Over Flow from Upstream Inlets must be organized from u stream left to downstream(right)in order for bypass flows to be linked. Receive Bypass Flow from: No Bypass Flow Received User-Defined No Bypass Flow Received Minor Bypass Flow Received,Qb(cfs) 0.0 4.5 0.0 Major Bypass Flow Received,Qb(cfs) 0.0 3.6 0.0 Watershed Characteristics Subcatchment Area acres Percent Impervious NRCS Soil Type Watershed Profile Overland Slope(ft/ft) Overland Length ft Channel Slope(ft/ft) Channel Length ft Minor Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period,Tr(years) One-Hour Precipitation,P,(inches) Major Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period,Tr(years) One-Hour Precipitation,P,(inches) CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, cfs 8.7 6.1 1.4 Major Total Design Peak Flow,Q(cfs) 44.2 10.8 6.0 Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream,Qb(cfs) N/A N/A N/A Major Flow Bypassed Downstream,Qb(cfs) N/A N/A N/A MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.03(August 2023) INLET MANAGEMENT INLET NAME Inlet B2(DP 63) Inlet Cl (DP C2) Inlet C2(DP C3) Site Type Urban or Rural URBAN URBAN URBAN Inlet Application Street or Area STREET STREET STREET Hydraulic Condition In Sump In Sump In Sum Inlet Tye CDOT/Denver 13 Combination CDOT/Denver 13 Combination CDOT/Denver 13 Combination USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Design Flows Minor QKmn WS) 0.8 1.1 1.0 Major QKw.n Ws) 3.5 4.8 4.8 Bypass(Carry-Over)Flow from Upstream Receive Bypass Flow from: No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received Minor Bypass Flow Received,Qb(cfs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Major Bypass Flow Received,Qb(cfs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Watershed Characteristics Subcatchment Area(acres) Percent Impervious NRCS Soil Type Watershed Profile Overland Slope(ft/ft) Overland Length ft Channel Slope(ft/ft) Channel Length ft Minor Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period,Tr(years) One-Hour Precipitation,P,(inches) Ma or Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period,Tr(years) One-Hour Precipitation,P,(inches) CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, cfs 0.8 1.1 1.0 Major Total Design Peak Flow, cfs) 3.5 4.8 4.8 Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream,Qb(cfs) N/A N/A N/A Major Flow Bypassed Downstream,Qb(cfs) N/A N/A N/A MHFD-Inlet, Version 5.03(August 2023) INLET MANAGEMENT INLET NAME Inlet D3(DP D2) Inlet D4(DP D3) Site Type Urban or Rural URBAN URBAN Inlet Application Street or Area STREET STREET Hydraulic Condition In Sump In Sum Inlet Tye CDOT/Denver 13 Combination CDOT/Denver 13 Combination USER-DEFINED INPUT User-Defined Design Flows Minor QKmn WS) 0.9 0.5 Major QKw.n Ws) 4.3 2.4 Bypass(Carry-Over)Flow from Upstream Receive Bypass Flow from: No Bypass Flow Received No Bypass Flow Received Minor Bypass Flow Received,Qb(cfs) 0.0 0.0 Major Bypass Flow Received,Qb(cfs) 0.0 0.0 Watershed Characteristics Subcatchment Area(acres) Percent Impervious NRCS Soil Type Watershed Profile Overland Slope(ft/ft) Overland Length ft Channel Slope(ft/ft) Channel Length ft Minor Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period,Tr(years) One-Hour Precipitation,P,(inches) Ma or Storm Rainfall Input Design Storm Return Period,Tr(years) One-Hour Precipitation,P,(inches) CALCULATED OUTPUT Minor Total Design Peak Flow, cfs 0.9 0.5 Major Total Design Peak Flow, cfs) 4.3 2.4 Minor Flow Bypassed Downstream,Qb(cfs) N/A N/A Major Flow Bypassed Downstream,Qb(cfs) N/A N/A MHFD-Inlet Version 5.03 AU U5t XZ (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Inlet ID:Inlet Al T T.T.,:. W T. STREET c O. CROWN o / Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TomcK= 5.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.C.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�cK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRR= 7.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TOROWN= 13.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nsrREET= 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 13.0 13.0 it Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dNM= 6.0 12 0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions r- r MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q,��o„,= SUMP I SUMP cfe 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, Version 5.03(August 2023) Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information(Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet CDOT/Demer 13 Combination Type= CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) aio.i= 2.00 nches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 2 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Iw•Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate Lo(G)= 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W.= 1.73 feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Arat;o= 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cf(G)= 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Co(G)= 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo(C)= 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hvert= 7.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hth_t= 5.25 inches Angle of Throat Theta= 0.00 0.00 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) C, (C)= 3.70 3. 