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 - 10/29/2025
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT The Edison at University Plaza Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: GKT UNIVERSITY PLAZA, LLC 211 N Stadium Blvd, Suite 201 Columbia, MO 65203 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 3325 South Timberline Road - Suite 130 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 822-7911 October 29, 2025 City of Fort Collins Project #: KH Project #: 296193000 kimley-horn.com 3325 S Timberline Rd, Suite 130, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-822-7911 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Engineering 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE:The Edison at University Plaza Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report Dear Reviewer: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., is pleased to submit this Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your review as part of the Basic Development Review (BDR) submittal for the above referenced project. This report and attached drainage plans have been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (“FCSCM”) and the latest Mile High Flood District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (“USDCM”). These documents serve to document stormwater impacts associated with the proposed SWC Drake/College Project. We understand the review by the City of Fort Collins is to ensure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM and USDCM. Please contact us with any questions or concerns. Thank You, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Burns Brown, P.E. Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS I.GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISITING SITE INFORMATION ............................... 1 II.MASTER DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION ...................................................... 2 IV.FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION ............................................................................. 2 V.PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 3 VI.OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS ...... 3 VIII.PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES ............................................................... 6 IX.DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................... 8 X.VARIANCE REQUESTS ....................................................................................... 9 XI.EROSION CONTROL ........................................................................................... 9 XII.CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 9 X. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 10 APPENDIX A –REFERENCED DOCUMENTS....................................................................... 1 APPENDIX B –HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS AND EXHIBITS .............................................. 2 APPENDIX C –HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS ...................................................................... 3 APPENDIX D –DRAINAGE EXHIBITS ................................................................................. 4 Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado 1 |P a g e I.GENERAL LOCATION AND EXISITING SITE INFORMATION The Edison at University Plaza (the “Project”) is located in the southeast quarter of Section 23, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, State of Colorado. The Project consists of Parcels A, B and Tract B, replat No. 1 of University Shopping Center. The University Plaza is a shopping center located on the west side of South College Avenue, east of the railroad tracks and Max Guideway bus route, north of East Drake Road and south of Rutgers Avenue. A Vicinity Map is shown below in Figure 1. The Project site is located within the General Commercial (GC) Zone District. Figure 1: Vicinity Map Surrounding uses include an OfficeMax to the north, McDonalds to the west, and several other retail stores to the south. The Project is located within the Foothills Drainage Basin. See copy of the City of Fort Collins Drainage Basins image included in Appendix A. The master basin is discussed in more detail below. The existing onsite drainage is directed away from the retail buildings, collected into the onsite storm systems then conveyed to public drainage infrastructure in S College Ave. A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for the project area was obtained to determine the soil characteristics of the site. The results of this study show that the majority of the site consists of hydrologic soil group (HSG) Type C with soil that primarily includes Nunn clay loam. Therefore, HSG Type C soils were assumed for the entirety of the site for hydrologic calculations. A copy of the NRCS Soil Resource Report is provided in Appendix A. Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado 2 |P a g e A Geotechnical Investigation was completed by CTL Thompson on October 28th, 2025, and has been provided as a separate document as part of this submittal package. Please refer to that report for specific geotechnical findings. II.MASTER DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION As noted above, the project is located in the City of Fort Collins Foothills Master Drainage Basin. This basin has a maximum allowable release rate of the 2-yr historic discharge rate. A map of the Foothills Basin is included in Appendix A. III.EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE Historically, positive drainage is provided away from the retail buildings. This means the existing onsite drainage is broken down into four general sub-basins; East (sub-basin EX- E), Southeast (sub-basin EX-S1), South/Southwest (sub-basin EX-S2) and West (sub- basin EX-W) totaling approximately 12 acres. Existing detention basin areas are included in these major basin areas, expect the East sub-basin. The existing onsite detention serves 9.79 acres of the site. Stormwater is collected into private storm systems that convey flow to the public infrastructure in S. College Ave at several locations. The existing sub-basin descriptions are included below. The rational calculations within Appendix B include areas, imperviousness, and other applicable information. Sub-basin EX-E: Runoff from the east side of the site sheet flows across the parking lot, with slopes ranging from 0.5% to 3.0%, toward several area inlets that convey flow to existing public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin EX-S1: The southeast portion of the site, Sub-basin EX-S1, slopes east from 1% to 5% to a sump curb inlet where drainage is detained on the surface (Detention Pond 1) then piped to existing public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin EX-S2: The southwest/south portion of the site, Sub-basin EX-S2, slopes east from 1% to 5% and is collected in a sump area inlet in a parking lot depression (Detention Pond 2). Stormwater is then piped to existing public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin EX-W: The existing retail buildings drain to the west where flow combines with the drive aisle runoff and conveyed to a detention pond (Detention Pond 3). The pond includes the landscape area and also utilizes ponding in the parking lot. (Detention Pond 3). The outfall pipe from Detention Pond 3 wraps around the south side of the building then northeast across the east side of the parking lot to convey flow to the existing public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. IV.FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION The Edison at University Plaza site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 08069C0987G dated May 2, 2012, and lies within Zone X. Zone X is defined as areas of minimal flood hazard and determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. A copy of the FEMA FIRMette is included in Appendix A. Additionally; the Project is not located within any City of Fort Collins floodplains. A copy of the City of Fort Collins Flood Map is also included in Appendix A. Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado 3 |P a g e V.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is proposing to develop approximately +/- 6.28-acres of the +/-12.42-acre site to include drive aisles, parking lot, and utility improvements that will support a multi-family apartment building. The project will provide LID and water quality treatment. VI.OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS The University Plaza site is not located within an Overall Development Plan (ODP), however; the site is located within a previous drainage study that was completed in 1998 by Bucher, Willis & Ratliff (BWR). This report included the development of the retail buildings attached to the south side of the old King Soopers and detailed the three detention areas that are being modified with The Edison project. The drainage considerations and assumptions are listed below: · Total detention volume from BWR 1998 report is 63,250 cu. ft. · Total drainage area being detained from BWR 1998 report is 9.79 acres · There is a net reduction in impervious area and therefore no additional detention is needed for the project site. · The total detention volume (63,250 cu. ft.) has been prorated based on area and reallocated based on the updated Edison drainage patterns. · The Edison project will provide water quality and low impact development (LID) per City requirements. · A private storm sewer truck lines has been designed to convey the 100-yr flow from each detention pond to existing onsite facilities which convey flows to public storm infrastructure in S. College Ave. Release rates to the existing storm infrastructure match historic release rates. VII. PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS The proposed sub-basin descriptions are included below and depicted on the proposed drainage exhibit in Appendix D. The rational calculations within Appendix B include areas, imperviousness, and other applicable information. Sub-basin E1: Sub-basin E1 is located at the northeastern corner of the site and consists of 0.90 acres of existing parking lot and sidewalk. The drainage flows east where it is collected by an existing area inlet in the drive aisle conveying flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin E2: Sub-basin E2 is located at the northeastern corner of the site and consists of 0.56 acres of existing parking lot and sidewalk The drainage flows east where it is collected by an existing area inlet conveying flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin E3: Sub-basin E3 is located at the eastern side of the site and consists of 0.41 acres of existing parking lot and sidewalk. The drainage flows east where it is collected by an existing