0 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Ca(C) Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrate= 0.52 1.02 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation do,rb= 0.33 0.83 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFa�te= 0.71 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFc„rb= N/A N/A Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFQ mbmanon= 0.71 1.00 MINOR MAJOR otal Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) = IN 21 cis WARNING:Inlet Capacity< Peak for Minor and Ma'or Storms Q PEAK REQU!= 8.7 44.2 cfs 1 MHFD-Inlet Version 5.03 AU U5t XZ (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Inlet ID:Inlet A2 T T.T.,:. W T. STREET c O. CROWN o / Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TomcK= 5.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.C.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�cK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRR= 7.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TOROWN= 13.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nsrREET= 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 13.0 13.0 it Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dNM= 6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions r- r MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q,��o„,= SUMP I SUMP cfe 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, Version 5.03(August 2023) Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information(Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet CDOT/Denier 13 Combination Type= CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) aio.i= 2.00 nches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Iw•Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate Lo(G)= 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W.= 1.73 feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Arat;o= 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cf(G)= 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Co(G)= 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo(C)= 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,= 7.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hth_t= 5.25 inches Angle of Throat Theta= 0.00 0.00 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) Cv(C)= 3.70 3. 0 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Ca(C) Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrata= 0.52 1.02 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation do,rb= 0.33 0.83 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Rl`rate= 0.94 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFc„rb= N/A N/A Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFQ mbmanon= 0.94 1.00 MINOR MAJOR otal Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) = IN MAJOR fis WARNING:Inlet Capacity< Peak for Minor and Ma'or Storms Q PEAK REQU!= 6.1 1 .8 CC fs 1 MHFD-Inlet Version 5.03 AU U5t XZ (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Inlet ID:Inlet B1(DP 132) T T.T.,:. W T. STREET c O. CROWN o / Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TomoK= 5.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.C.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�cK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRR= 7.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TMOWN= 13.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nsrREET= 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 13.0 13.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dNm= 6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions r- r MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q,��o„,= SUMP I SUMP cfe 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, Version 5.03(August 2023) Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information(Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet CDOT/Demer 13 Combination Type= CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) aio.i= 2.00 nches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Iw•Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate Lo(G)= 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W.= 1.73 feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Arat;o= 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cf(G)= 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Co(G)= 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo(C)= 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,= 7.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hth_t= 5.25 inches Angle of Throat Theta= 0.00 0.00 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) Cv(C)= 3.70 3. 0 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Ca(C) Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrata= 0.52 1.02 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation do,rb= 0.33 0.83 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Rl`rate= 0.94 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFc„rb= N/A N/A Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFQ mbmanon= 0.94 1.00 MINOR MAJOR otal Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) Qa= 5.1 9.5 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms > Peak Q PEAK REQumEo cfs 1 MHFD-Inlet Version 5.03 AU U5t XZ (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Inlet ID:Inlet B2(DP B3) T T.T.,:. W T. STREET c O. CROWN o / Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TomoK= 5.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.C.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�cK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRR= 7.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TMOWN= 13.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nsrREET= 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 13.0 13.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dNm= 6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions r- r MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q,��o„,= SUMP I SUMP cfe 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, Version 5.03(August 2023) Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information(Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet CDOT/Denier 13 Combination Type= CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) aio.i= 2.00 nches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Iw•Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate Lo(G)= 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W.= 1.73 feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Arat;o= 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cf(G)= 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Co(G)= 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo(C)= 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,= 7.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hth_t= 5.25 inches Angle of Throat Theta= 0.00 0.00 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) Cv(C)= 3.70 3. 0 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Ca(C) Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrata= 0.52 1.02 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation do,rb= 0.33 0.83 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Rl`rate= 0.94 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFc„rb= N/A N/A Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFQ mbmanon= 0.94 1.00 MINOR MAJOR otal Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) %= cfis Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms > Peak Q PEAK REQUMD= 0.8 3.5 cfs 1 MHFD-Inlet Version 5.03 AU U5t XZ (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Inlet ID:Inlet C1(DP C2) T T.T.,:. W T. STREET c O. CROWN o / Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TomoK= 5.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.C.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�cK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRR= 7.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TMOWN= 13.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nsrREET= 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 13.0 13.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dNm= 6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions r- r MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q,��o„,= SUMP I SUMP cfe 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, Version 5.03(August 2023) Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information(Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet CDOT/Demer 13 Combination Type= CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) aio.i= 2.00 nches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Iw•Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate Lo(G)= 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W.= 1.73 feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Arat;o= 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cf(G)= 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Co(G)= 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo(C)= 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,= 7.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hth_t= 5.25 inches Angle of Throat Theta= 0.00 0.00 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) Cv(C)= 3.70 3. 0 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Ca(C) Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrata= 0.52 1.02 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation do,rb= 0.33 0.83 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Rl`rate= 0.94 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFc„rb= N/A N/A Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFQ mbmanon= 0.94 1.00 MINOR MAJOR otal Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) 5 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms > Peak Q PEAK REQU!= 1.1 94..8 cfs 1 MHFD-Inlet Version 5.03 AU U5t XZ (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Inlet ID:Inlet C2(DP C3) T T.T.,:. W T. STREET c O. CROWN o / Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TomoK= 5.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.C.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�cK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRR= 7.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TMOWN= 13.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nsrREET= 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 13.0 13.