area inlet conveying flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin E4: Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado 4 |P a g e Sub-basin E4 is located at the eastern side of the site and consists of 0.62 acres of existing parking lot and sidewalk The drainage flows east where it is collected by an existing area inlet conveying flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin E5: Sub-basin E5 is located at the eastern side of the site and consists of 0.32 acres of existing parking lot, drive aisle and sidewalk The drainage flows east where it is collected by an existing area inlet conveying flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin E6: Sub-basin E6 is located at the northern side of the site and consists of 0.60 acres of the proposed building. Roof drainage is directed to a proposed storm system, which will convey the flow to the sub-surface LID/Detention chambers located in the east parking area. The detention chambers will outfall to the existing storm system along the east side of the site, conveying flow to public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin E7: Sub-basin E7 is located on the north side of the site and consists of 0.11 acres of proposed sidewalk and a portion of the landscape area between the proposed and existing buildings. Drainage will flow east to a sump area inlet where it will be collected then piped to the proposed sub-surface LID/Detention chambers in the east parking area. The detention chambers will outfall to the new trunk line and then into the existing storm system along the east side of the site. Sub-basin E8: Sub-basin E8 is located on the north side of the site and consists of 0.12 acres of proposed sidewalk and drive aisle. Drainage sheet flow east across the drive aisle to a proposed sump inlet, which will collect the flow and convey it to the sub-surface LID/Detention chambers located in the east parking area. The detention chambers will outfall to the new trunk line and then into the existing storm system along the east side of the site Sub-basin E9: Sub-basin E9 is located at the central portion of the site and consists of 0.16 acres of proposed sidewalk and drive aisle. Drainage will sheet flow east across the drive aisle to a proposed sump inlet, which will collect the flow and convey it to the sub-surface LID/Detention chambers located in the east parking area. The detention chambers will outfall to the new trunk line and then into the existing storm system along the east side of the site. Sub-basin E10: Sub-basin E10 is located on the southern side of the site and consists of 0.21 acres of the proposed building. Roof drainage is directed to a proposed storm system, which will convey the flow to the sub-surface LID/Detention chambers located in the east parking area. The detention chambers will outfall to the new trunk line and then into the existing storm system along the east side of the site. Sub-basin E11: Sub-basin E11 is located at the southern side of the site and consists of 0.40 acres of proposed sidewalk and drive aisles. Drainage will sheet flow east across the drive aisle to a proposed sump inlet, which will collect the flow and convey it to the sub-surface Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado 5 |P a g e LID/Detention chambers located in the east parking area. The detention chambers will outfall to the new trunk line and then into the existing storm system along the east side of the site. Sub-basin S1: Sub-basin S1 consists of the northern courtyard area totally 0.21 acres. Drainage will be captured in a sump inlet then piped from the courtyard area to the proposed sub-surface LID/Detention chambers in the south parking area. The detention chambers will outfall to the existing storm system along the south side of the site which will then convey flow to public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin S2: Sub-basin S2 consists of the southern courtyard area including the pool area for a total area of 0.47 acres. Drainage will be captured in a sump inlet then piped from the courtyard area to the proposed sub-surface LID/Detention chambers in the south parking area. The detention chambers will outfall to the existing storm system along the south side of the site which will then convey flow to public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin S3: Sub-basin S3 is located at the southern portion of the site and consists of 0.76 acres of proposed parking area and sidewalks. Surface runoff from the parking area and sidewalks will be collected by four sump inlets near the corners of the basin and then conveyed to the sub-surface LID/Detention chambers. The detention chamber will outfall to the existing storm system along the south side of the site, conveying flow to public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin S3: Sub-basin S3 consists of the north-central portion of the proposed building and northern courtyard. Drainage from the building will be conveyed to the underground storm system will surface flows in the courtyard will be captured in a sump inlet and piped from the courtyard area to proposed sub-surface detention chambers in the south parking area. The detention chambers will outfall to the existing storm system along the south side of the site which will then convey flow to public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin W1: Sub-basin W1 is located at the southwestern side of the site and consists of 0.77 acres of proposed parking area, sidewalks, drive aisles, and landscaped area with a 10-foot concrete trail. Drainage will sheet flow west across the parking area and be conveyed north by curb and gutter to a proposed sump inlet then piped to sub-surface LID chambers in the west parking area before being conveyed to the detention pond. The detention pond will outfall through a piped system running though the landscaped area north of the building to the existing storm system on the east side of the site, which then conveys flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin W2: Sub-basin W2 is located at the southern side of the site and consists of 0.27 acres of the proposed building. Roof drainage is directed to a proposed storm drain system, which will convey the flow to the sub-surface LID chambers located in the west parking area before being piped to the detention pond. The detention pond will outfall through a piped system running though the landscaped area north of the building to the existing storm system on Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado 6 |P a g e the east side of the site, which then conveys flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin W3: Sub-basin W3 is located at the northern side of the site and consists of 0.50 acres of the proposed building. Roof drainage is directed to a proposed storm drain system, which will convey the flow to the sub-surface LID chambers located in the west parking area before being piped to the detention pond. The detention pond will outfall through a piped system running though the landscaped area north of the building to the existing storm system on the east side of the site, which then conveys flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin W4: Sub-basin W4 is located on the northern side of the site and consists of 0.10 acres of proposed sidewalk and a portion of the landscape buffer between the proposed and existing buildings. Drainage will flow west to a sump inlet where it will be collected then piped to the sub-surface LID chambers located in the west parking area before being piped to the detention pond. The detention pond will outfall through a piped system running though the landscaped area north of the building to the existing storm system on the east side of the site, which then conveys flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin W5: Sub-basin W5 is located at the southwestern side of the site and consists of 0.43 acres of proposed parking area, sidewalks, drive aisles, and landscaped area with a 10-foot concrete trail. The drainage will sheet flow west across the parking area and be conveyed north by curb and gutter to a proposed sump inlet then piped to the detention pond. The detention pond will outfall through a piped system running though the landscaped area north of the building to the existing storm system on the east side of the site, which then conveys flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. Sub-basin W6: Sub-basin W6 is located at the northwestern side of the site and consists of the existing adjacent retail building, west drive aisle, parking areas and detention pond. The drainage sheet flows southwest across the parking area and is conveyed to the detention pond via a concrete pan. The detention pond will outfall through a piped system running though the landscaped area north of the building to the existing storm system on the east side of the site, which then conveys flow to the public storm infrastructure in S College Ave. VIII. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES Overall Drainage Description The project will have a proposed building centrally located on the site. Drainage will be directed away from the building and conveyed to appropriate detention/water quality/LID facilities through a combination of surface flow and storm drains. Storm water will then be conveyed to existing outfall locations on the east side of the site and on to the existing storm drain in College Ave. Proposed Detention Facilities Within the Foothills Master Drainage Basin, detention is typically required for flows greater than the 2-yr historic rate. In the case of Edison, the proposed site will be less impervious Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado 7 |P a g e than the existing condition, so no new detention is required. Existing and proposed impervious exhibits documenting these conditions are included within Appendix B and summarized in Table 1 below. The existing detention volume currently provided will need to be maintained as part of the new project. Existing drainage patterns onsite will change, shifting where detention is provided along with the amount of area being detained in each location. To account for this, the total existing volume (63,250 cu. ft.) has been prorated based on the area that drains to them currently and then redistributed based on the new area that drains to each detention facility. Existing release rates to the ultimate outfall locations have been maintained. Impervious Area Summary Project Area 6.28 AC Existing Impervious Area/%5.36 AC 85.4% Proposed Impervious Area/%4.77 AC 76.0% Change in Impervious Area 0.59 AC Reduction Table 1: Impervious Area Summary Detention Summary Basin New Drainage Area (ac) Percent of total site Pro-Rated Detention Required (cu ft) Detention Provided (cu.ft.) East Basin 1.61 16.45%10,402 10,449 South Basin 