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dNm= 6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions r- r MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q,��o„,= SUMP I SUMP cfe 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, Version 5.03(August 2023) Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information(Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet CDOT/Denier 13 Combination Type= CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) aio.i= 2.00 nches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Iw•Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate Lo(G)= 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W.= 1.73 feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Arat;o= 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cf(G)= 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Co(G)= 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo(C)= 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,= 7.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hth_t= 5.25 inches Angle of Throat Theta= 0.00 0.00 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) Cv(C)= 3.70 3. 0 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Ca(C) Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrata= 0.52 1.02 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation do,rb= 0.33 0.83 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Rl`rate= 0.94 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFc„rb= N/A N/A Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFQ mbmanon= 0.94 1.00 MINOR MAJOR otal Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) Qa= S.1 9.5 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms > Peak Q PEAK REQU!= 1.0 4.8 cfs 1 MHFD-Inlet Version 5.03 AU U5t XZ (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Inlet ID:Inlet D3(DP 132) T T.T.,:. W T. STREET c O. CROWN o / Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TomoK= 5.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.C.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�cK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRR= 7.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TMOWN= 13.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nsrREET= 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 13.0 13.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dNm= 6.0 12.0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions r- r MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q,��o„,= SUMP I SUMP cfe 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, Version 5.03(August 2023) Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information(Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet CDOT/Denier 13 Combination Type= CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) aio.i= 2.00 nches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Iw•Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate Lo(G)= 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W.= 1.73 feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Arat;o= 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cf(G)= 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Co(G)= 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo(C)= 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,= 7.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hth_t= 5.25 inches Angle of Throat Theta= 0.00 0.00 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) Cv(C)= 3.70 3. 0 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Ca(C) Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrata= 0.52 1.02 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation do,rb= 0.33 0.83 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Rl`rate= 0.94 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFc„rb= N/A N/A Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFQ mbmanon= 0.94 1.00 MINOR MAJOR otal Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) Qa= S.1 9.5 T Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms > Peak Q PEAK REQUMD= 0.g 4.3 Is 1 MHFD-Inlet Version 5.03 AU U5t XZ (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Inlet ID:Inlet D4(DP D3) T T.T.,:. W T. STREET c O. CROWN o / Gutter Geometry: Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb TomoK= 5.0 ft Side Slope Behind Curb(leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) S.C.= 0.020 ft/ft Manning's Roughness Behind Curb(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) n�cK Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcuRR= 7.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown TMOWN= 13.0 ft Gutter Width W= 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope %= 0.020 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope(typically 2 inches over 24 inches or 0.083 ft/ft) SW= 0.083 ft/ft Street Longitudinal Slope-Enter 0 for sump condition So= 0.000 ft/ft Manning's Roughness for Street Section(typically between 0.012 and 0.020) nsrREET= 0.013 Minor Storm Major Storm Max.Allowable Spread for Minor&Major Storm TM x= 13.0 13.0 ft Max.Allowable Depth at Gutter Flowline for Minor&Major Storm dNm= 6.0 12 0 inches Check boxes are not applicable in SUMP conditions r- r MINOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Minor Storm Major Storm MAJOR STORM Allowable Capacity is not applicable to Sump Condition Q,��o„,= SUMP I SUMP cfe 1 INLET IN A . OR SAG LOCATION MHFD In/et, Version 5.03(August 2023) Lo(C) 7 H-Curb H-Vert Wo Wp W Lo(G) Design Information(Input) MINOR MAJOR Type of Inlet CDOT/Denier 13 Combination Type= CDOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a'from above) aio.i= 2.00 nches Number of Unit Inlets(Grate or Curb Opening) No= 1 Water Depth at Flowline(outside of local depression) Ponding Depth= 6.0 12.0 inches Grate Information MINOR MAJOR Iw•Override Depths Length of a Unit Grate Lo(G)= 3.00 feet Width of a Unit Grate W.= 1.73 feet Open Area Ratio for a Grate(typical values 0.15-0.90) Arat;o= 0.43 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate(typical value 0.50-0.70) Cf(G)= 0.50 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.15-3.60) C. (G)= 3.30 Grate Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.80) Co(G)= 0.60 Curb Opening Information MINOR MAJOR Length of a Unit Curb Opening Lo(C)= 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches Hv,= 7.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Hth_t= 5.25 inches Angle of Throat Theta= 0.00 0.00 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan(typically the gutter width of 2 feet) WP= 2.00 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening(typical value 0.10) Cf(C)= 0.10 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient(typical value 2.3-3.7) Cv(C)= 3.70 3. 0 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient(typical value 0.60-0.70) Ca(C) Low Head Performance Reduction(Calculated) MINOR MAJOR Depth for Grate Midwidth dGrata= 0.52 1.02 ft Depth for Curb Opening Weir Equation do,rb= 0.33 0.83 ft Grated Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets Rl`rate= 0.94 1.00 Curb Opening Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFc„rb= N/A N/A Combination Inlet Performance Reduction Factor for Long Inlets RFQ mbmanon= 0.94 1.00 MINOR MA30R otal Inlet Interception Capacity(assumes clogged condition) 1= S.1 9.5 cfs Inlet Capacity IS GOOD for Minor and Major Storms > Peak Q PEAK REQUMD= 0.5 2.4 cfs 1 Outlet Structure Grate Capacity Calculations Kimley ))) Horn Project Title: Touchmark Fort Collins Project Number: 292068000 Date: October 15, 2025 Prepared for: City of Fort Collins Calcs By: MEC Grate Capacity Calculations • • Rain Garden A Grate Grated Inlet D-• 4.0 Length4.0 Area • 16.0 Opening Ratio of 13.6 • • • 1.00 1 • 52.05 • 0.60xA ( 2x32.2 ) ^ 1/2x h ^1/2 e 65.48 Outlet Structure Grate Capacity Calculations Kimley ))) Horn Project Title: Touchmark Fort Collins Project Number: 292068000 Date: October 15, 2025 Prepared for: City of Fort Collins Calcs By: MEC Grate Capacity Calculations • • Rain Gardens B, C, & D Grate Grated Inlet Depth (ft) 3.0 Length3.0 Area • 9.0 Opening Ratio of 7.7 • • • 1.00 1 • 19.04 • 0.60xA ( 2x32.2 ) ^ 1/2x h ^1/2 e 36.83 Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Oct 14 2025 Rain Garden A Spillway Trapezoidal Weir Highlighted Crest = Sharp Depth (ft) = 0.48 Bottom Length (ft) = 50.00 Q (cfs) = 52.50 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Area (sqft) = 24.92 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.11 Top Width (ft) = 53.84 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 52.50 Depth (ft) Rain Garden A Spillway Depth (ft) 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 -0.50 -0.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Weir W.S. Length (ft) Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Oct 14 2025 Rain Garden B Spillway Trapezoidal Weir Highlighted Crest = Sharp Depth (ft) = 0.44 Bottom Length (ft) = 20.00 Q (cfs) = 19.04 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Area (sqft) = 9.57 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.99 Top Width (ft) = 23.52 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 19.04 Depth (ft) Rain Garden B Spillway Depth (ft) 1.00 1.00 0.50 v 0.50 0.00 0.00 -0.50 -0.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Weir W.S. Length (ft) Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Oct 14 2025 Rain Garden C Spillway Trapezoidal Weir Highlighted Crest = Sharp Depth (ft) = 0.46 Bottom Length (ft) = 12.00 Q (cfs) = 12.93 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Area (sqft) = 6.37 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.03 Top Width (ft) = 15.68 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 12.93 Depth (ft) Rain Garden C Spillway Depth (ft) 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 -0.50 -0.50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weir W.S. Length (ft) Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Oct 14 2025 Rain Garden D Spillway Trapezoidal Weir Highlighted Crest = Sharp Depth (ft) = 0.47 Bottom Length (ft) = 15.00 Q (cfs) = 15.94 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Area (sqft) = 7.93 Side Slope (z:1) = 4.00 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.01 Top Width (ft) = 18.76 Calculations Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.10 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 15.94 Depth (ft) Rain Garden D Spillway Depth (ft) 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 -0.50 -0.50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Weir W.S. Length (ft) Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file. oSTRM A- 100 YR Developed.stm @ 7 CV 7 � o OS 0 O 05 CD J 10 00 C) J 04 O CD m 0J I-00 CI?o r o rr CDr� o rn o MMM o �rn Elev. (ft) o w v N v0 6 t v 0 o W o www o WM :° E > m E» m E > 4910.00 4910.00 4907.00 4907.00 I 4904.00 -- _ _ 4904,00 4901.00 4901.00 4898.00 4 89 S 00 0 4895.00 4895.