1.44 14.71%9,303 9,315 West Basin 6.74 68.84%43,545 43,929 Total 9.79 100%63,250 63,693 Table 2: Detention Summary Proposed LID treatment The LID systems will provide treatment for at least 75% the proposed impervious areas. LID facilities have been sized by determining the 12-yr WQCV that is required for the treatment area and the number of installed chambers needed to provide that volume. The required and proposed chamber volumes are shown in Table 3 below. An FAA volume calculation that considers the WQ storm event flow rate and outflow rate through a partially clogged chamber bottom was completed to ensure that the isolator row volume is sufficient to ensure flows to not inadvertently back up into the rest of the system due to sedimentation in the isolator row. LID Volume Summary Basin Impervious Area (SF) Required Water Quality Volume (CF) Provided Water Quality Volume (CF) East 61,855 2,073 2,106 South 44,867 1,558 1,620 West 56,192 1,807 1,817 Total 162,914 5,438 5,543 Table 3: LID Volume Summary Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado 8 |P a g e An LID Exhibit is included in Appendix B to show the LID treatment areas as well as what is not being treated. Proposed Water Quality The project site currently does not have any water quality facilities. As noted above, significant portions of the new development will have water quality treatment provided via underground chambers. The portions that do not receive LID treatment will receive water quality treatment using Extended Detention in the new detention pond. The Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for the untreated areas was calculated using equation 7-1 in the FCSCM and a 40-hour drain time.Table 4 shows the required and provided water quality and volume for the proposed improvements that are not treated by LID facilities. See calculations included in Appendix B. Water Quality Summary Pond Area (SF) Required Water Quality Volume (CF) Provided Water Quality Volume (CF) West 35,284 833 18,374 Total 35,284 833 18,374 Table 4: Water Quality Summary Per discussions with City staff, it has been determined that the relatively small required water quality volume required by the Edison project should be augmented in order to provide water quality treatment for impervious areas that drain to the detention pond from the north. In order to achieve this, an outlet structure will be constructed at the detention pond outfall. The outlet structure will be designed so that a significant amount of the provided detention volume will be held for the 40-hr drain time. In order to avoid excessive ponding in parking areas, the WQ volume will be determined by matching the top of the water quality plate to the existing elevation where water enters the pond. All storm events that exceed this volume will be released at the existing 100-yr rate. A drainage easement encompassing the entire footprint of the underground systems and private storm lines will be dedicated to the City of Fort Collins. The proposed underground systems are placed in a location such that it is accessible for inspections and maintenance. IX.DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA The Project was designed to conform to the requirements outlined in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) and the latest Mile High Flood District (MHFD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM). A Four Step Process was implemented for the drainage design and protection of receiving water bodies: Step 1 - Runoff Reduction Practices Runoff is routed through vegetated buffers via sheet flow wherever reasonably possible to increase time of concentration and promote infiltration. By Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious Areas (MDCIA), peak runoff volumes and pollutant loads are reduced. Step 2 – Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to treat the WQCV Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado 9 |P a g e A LID underground system is proposed that will provide treatment for the WQCV with slow release and/or infiltration. Step 3 – Stabilizing Streams Stream stabilization was considered but not implemented due to open channels being minimized for site accessibility. Step 4 – Implementing Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs Site specific controls that will be implemented include locating material storage away from storm drainage facilities and installing construction fencing around the existing regional pond to protect areas that should not be compacted or disturbed. The Rational Method was used for all subbasins with areas less than 90 acres. Per the FCSCM, the storm frequencies used to analyze the drainage design were the 2-year and the 100-year storms. The FCSCM Tables 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3 were utilized to determine the stormwater runoff coefficients. Rainfall intensities used for the rational calculations were obtained from Table 3.4-1 in the FCSCM. Rainfall depths are shown in Table 3 below. One-Hour Rainfall Depths 2 YR 0.82 inches 100 YR 2.86 inches Table 3: One-hour Rainfall Depths Summary X.VARIANCE REQUESTS No variances are requested at this time. XI.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 has been provided as a separate document. XII. CONCLUSION The Edison at University Plaza site is designed to conform to the criteria in the FCSCM and USDCM. The proposed underground system provides LID and is designed to treat the water quality for the proposed impervious areas within the Project. Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Edison at University Plaza – Fort Collins, Colorado 10 |P a g e X. REFERENCES City of Fort Collins Flood Maps, City of Fort Collins GIS, Accessed November 5, 2024, at <https://gisweb.fcgov.com/HTML5Viewer/Index.html?viewer=FCMaps&LayerTheme=flo odplains> Custom Soil Resource Report, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. November 5, 2024. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, December 2018. National Flood Hazard Layer Firmette, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Accessed November 5, 2024. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Mile High Flood District, Updated March 2024. Appendix A – Referenced Documents Date: Included N/A Include name of project, date, name of design engineer Statement of compliance with the manual FP Final copies required to be stamped and signed by Colorado licensed PE Section, Township, Range Vicinity Map Roadways within and adjacent to site Names of surrounding developments Master Drainage Basin where site is located Existing stormwater drainage facilities and drainage patterns Existing irrigation facilities (if applicable) Existing land uses Existing ground cover and/or vegetation type Existing soils info Reference/discussion regarding pertinent Master Drainage Basin and any improvements planned for the area General basin characteristics Existing and planned land uses within the Master Drainage Basin Irrigation facilities that influence or are influenced by the local drainage (if applicable) Refer to Floodplain Checklists for requirements Proposed land uses and/or project summary Site acreage Discussion of proposed drainage plan, specific details that may include drainage issues at specific design points Conveyance of minor and major stormwater systems to an existing stormwater conveyance Detention basin and outlet design; summary table for each detention basin WQCV design LID systems and design Maintenance access to the drainage facilities Easements/tracts for drainage purposes Reference to any previous drainage studies for the area Four‐Step process outlined and discussed Using CoFC rainfall data for 2‐yr and 100‐yr recurrence intervals Using proper design storm recurrences (2‐yr and 100‐yr) Runoff calculation method Detention calculation method FP Street Capacity discussion FP Inlet Capacity discussion PDP and FP Drainage Report Checklist Project Name: General Location & Existing Site Info Master Drainage Basin Info Floodplain Information Cover Letter Project Description Proposed Drainage Facilities Drainage Design Criteria Page 1 of 2 Date: Included N/A PDP and FP Drainage Report Checklist Project Name: FP Pipe network models discussion FP Swale or channel sizing/capacity discussion FP Emergency spillway sizing discussion Included variance request form Statement of compliance with all erosion control materials that are to be provided with final plans FP Separate Erosion Control Report and Plans submitted Statement of compliance with manual, master drainage plans, floodplain regs, other state/federal regs Summary conclusion of drainage concept and effectiveness of design Referenced criteria, master plans, technical info Hydologic calculations: historic and developed runoff Detention basin volume calculations SDI data spreadsheet (meets detention drain time criteria) SWMM models (if applicable) LID exhibit and calculations Floodplain maps Soil survey information FP Street capacity FP Inlet sizing and capacity FP Storm pipe network models FP Erosion protection (i.e. riprap calculations) FP Swale or channel sizing FP Outlet structure design FP Spillway design Drainage map Conclusion References Appendices Variance Requests Erosion Control Page 2 of 2 18,056 3,009.3 FCMaps This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. City of Fort Collins - GIS 2,286.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet2,286.001,143.00 Notes Legend 13,719 FEMA Floodplain FEMA High Risk - Floodway FEMA High Risk - 100 Year FEMA Moderate Risk - 100 / 500 Year City Floodplains City High Risk - Floodway City High Risk - 100 Year City Moderate Risk - 100 Year City Limits National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 9/25/2025 at 2:03 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or 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, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 105°5'2"W 40°33'38"N 105°4'25"W 40°33'11"N Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023 United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Larimer County Area, ColoradoNatural Resources Conservation Service September 25, 2025 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/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=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_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 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................13 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................13 References............................................................................................................15 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 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 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 44 8 9 4 4 0 44 8 9 4 7 0 44 8 9 5 0 0 44 8 9 5 3 0 44 8 9 5 6 0 44 8 9 5 9 0 44 8 9 6 2 0 44 8 9 4 4 0 44 8 9 4 7 0 44 8 9 5 0 0 44 8 9 5 3 0 44 8 9 5 6 0 44 8 9 5 9 0 44 8 9 6 2 0 493210 493240 493270 493300 493330 493360 493390 493420 493450 493480 493510 493210 493240 493270 493300 493330 493360 493390 493420 493450 493480 493510 40° 33' 26'' N 10 5 ° 4 ' 4 9 ' ' W 40° 33' 26'' N 10 5 ° 4 ' 3 5 ' ' W 40° 33' 20'' N 10 5 ° 4 ' 4 9 ' ' W 40° 33' 20'' N 10 5 ° 4 ' 3 5 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 20 40 80 120 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,450 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 19, Aug 29, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 2, 2021—Aug 25, 2021 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. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 73 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 7.5 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 7.5 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 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. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Larimer County Area, Colorado 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2tlng Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 135 to 152 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Typical profile Ap - 0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: clay loam Bk1 - 31 to 47 inches: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:7 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:0.5 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R067BY042CO - Clayey Plains Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 14 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 15 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_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/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 16 CTL|Thompson, Inc. Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Glenwood Springs, Pueblo, Summit County – Colorado Cheyenne, Wyoming and Bozeman, Montana EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA 2211 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER FUTURE REPLAT 2 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Prepared for: TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 211 North Stadium Boulevard, Suite 211 Columbia, MO 65203 Attention: Otto Maly Bob Turner Bryce Willaby Andy Reese Project No. FC11,735.000-125-R1 October 28, 2025 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Table of Contents TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. i of i EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 1 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................. 4 INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................................................... 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 5 Clay and Sand ........................................................................................................................ 5 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................... 6 Seismicity ............................................................................................................................... 6 GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................... 6 Expansive and Compressible Soils ......................................................................................... 7 SITE PREPARATION ................................................................................................................ 9 Demolition .............................................................................................................................. 9 Excavation .............................................................................................................................10 Fill and Backfill ......................................................................................................................11 Utilities ...................................................................................................................................11 Stabilization ...........................................................................................................................12 FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................................12 FLOOR SYSTEMS AND SLABS-ON-GRADE...........................................................................14 Slabs-On-Grade ....................................................................................................................14 Exterior Flatwork....................................................................................................................15 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE ......................................................................................................16 PAVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................16 CONCRETE ..............................................................................................................................19 SURFACE DRAINAGE .............................................................................................................20 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................22 GEOTECHNICAL RISK ............................................................................................................22 LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................................22 FIG. 1 – LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGS. 2 AND 3 – FOUNDATION WALL DRAINS APPENDIX A – SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND TABLE B-I APPENDIX C – FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT MATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDLEINES TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 1 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 SCOPE This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation for the new Edison at University Plaza apartment project planned at 2211 South College Avenue in Fort Collins, Colo- rado (Fig. 1). The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions to pro- vide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the project. The scope was de- scribed in our Service Agreement No. FC-25-0092 rev. 1 dated April 3, 2025. Our scope did not include evaluation of the property for the presence of potentially hazardous materials (Phase I ESA). This report was prepared based on our understanding of the proposed development, subsurface conditions found in exploratory borings, results of field and laboratory tests, engi- neering analysis, and our experience. It includes our opinions and recommendations for design criteria and construction details for foundations, floor systems, slabs-on-grade, pavements and drainage. The report was prepared for the exclusive use of TKG Management, Inc. and team to be used in design and construction of the project. Changes to the construction may require revi- sion of this report and the recommended design criteria. A summary of our conclusions and rec- ommendations follows, with more detailed design criteria presented within the report. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. An existing shopping center occupies the site, and has associated buried utilities, pavements, and landscaping. The existing construction will be demolished. Dem- olition should include removal of all foundation elements, grade beams, slabs, utilities, pavements, and debris. Excavations resulting from demolition should be backfilled with moisture conditioned, compacted fill. If the fill/backfill is poorly compacted or remains from the previous development, there will be risk of settle- ment for new foundations, slabs and pavements. 2. Strata found in the borings consisted of slightly sandy to sandy clay with varying amounts of silt, and layers of slightly silty, gravelly sand. The existing soils were overlain by 5 to 6 inches of asphalt and 1 to 2 inches of roadbase. Bedrock was not encountered to the maximum explored depth of 30 feet. Testing indicates the clay is low swelling, and the sand is judged to be non-expansive. We may have encountered some fill/backfill materials present at the ground surface in some borings, but this was difficult to discern. 3. Groundwater was measured at depths of about 11 to 18 feet below existing grades or approximate elevations of 5007 to 5010 feet. We do not anticipate groundwater will affect the planned surface construction. Deep utility trenches TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 2 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 may encounter water and require stabilization. Groundwater levels may fluctuate seasonally and rise in response to precipitation, landscape irrigation and changes in land-use. 4. The presence of expansive soils constitutes a geologic hazard. We estimate total potential ground heave of up to about 1 inch with wetting. The soils may also be considered compressible upon increases in effective pressures caused by new foundations and improvements. There is risk that slabs-on-grade, pavements and foundations may experience heave or settlement, and subsequent damage. The risk of foundation and slab movements can be mitigated, but not eliminated, by proper design, construction, and maintenance procedures. We believe the rec- ommendations presented in this report will help to mitigate risk of damage; they will not eliminate that risk. The builder should understand that slabs-on-grade and, in some instances, foundations, may be affected by soil movements. 5. Our investigation indicates low swelling, medium stiff to stiff clays and medium dense sands are present at depths likely to influence shallow foundations. We judge it is suitable to construct the proposed apartment building on a shallow foundation system, such as footings/pads or mats, using a maximum allowable soil pressure of 2000 psf. Footings should be constructed on firm, undisturbed natural soils or new, moisture conditioned and compacted fill. Footings should not be constructed on pre-existing fill/backfill related to the existing construction or there will be higher risk of settlement. If any soft/loose soils exposed in foun- dation excavations or are the result of construction, they should be removed and recompacted or stabilized. Design and construction criteria are presented in the report. It is likely that vibropier ground improvement techniques can be imple- mented at this site to double the maximum allowable soil pressure. 6. We estimate about 1 inch of potential movements for slab-on-grade floors con- structed on firm, natural soils or new, well-compacted fill. Pre-existing fill/backfill or excessive post-construction wetting can cause movements exceeding 1 inch. Slab floors should only be used if risk of movements and damage are tolerable. Otherwise, a structurally supported floor system should be used. Exterior flatwork is usually constructed as slabs-on-grade may heave and crack. 