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D® Plan Outfall 1 ST-A2 2 ST-Al Project File: oSTRM A-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Date: 10/14/2025 Storm Sewers v2024.00 Storm Sewer Summary Report Pagel Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) N (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 PIPE-46 51.38 30 Cir 29.000 4897.66 4897.78 0.413 4899.98* 4900.52' 0.26 4900.78 End Manhole 2 PIPE-22 44.22 24 Cir 27.000 4897.80 4897.91 0.409 4900.78* 4901.81* 3.08 4904.89 1 Manhole --FProject File: oSTRM A-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date: 10/14/2025 NOTES: Known Qs only ; *Surcharged(HGL above crown). Storm Sewers v2024.00 Inlet Report Page Line Inlet ID Q= Q Q Q Junc Curb Inlet Grate Inlet Gutter Inlet Byp No CIA carry capt Byp Type Line Ht L Area L W So W SW Sx n Depth Spread Depth Spread Depr No (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (in) (ft) (sgft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (in) 1 ST-A2 7.16* 0.00 0.00 7.16 MH 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sag 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Off 2 ST-Al 44.22* 0.00 0.00 44.22 MH 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sag 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Off Project File: oSTRM A-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date: 10/14/2025 NOTES: Inlet N-Values=0.016; Known Qs only; *Indicates Known Q added.All curb inlets are throat. Storm Sewers v2024.00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M M (ft) (K) (ft) 1 30 51 38 4897.66 4899.98 2.32 4.75 10.83 1.82 4901.80 1.359 29.000 4897.78 4900.52 2.50 4.91 10.47 1.70 4902.22 1.570 1.464 0.425 0.15 0.26 2 24 44.22 4897.80 4900.78 2.00 3.14 14.08 3.08 4903.86 3.824 27.000 4897.91 4901.81 2.00 3.14 14.08 3.08 4904.89 3.823 3.823 1.032 1.00 3.08 Project File: oSTRM A-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 FDate: 10/14I2025 c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2024.00 Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file. oSTRM B - 100 YR Developed.stm N 7 7 � LO O S 0 N C ��� J CO 0 0o r o r r o r� o rn o Mrnrn r` Mrn Elev. (ft) o w . M -'r'r O v o -o w o Www o ww m E > m E » :° E > in c7 5 in R55 cn 25 4910.00 4910.00 4907.00 4907.00 4904.00 4904,00 4901.00 4901.00 4898.00 4898 00 u f-18" 0.40% 4895.00 4895.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D® Plan Outfall 1 ST-B2 2 ST-B 1 Project File: oSTRM B 100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Date: 10/14/2025 Storm Sewers v2024.00 Storm Sewer Summary Report Pagel Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) N (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 PIPE-36 17.56 18 Cir 39.000 4897.25 4897.41 0.411 4898.70* 4899.75' 0.23 4899.98 End Manhole 2 PIPE-53 14.11 18 Cir 24.708 4897.41 4897.51 0.403 4899.98* 4900.43* 0.99 4901.42 1 Manhole Project File: oSTRM B-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date: 10/14/2025 NOTES: Known Qs only ; *Surcharged(HGL above crown). Storm Sewers v2024.00 Inlet Report Page Line Inlet ID Q= Q Q Q Junc Curb Inlet Grate Inlet Gutter Inlet Byp No CIA carry capt Byp Type Line Ht L Area L W So W SW Sx n Depth Spread Depth Spread Depr No (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (in) (ft) (sgft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (in) 1 ST-62 3.45* 0.00 0.00 3.45 MH 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sag 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Off 2 ST-131 14.11* 0.00 0.00 14A1 MH 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sag 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Off Project File: oSTRM B-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date: 10/14/2025 NOTES: Inlet N-Values=0.016; Known Qs only; *Indicates Known Q added.All curb inlets are throat. Storm Sewers v2024.00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M M (ft) (K) (ft) 1 1 17 56 4897.25 4898.70 1.45 1.75 10.05 1.57 4900.27 2.444 39.000 4897A1 4899.75 150 1.77 9.94 1.54 4901.29 2.796 2.620 1.022 0.15 0.23 2 18 14.11 4897.41 4899.98 1.50 1.77 7.99 0.99 4900.98 1.806 24.708 4897.51 4900.43 1.50 1.77 7.98 0.99 4901.42 1.806 1.806 0.446 1.00 0.99 Project File: oSTRM B-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date: 10/14/2025 c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2024.00 Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: oSTRM C - 100 YR Developed.stm N =O J J C C O S j 0 W -O CNN I OM O OD W CO 00 NOD p O) O OOO CD OO m O Elev. (ft) O w v v v'r � v o -o w o www o ww m E > m E > > o; E> S in it SS CO C�E 4911.00 4911.00 4908.00 4908.00 4905.00 4905.00 4902.00 - 4902.00 4899.00 4899 00 0 0 4896.00 L 4896.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D® Plan Outfall 1 ST-C2 2, ST-Cl Project File: oSTRM C-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Date: 10/14/2025 Storm Sewers v2024.00 Storm Sewer Summary Report Pagel Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) N (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 PIPE-57 12.48 18 Cir 42.617 4898.10 4898.27 0.399 4899.43* 4900.11* 0.27 4900.38 End Manhole 2 PIPE-58 7.73 18 Cir 26.000 4898.27 4898.38 0.423 4900.38* 4900.52* 0.30 4900.82 1 Manhole Project File: oSTRM C-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date: 10/14/2025 NOTES: Known Qs only ; *Surcharged(HGL above crown). Storm Sewers v2024.00 Inlet Report Page Line Inlet ID Q= Q Q Q Junc Curb Inlet Grate Inlet Gutter Inlet Byp No CIA carry capt Byp Type Line Ht L Area L W So W SW Sx n Depth Spread Depth Spread Depr No (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (in) (ft) (sgft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (in) 1 ST-C2 4.75` 0.00 0.00 4.75 MH 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sag 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Off 2 ST-Cl 7.73' 0.00 0.00 7.73 MH 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sag 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Off Project File: oSTRM C 100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date: 10/14/2025 NOTES: Inlet N-Values=0.016; Known Qs only; "Indicates Known Q added.All curb inlets are throat. Storm Sewers v2024.00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M M (ft) (K) (ft) 1 1 12 48 4898.10 4899.43 1.33 1.66 7.52 0.88 4900.31 1.259 42.617 4898.27 4900.11 1 50 1.77 7.06 0.78 4900.88 1.412 1.336 0.569 0.35 0.27 2 18 T73 4898.27 4900.38 1.50 1.77 4.38 0.30 4900.68 0.542 26.000 4898.38 4900.52 1.50 1.77 4.37 0.30 4900.82 0.542 0.542 0.141 1.00 0.30 Project File: oSTRM C-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date: 10/14/2025 c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2024.00 Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: oSTRM D - 100 YR Developed.stm N CO v : � =3 S J OS J OS J OC J O rCq . �to oO CO � CNN CO �- O p�j Q) Zr NOO N NOO ((0 100 V CO CM O m 6) C,00 O C:,00 OD C,(56 O CDcj� Elev. (ft) o w v m "tv v V) 'v v a, t t t v0 v o w o www o www o www v ww CO ; 2 E » 2 E E E > (n 5 c CO WEE to W » 2EE (n WE» ccE E 4917.00 4917.00 4913.00 4913.00 4909.00 4909.00 4905.00 ---- _ 4905.00 0 4901.00 4901.00 a a 4897.00 4897.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 HGL EGL Reach (ft) Storm Sewers Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk0 Civil 3D® Plan ST-D3 D4 3 1 4 ST-D2 Outfall ST-D1 Project File: oSTRM D-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:4 Date: 10/14/2025 Storm Sewers v2024.00 Storm Sewer Summary Report Pagel Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) N (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 PIPE-44(1)(1) 14.36 18 Cir 32.946 4899.92 4900.05 0.394 4901.31* 4901.96' 0.45 4902.41 End Manhole 2 PIPE-44(1) 11.96 18 Cir 26.082 4900.05 4900.15 0.384 4902.41* 4902.75* 0.58 4903.32 1 Manhole 3 PIPE-44 7.66 18 Cir 32.837 4900.15 4900.28 0.396 4903.32* 4903.50' 0.20 4903.69 2 Manhole 4 PIPE-43 7.66 18 Cir 356.179 4900.28 4903.13 0.800 4903.69* 4905.59* 0.29 4905.88 3 Manhole Project File: oSTRM D-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:4 Run Date: 10/14/2025 NOTES: Known Qs only ; *Surcharged(HGL above crown). Storm Sewers v2024.00 Inlet Report Page Line Inlet ID Q= Q Q Q Junc Curb Inlet Grate Inlet Gutter Inlet Byp No CIA carry capt Byp Type Line Ht L Area L W So W SW Sx n Depth Spread Depth Spread Depr No (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (in) (ft) (sgft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (in) 1 ST-D4 2.40" 0.00 0.00 2.40 MH 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sag 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Off 2 ST-D3 4.30' 0.00 0.00 4.30 MH 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sag 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Off 3 ST-D2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MH 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sag 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Off 4 ST-D1 7.66` 0.00 0.00 7.66 MH 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sag 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 Off Project File: oSTRM D-100 YR Developed.strn TNurnber of lines:4 Run Date: 10/14/2025 NOTES: Inlet N-Values=0.016; Known Qs only; "Indicates Known Q added.All curb inlets are throat. Storm Sewers v2024.00 Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Page Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor coeff loss Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss (in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sgft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M M (ft) (K) (ft) 1 1 14.36 4899.92 4901.31 1.39 1.71 8.40 1.10 4902.41 1.619 32.946 4900.05 4901.96 1.50 1.77 8.13 1.03 4902.98 1.870 1.744 0.575 0.44 0.45 2 18 11.96 4900.05 4902.41 1.50 1.77 6.77 0.71 4903.12 1.298 26.082 4900.15 4902.75 1.50 1.77 6.77 0.71 4903.46 1.297 1.297 0.338 0.81 0.58 3 13 -66 4900.15 4903.32 1.50 1.77 4.34 0.29 4903.62 0.532 32.837 4900.28 4903.50 1.50 1.77 4.33 0.29 4903.79 0.532 0.532 0.175 0.67 0.20 4 18 i.66 4900.28 4903.69 1.50 1.77 4.34 0.29 4903.99 0.532 356.17 4903.13 4905.59 1.50 1.77 4.33 0.29 4905.88 0.532 0.532 1.896 1.00 0.29 Project File: oSTRM D-100 YR Developed.stm Number of lines:4 Run Date: 10/14/2025 c=cir e=ellip b=box Storm Sewers v2024.00