7. Pavement subgrade consists of low swelling sandy clay with moderate to high plasticity, and fill/backfill related to pre-existing conditions. These present risk of heave and settlement, respectively. Pavements should be constructed on firm natural soils or well-compacted fill. We recommend proof-rolling to disclose soft/loose areas. Full-depth sections may consist of 5.5 or 6.5 inches of asphalt for parking and access drives/fire lanes, respectively, or equivalent composite sections. Discussions are presented in the report. 8. We recommend a perimeter drain system if crawl spaces will be constructed be- neath the main floor level (Figs. 2 and 3). Control of surface and subsurface drainage will be critical to the performance of foundations, slabs-on-grade, pave- ments and other improvements. Overall surface drainage should be designed, constructed, and maintained to provide rapid removal of runoff away from the building and off pavements and flatwork. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to the building or in pavement or flatwork areas. Conservative irrigation practices should be employed to reduce the risk of subsurface wetting. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 3 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 9. The design and construction criteria for foundations and floor system alternatives in this report were compiled with the expectation that all other recommendations presented related to surface drainage, landscaping irrigation, etc. will be incorpo- rated into the project and that the owner will maintain the structure, use prudent irrigation practices and maintain surface drainage. It is critical that all recommen- dations in this report are followed. SITE CONDITIONS The site contains approximately 6.1 acres located at 2211 South College Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado (Photo 1 and Figure 1). The property is currently occupied by a one to two- story shopping center building with no below-grade areas, containing 11 units totaling 170,119 square feet. The shopping center was built in 1964 and remodeled in 2021. It is served by bur- ied utilities and has surface pavements on the west, south and east sides of the building. The proposed apartment building coincides with the south portion of the shopping center building, except the new footprint is larger. The existing building, utilities, pavements and other construc- tion will be demolished. The site is bordered by a railroad to the west, and Colorado State Uni- versity’s campus is farther west. The surrounding terrain is densely developed with residential, commercial, and mixed-use developments. The Larimer County Canal No. 2 and New Mercer Ditch are present about ⅓ and ½-mile west, respectively, and a pond is about ¼-mile south- west. The ground surface slopes gently to the southeast. Photo 1 – Google Earth© Aerial Site Photo, October 2024. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 4 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The new apartment building will be a four-story, wood-framed structure with no below- grade areas other than elevator/stairwell cores. Relatively light foundation loads are expected. A pool amenity will be built on the south side of the building, and new parking lots and access drives will be installed to the east, west, and south. Conceptual plans provided to us indicate the project will consist of construction of a four- story apartment building covering most of the site, wrapped around the pool amenity to the south and a new asphalt parking lot on the east, west, and south sides of the new building (Fig- ure 1). We understand that no below-grade areas are planned other than elevator/stairwell cores, and relatively minor cut and fill grading of less than 5 feet will be necessary to achieve construction grades. We anticipate light foundation loads for the wood-framed structure. INVESTIGATION We investigated subsurface conditions between September 10 and 16, 2025 by drilling and sampling 16 exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. Ten bor- ings were located within or near the building footprint (TH-1 through TH-10), and six borings were drilled in future pavement areas (P-1 through P-6). Boring locations and elevations were surveyed by your team. Prior to drilling, we contacted the Utility Notification Center of Colorado and local sewer and water districts to mark the presence of buried, public utilities. A private util- ity locator was also retained. The borings were drilled to depths of 10 to 30 feet using 4-inch diameter, continuous- flight solid-stem auger and a truck-mounted CME-45 drill rig. We obtained samples at approxi- mate 1- to 5-foot intervals using 2.5-inch diameter (O.D.) modified California barrel samplers driven by blows of an automatic 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. Our field representatives were present to observe drilling, log the strata encountered and obtain samples. Graphical sum- mary logs of the exploratory borings, including results of field penetration resistance tests and a portion of laboratory test data, are presented on Appendix A. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 5 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 Samples were returned to our laboratory where they were examined, classified, and as- signed testing. Laboratory tests included moisture content, dry density, particle-size analysis (gradation and percent passing No. 200 sieve), Atterberg limits, unconfined compression, swell- consolidation, Hveem stabilometer (R-value), and water-soluble sulfate concentration. Most of the swell-consolidation tests were performed by wetting the samples under approximate over- burden pressure (the pressure exerted by the overlying soils). A standard pavement load of 150 psf was used for all swell-consolidation tests performed in the pavement borings. Results of la- boratory tests are presented in Appendix B and summarized on Table B-I. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Strata encountered in the exploratory borings consisted of slightly sandy to sandy clay with varying amounts of silt, and layers of slightly silty, gravelly sand. Bedrock was not encoun- tered to the maximum explored depth of 30 feet. We may have encountered some fill/backfill materials present at the ground surface in some borings, but this was difficult to discern. Our borings penetrated 5 to 6 inches of asphalt at the ground surface with 1 to 2 inches of base course below. Some pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils are described in the fol- lowing paragraphs. Clay and Sand The predominant soil type was slightly sandy to sandy clay with varying amounts of silt, and less amounts of gravel. The clay had an olive-brown to grayish-brown color in the upper 5 to 9 feet, and the color changed to reddish-brown in the deeper samples. The clay was medium stiff to very stiff based on field penetration resistance tests. Ten clay samples did not swell and fourteen swelled 0.1 to 1.9 percent when wetted. Two clay samples which were obtained below groundwater had unconfined compressive strengths of about 800 and 2,240 psf. Twelve sam- ples contained 48 to 87 percent silt- and clay-sized particles and one had 1 percent gravel. Eleven of these samples exhibited low to high plasticity with liquid limits of 29 to 49 and plastic- ity indices of 12 to 32. The overburden soils contained less amounts of slightly silty, slightly gravelly to gravelly sand, with layers identified in seven of the borings. The sand was loose to medium dense. Three sand samples contained 7 to 11 percent fines particles and two had 9 and 11 percent gravel (retained on No. 4 sieve). TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 6 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered during drilling of the 10 building borings at depths of about 11 to 18 feet below existing grades. When the test holes were checked after drilling on September 22, 2025, water was measured in seven borings at depths of about 11 to 15 feet or approximate elevations 5007 to 5010 feet. Groundwater is not expected to influence surface construction. Groundwater levels may fluctuate seasonally and rise in response to precipitation, landscape irrigation and changes in land-use. Seismicity According to the USGS, Colorado’s Front Range and eastern plains are considered low seismic hazard zones. The earthquake hazard exhibits higher risk in western Colorado com- pared to other parts of the state. The Denver Metropolitan area has experienced earthquakes within the past 100 years, shown to be related to deep drilling, liquid injection, and oil/gas ex- traction. Naturally occurring earthquakes along faults due to tectonic shifts are rare in this area. The soil and bedrock at this site are not expected to respond unusually to seismic activ- ity. Based on the International Building and Residential Codes and the results of our investiga- tion, we judge a Seismic Site Classification of D is appropriate. The subsurface conditions indi- cate nil susceptibility to liquefaction from a materials and groundwater perspective. GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The Geologic map of the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley area, Front Range Urban Corri- dor, Colorado (Colton, R.B., 1978) indicates the site is underlain primarily by glacial or intergla- cial Slocum Alluvium of Illinoian- or Pleistocene-Age. The deposit is composed primarily of red- dish clay and silt, and brown to white cobble boulder gravel. The soils encountered in the bor- ings generally conform to the referenced mapping. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 7 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 Photo 2 – Snippet of Geologic map of the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley area, Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado (Colton, R.B., 1978) Geologic hazards and geotechnical concerns include the presence of undocumented fill/backfill related to existing construction, and expansive and compressible soils. We noted no geologic hazards or geotechnical concerns that would preclude the proposed development. We believe potential hazards can be mitigated with proper engineering, design, and construction practices, as discussed in this report. Expansive and Compressible Soils Colorado is a challenging location to practice geotechnical engineering. The climate is relatively dry, and the near-surface soils are typically dry and comparatively stiff. These soils and related sedimentary bedrock formations tend to react to changes in moisture content. Some of the soils and bedrock swell as they increase in moisture and are collectively referred to as ex- pansive soils. Other soils can compress significantly upon wetting and are identified as com- pressible or collapsible soils. Much of the land available for development east of the Front TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 8 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 Range is underlain by expansive clay or claystone bedrock near the surface. The soils that ex- hibit collapsible behavior are more likely west of the Continental Divide; however, both types of soils occur throughout the state. Covering the ground with buildings, streets, driveways, parking lots, etc., coupled with lawn irrigation and changing drainage patterns, leads to an increase in subsurface moisture conditions. As a result, some soil movement is inevitable. It is critical that all recommendations in this report are followed to increase the chances that the foundations and slabs-on-grade will perform satisfactorily. Owners and/or property managers must assume responsibility for main- taining structures and use appropriate practices regarding drainage and landscaping. Low swelling, but expansive soils, are present at this site at depths likely to influence shallow foundations, floor slabs, pavements, and other surface improvements. The presence of expansive soils constitutes a geologic hazard. While this is the primary hazard at our test holes, the majority of the central portion of the site is occupied by an existing shopping center. The demolition and removal is likely to create excavations and backfill operations in the central por- tion, while the outer portions are likely to be relatively undisturbed below removal of surface pavements and utilities. This creates a non-uniform prism of materials across the structure. Care should be taken in creating well-compacted conditions near the surface as much as possi- ble. The only way to reduce risk is to perform sub-excavation to uniform depth across the foot- print (plus 5 feet laterally) extending to the bottom of the lowest demolition elevation. The deeper soil deposits are likely stable and at equilibrium considering the presence and age of the existing development. The soils and/or backfill may also be considered compressible under increases in effec- tive pressures caused by new foundations and improvements. There is risk that ground heave or settlement will damage slabs-on-grade and foundations. The risks can be mitigated, but not eliminated, by proper design, construction, and maintenance procedures. We believe the rec- ommendations in this report will help reduce risk of foundation and/or slab damage; they will not eliminate risk. The owner should understand that improvements may be affected by movement of the subsoils. Slab-on-grade and, in some instances, foundations may be affected. Mainte- nance and prudent irrigation practices will be required to reduce risk. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 9 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 Based on the subsurface profiles, swell-consolidation test results and our experience, we calculated the potential heave at the proposed ground surface for the building and surround- ing parking areas. The analysis involves dividing the soil profile into layers and modeling the heave of each layer from representative swell tests. We calculated potential ground heave of up to about 1 inch or less. It is not certain whether the estimated heave will occur, and variations from our estimates should be anticipated. We judge that while heave may affect lightly loaded slabs and pavements, settlement is the likely mode of soil movement for the more heavily loaded foundations at this site. This settlement risk cannot be eliminated. The risk of settlement increases if any pre-existing fill/backfill is left in-place, or if poorly compacted materials are pre- sent. Soft/loose soils were encountered in many of the exploratory borings at various depths both above and near/below groundwater, or may be the results of the demolition and removal of foundations and existing items. There is risk of settlement and associated distress to improve- ments where structures are constructed over soft/loose soils. Soft/loose soils should be re- moved and replaced or stabilized. SITE PREPARATION Demolition The existing shopping center and associated construction will be demolished. Demolition should include the removal of all existing structural members (foundations, foundation walls, grade beams, and floor slabs), utilities, exterior flatwork, pavement, debris, and backfill from the site. Foundations should be completely removed, or cut at least 3 feet below construction grades if to be abandoned. If foundations or other elements are left in-place closer to construc- tion grades, they may create point-loads if settlement occurs. Excavations resulting from removal should be backfilled with clean, moisture conditioned and compacted fill capable of supporting the proposed loads. It is ideal to create relatively uni- form excavations across the building foundation to avoid creating a differential-fill condition, which presents risk of differential settlement. Unless the excavation for the new building will be concurrent with removal of the existing structure, the excavation should be backfilled with mois- TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 10 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 ture conditioned, compacted fill. Existing fill should be removed down to natural soils. New foot- ings and slabs-on-grade must not be constructed on existing fill/backfill related to the previous construction. Clean portions of the fill (if any) can be reused and reworked as moisture conditioned, compacted fill. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit, we recommend you have screening tests performed to determine if the existing buildings contains asbestos or other hazards. Similarly, the existing fill/backfill may contain contaminated materials from the previous structures and util- ities. If these materials are spread across the site and into the soil, the project costs could in- crease tremendously. An environmental specialist should be consulted about screening tests on this material and debris. We can assist with this, if desired. Demolition may include removal of large trees with root-bulbs of which removal may cause disturbance to the foundation soils. Tree roots larger than about 2 inches in diameter should be removed, as well as any topsoil and vegetation/organics. Excavation We believe the soils penetrated by our exploratory borings can be excavated with typical heavy-duty equipment. We recommend the owner and the contractor become familiar with ap- plicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Based on our in- vestigation and OSHA standards, we anticipate the clayey soils will classify as Type B soils and the sand soils will classify as Type C soils based on OSHA Standards governing excavations published in 29 CFR, Part 1926. Type B and C soils require maximum side slope inclinations of 1:1 and 1½:1 (horizontal:vertical) for temporary excavations in dry conditions. Flatter slopes will be required below groundwater or if any seepage is present. Excavations should be made care- fully to avoid undermining or compromising the stability of adjacent foundations and improve- ments, such as those along the north side. Excavation slopes specified by OSHA are dependent upon soil types and groundwater conditions encountered. The contractor’s “competent person” is required to identify the soils en- countered in the excavations and refer to OSHA standards to determine appropriate slopes. Stockpiles of soils and equipment should not be placed within a horizontal distance equal to TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 11 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 one-half the excavation depth, from the edge of the excavation. A professional engineer should design excavations deeper than 20 feet, if any. Fill and Backfill The on-site soils are suitable for reuse as new fill from a geotechnical standpoint, pro- vided they are free of debris, vegetation/organics and other deleterious materials. Soil particles larger than about 3 inches in diameter should not be used for fill unless broken down. Imported fill (if any) should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, less than 80 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, a liquid limit less than 40 and a plasticity index less than 20. Potential fill materi- als should be submitted to our office for approval prior to import. We have no objection to recy- cling the existing concrete and asphalt, and mixing into new fills, provided the particles are 3- inch minus. Prior to fill placement, debris, organics/vegetation and deleterious materials should be substantially removed from areas to receive fill. The ground surface should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to the criteria below. Subse- quent fill should be placed in thin (8 inches or less) loose lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698). The placement and compaction of fill and backfill should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm during construction. Our experience indicates fill and backfill can settle, even if properly compacted to criteria provided above. Factors that influence the amount of settlement are depth of fill, material type, degree of compaction, amount of wetting and time. The degree of compression of properly com- pacted fill under its own weight may be about 1 to 2 percent of the fill depth. Any improvements placed over backfill should be designed to accommodate movement. Utilities Water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines are often constructed beneath slabs and pavements. Compaction of utility trench backfill can have a significant effect on the life and ser- viceability of floor slabs, pavements and exterior flatwork. Our experience indicates use of self- propelled compactors results in more reliable performance compared to fill compacted by an at- TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 12 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 tachment on a backhoe or trackhoe. The upper portion of the trenches should be widened to al- low the use of a self-propelled compactor. During construction, careful attention should be paid to compaction at curb lines and around manholes and water valves. Special attention should be paid to backfill placed adjacent to manholes as we have ob- served conditions where settlement in excess of 1 percent has occurred after completion of con- struction. Flowable fill may be considered at critical utility crossings where it would be difficult to achieve adequate compaction. Based on the City of Denver’s specifications, utility trench back- fill should be moistened between 1 and 3 percent above optimum and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density for clay, and moistened to within 2 percent of optimum and compacted to 95 percent of modified Proctor dry density for sand. The placement and compaction of utility trench backfill should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm during construction. Stabilization Soft/loose soils in excavations should be removed or stabilized. Excavations of soft/loose soils should be filled with moisture conditioned and compacted fill. The excavation bottoms can likely be stabilized by crowding 1 to 3-inch crushed rock into the soil until firm. Ac- ceptable rock materials include, but are not limited to, No. 2 and No. 57 rock. Crushed rock on a layer of geosynthetic gride or woven fabric can also be used, which should reduce the amount of aggregate needed to stabilize the subgrade. FOUNDATIONS Our investigation indicates low swelling, medium stiff to stiff clays and medium dense sands are present at depths likely to influence shallow foundations. We judge it is suitable to construct the proposed apartment building on a shallow foundation system, such as foot- ings/pads or mats, using a maximum allowable soil pressure of 1650 psf. This should result in potential settlements of about 1 inch. It is likely that vibropier ground improvement techniques can be implemented at this site to double the maximum allowable soil pressure and reduce po- tential settlements. This technique is gaining popularity in the Denver-Metro area to save costs and reduce risks. We can discuss this further if it may be beneficial to the project. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 13 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 Foundations should be constructed on firm, undisturbed natural soils or new, moisture conditioned and compacted fill. They should not be constructed on pre-existing fill/backfill re- lated to the existing construction or there will be higher risk of settlement. When foundation loading information becomes available, we should be provided with it in order to perform a set- tlement analysis. Design and construction criteria are presented below. The criteria presented below were developed from analysis of field and laboratory data and our experience warrantor (if any) that may impose additional design and installation requirements. 1. Footings, pads and/or mats should be constructed on firm, undisturbed natural soils or new, well-compacted fill. They should not be constructed on pre-existing fill/backfill, and preferably not over differential amounts of fill across the footprint. Where soils are disturbed during the excavation or forming process, or if any loose/soft soils are encountered, the soils should be removed and re-compacted to the criteria presented in Fill and Backfill, or stabilized prior to placing con- crete. 2. Foundations should be designed for a maximum allowable soil pressure of 1650 psf. Lateral earth pressures can be calculated based on equivalent fluid density using 50 pcf for the active case. For the at-rest case, where essentially no lateral movement is allowed, we suggest using 75 pcf. Footing translation can be resisted using an equivalent fluid density of 315 pcf for the passive case, pro- vided backfill is similar to the site soils, is well-compacted and remains in place. The coefficient of friction for sliding may be taken as 0.30. These values have not been factored. The structural engineer should apply appropriate factors of safety in design. 3. Void form is not required for expansive soil reasons at this site. 4. Footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. Foundations for isolated columns should have minimum dimensions of 24 inches by 24 inches. Larger sizes may be required depending upon the loads and structural system used, and design performed by the structural engineer. 5. Foundation walls should be well-reinforced. We recommend reinforcement suffi- cient to span an unsupported distance of at least 10 feet or the distance between pads, whichever is greater. Reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer considering lateral earth pressure on wall performance. 6. Exterior foundations must be protected from frost action. Normally, 3 feet of frost cover is assumed in the area. 7. The completed foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of our firm to confirm subsurface conditions are as anticipated from our borings. Our representative should observe and test moisture and compaction of fill and backfill placed below foundations. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 14 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 8. Excessive wetting of foundation soils during and after construction can cause heave and/or softening and settlement of foundation soils and result in footing movements. Proper surface drainage around the building and pavements is criti- cal to control wetting. The utility service trenches should be braced or adequately sloped away from the footings to reduce the risk of undermining the footings. Any voids should be backfilled with compacted on-site soils, squeegee, or “flowable fill” to reduce settlements. FLOOR SYSTEMS AND SLABS-ON-GRADE Slabs-On-Grade We estimate about 1 inch of potential movements for slab-on-grade floors constructed on firm, natural soils or new, well-compacted fill. Pre-existing fill/backfill or excessive post-con- struction wetting can cause movements exceeding 1 inch. Conventional slab-on-grade floors are suitable provided risk of heave and distress is acceptable to the owner. There will likely be distress to sensitive finishes. If floor movements cannot be tolerated, a structurally supported floor system should be used. It is imperative that foundations, finishes and other items are iso- lated from slab floors to prevent transferring slab movements to the structure. For a mat founda- tion, the foundation and floor system are integral, and it should perform better than a conven- tional slab-on-grade floor. Where conventional slabs-on-grade are used and the owner(s) accepts risk, we recom- mend the following design and construction criteria. These recommendations will not prevent movement. Rather, they tend to reduce damage if movement occurs. 1. Slabs should be separated from foundations, exterior walls and interior bearing members with a slip joint that allows free vertical movement of the slabs. This de- tail can reduce cracking if movement of the slab occurs. 2. Slabs should be placed directly on exposed subsoils or properly moisture condi- tioned, compacted fill. The 2021 International Building Code (IBC) requires a va- por retarder be placed between the base course or subgrade soils and the con- crete slab-on-grade floor. The merits of installation of a vapor retarder below floor slabs depend on the sensitivity of floor coverings and building use to moisture. A properly installed vapor retarder (6 mil minimum, 10 mil for increased durability) is more beneficial below concrete slab-on-grade floors where floor coverings, painted floor surfaces or products stored on the floor will be sensitive to moisture. The vapor retarder is most effective when concrete is placed directly on top of it, rather than placing a sand or gravel leveling course between the vapor retarder and the floor slab. The placement of concrete on the vapor retarder may increase TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 15 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 the risk of shrinkage cracking and curling. Use of concrete with reduced shrink- age characteristics including minimized water content, maximized coarse aggre- gate content, and reasonably low slump will reduce the risk of shrinkage cracking and curling. Considerations and recommendations for the installation of vapor re- tarders below concrete slabs are outlined in Section 5.2.3.2 of the 2015 report of American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 302, “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction (ACI 302.1R-15)”. 3. Use of slab-supported partition walls should be minimized. If slab-bearing parti- tions are used, they should be designed and constructed with a minimum 2 inches space to allow for slab movement. Differential slab movements may cause cracking of partition walls. If the void is provided at the top of partitions, the connection between slab-supported partitions and foundation-supported walls should be detailed to allow differential movement. Doorways, wall partitions per- pendicular to the exterior wall or walls supported by foundations should be de- tailed to allow for vertical movement. Interior perimeter framing and finishing should not extend onto slabs-on-grade, or if necessary, should be detailed to al- low for movement. 4. Underslab plumbing (if any) should be pressure tested for leaks prior to slab con- struction and be provided with flexible couplings. Pressurized water supply lines should be brought above the floors as quickly as possible. 5. Plumbing and utilities that pass through the slabs should be isolated from the slabs and constructed with flexible couplings. Utilities, as well as electrical and mechanical equipment should be constructed with sufficient flexibility to allow for movement. 6. Mechanical systems supported by the slabs should be provided with flexible con- nections capable of at least 2 inches of movement. 7. Exterior flatwork and sidewalks should be separated from the structures. These slabs should be detailed to function as independent units. Movement of these slabs should not be transmitted to the foundations of the structures. 8. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) recommends frequent control joints be provided in slabs to reduce problems associated with shrinkage cracking and curling. To reduce curling, the concrete mix should have a high aggregate con- tent and a low slump. If desired, a shrinkage compensating admixture could be added to the concrete to reduce the risk of shrinkage cracking. We can perform a mix design or assist the design team in selecting a pre-existing mix. Exterior Flatwork We recommend exterior flatwork and sidewalks be isolated from foundations to reduce the risk of transferring heave, settlement or freeze-thaw movement to the structure. One alterna- tive would be to construct the inner edges of the flatwork on haunches or steel angles bolted to the foundation walls and detailing the connections such that movement will cause less distress TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 16 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 to the building, rather than tying the slabs directly into the building foundation. Construction on haunches or steel angles and reinforcing the sidewalks and other exterior flatwork will reduce the potential for differential settlement and better allow them to span across wall backfill. Fre- quent control joints should be provided to reduce problems associated with shrinkage. Panels that are approximately square perform better than rectangular areas. SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE Water from surface irrigation landscaping frequently flows through relatively permeable backfill placed adjacent to buildings and collects on the surface of less permeable soils occur- ring at the bottom of foundation excavations. This process can cause wet or moist crawl space conditions after construction. Foundation drains are typically not installed for buildings where no below-grade con- struction is planned. Installation of these drains can help control accumulation of moisture around footings and help to control excessive wetting. Drains do not eliminate wetting. Installa- tion of drains would be a benefit in areas where the ground surface next to the buildings will not be paved. If a structural floor and crawl space floor system is selected, a drain system should be considered around the perimeter. Typical crawl space drain details are presented on Figs. 2 and 3. PAVEMENTS Pavement areas will be used for automobile parking, access drives and truck/fire lanes. We investigated the subgrade conditions by obtaining shallow drive samples and disturbed bulk samples from the auger cuttings within the upper 5 feet in all pavement borings (P-1 through P- 6). We found low swelling sandy clay subgrade. Six drive samples of the clay swelled up to 1.9 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 150 psf. Clayey soils have relatively poor pavement support characteristics. Pavements can experience heave due to swelling clay and/or settlement caused by wetting or consolidation of fill/backfill soils or softening subgrade. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 17 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 The samples were tested to classify the pavement subgrade and evaluate index proper- ties for the soils that will influence pavement design. The samples classified as A-7-6 soils based on criteria established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Two composite samples, S-1 and S-2, were collected from borings P1 to P-3 and P-4 to P-6, respectively. The bulk samples were subjected R-Value tests (ASTM D2844/D2844M-18) to determine a design support value for the subgrade soils. The design R-Value value was de- termined to be 32 and 28, respectively. We calculated Resilient Moduli (MR) of 6,502 psi and 7,990 psi based on the soils encountered. These results are shown in Appendix B. We recommend the pavement subgrade be proof-rolled prior to paving to disclose soft/loose areas. Soft/loose areas should be reworked and compacted to specifications pre- sented in Fill and Backfill. Subgrade areas that pass proof-roll should be stable enough to pave. We assume flexible hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement is planned for the parking area. Rigid portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement should be used for areas where the pavement will be subjected to frequent turning of heavy vehicles. The table below summarizes alternatives for the minimum recommended pavement sections. Using the Municipal Government Pavement Engineers Council (MGPEC) Design Standards, we assumed a minimum Equivalent Axle Load (ESAL) value for commercial automobile parking, and fire lane/access drives as followed: Auto- mobile Parking (ESAL = 58,400), and Access Drives/Fire Lane (ESAL = 219,000). We recom- mend the following pavement alternatives. RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Traffic Classification Full-Depth Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) + Aggregate Base (ABC) Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Automobile Parking Areas 5.5” HMA 4" HMA + 5.5” ABC 5” PCC Access Drives and Truck/Fire Lanes 6.5” HMA 5” HMA + 6” ABC 6.5” PCC TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 18 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 Our experience indicates problems with asphalt pavements can occur where heavy trucks drive into loading and unloading zones and turn at low speeds. In areas of concentrated loading and turning movements by heavy trucks, such as at entrances and trash collection ar- eas, we recommend the consideration of an 6.5-inch or thicker portland cement concrete pad be constructed at loading docks and dumpster locations, or other areas where trucks will stop or turn. The concrete pads should be of sufficient size to accommodate truck turning, trash pickup and delivery/loading areas. The design of a pavement system is as much a function of paving materials as support- ing characteristics of the subgrade. The quality of each construction material is reflected by the strength coefficient used in the calculations. If the pavement system is constructed of inferior materials, the life and serviceability of the pavement will be substantially reduced. We recom- mend the materials, construction and maintenance methods conform to the requirements of the City of Fort Collins and/or Larimer County. Materials planned for construction should be submit- ted and tested to confirm their compliance with these specifications. Control joints should separate concrete pavements into panels as recommended by ACI. No de-icing salts should be used on paving concrete for at least one year after placement. Rou- tine maintenance, such as sealing and repair of cracks annually and overlays at 2 to 5-year in- tervals, are necessary to achieve the long-term life of an asphalt pavement. We recommend ap- plication of a rejuvenating sealant such as fog seal after the first year. Deferring maintenance usually results in accelerated deterioration of pavements leading to higher future maintenance costs. A primary cause of early pavement deterioration is water infiltration into the pavement system. The addition of moisture usually results in heave and/or softening of subgrade and the eventual failure of the pavement. We recommend drainage be designed for rapid removal of surface runoff. Curb and gutter should be backfilled and compacted to reduce ponding adjacent to pavements. Final grading of the subgrade should be carefully controlled so that design cross- slope is maintained and low spots in the subgrade that could trap water are eliminated. A seal should be provided between the curb and pavement and at joints to reduce moisture infiltration. Irrigated landscaped areas in pavements should be avoided. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 19 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 Material, construction and maintenance guidelines for flexible and rigid pavements are provided in Appendix C. These criteria were developed from analysis of the field and laboratory data, our experience, the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), and the Mu- nicipal Government Pavement Engineers Council (MGPEC) requirements. County and/or city requirements should be reviewed and followed. If materials cannot meet their recommenda- tions, then the pavement design should be re-evaluated based upon available materials. Materi- als planned for construction should be submitted and the applicable laboratory tests performed to verify compliance with the specifications. CONCRETE Concrete in contact with soil can be subject to sulfate attack. We measured water-solu- ble sulfate concentrations in eight samples at less than 0.01 percent. As indicated in our tests and ACI 318-19 Code Requirements, the sulfate exposure class is Not Applicable or S0. SULFATE EXPOSURE CLASSES PER ACI 318-19 Exposure Classes Water-Soluble Sulfate (SO4) in SoilA (%) Not Applicable S0 < 0.10 Moderate S1 0.10 to 0.20 Severe S2 0.20 to 2.00 Very Severe S3 > 2.00 A) Percent sulfate by mass in soil determined by ASTM C1580. For the RS0 level of sulfate concentration, ACI 318-19 indicates there are no special ce- ment type requirements for sulfate resistance, as indicated in the table below. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 20 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 CONCRETE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SULFATE EXPOSURE PER ACI 318-19 Exposure Class Maximum Water/Cement Ratio Minimum Compressive Strength (psi) Cementitious Material TypesA Calcium Chloride Admixtures ASTM C150/C150M ASTM C595/C595M ASTM C1157/C1157M S0 N/A 2500 No Type Restrictions No Type Restrictions No Type Restrictions No Restrictions S1 0.50 4000 IIB Type with (MS) Designation MS No Restrictions S2 0.45 4500 VB Type with (HS) Designation HS Not Permitted S3 Option 1 0.45 4500 V + Pozzolan or Slag CementC Type with (HS) Designation plus Pozzolan or Slag CementC HS + Pozzolan or Slag CementC Not Permitted S3 Option 2 0.4 5000 VD Type with (HS) Designation HS Not Permitted A) Alternate combinations of cementitious materials shall be permitted when tested for sulfate resistance meeting the criteria i n section 26.4.2.2(c). B) Other available types of cement such as Type III or Type I are permitted in Exposure Classes S1 or S2 if the C3A contents are less than 8 or 5 percent, respectively. C) The amount of the specific source of pozzolan or slag to be used shall not be less than the amount that has been determined by service record to improve sulfate resistance when used in concrete containing Type V cement. Alternatively, the amount of the specific source of the pozzolan or slag to be used shall not be less than the amount tested in accordance with ASTM C1012 and meeting the criteria in section 26.4.2.2(c) of ACI 318. D) If Type V cement is used as the sole cementitious material, the optional sulfate resistance requirement of 0.040 percent maxi- mum expansion in ASTM C150 shall be specified. Superficial damage may occur to the exposed surfaces of highly permeable concrete. To control this risk and to resist freeze-thaw deterioration, the water-to-cementitious materials ratio should not exceed 0.45 for concrete in contact with soils that are likely to stay moist due to sur- face drainage or high-water tables. Concrete should have a total air content of 6 percent ± 1.5 percent. We advocate damp-proofing of all foundation walls and grade beams in contact with the subsoils. SURFACE DRAINAGE Performance of foundations, flatwork, and other surface improvements is influenced by the moisture conditions existing within the foundation or subgrade soils. The risk of wetting the foundation and floor subgrade soils can be reduced by carefully planned and maintained sur- face grades and drainage. Excessive wetting before, during and/or after construction may cause movement of foundations and slabs-on-grade. Surface drainage should be designed, con- TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 21 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 structed, and maintained to provide rapid removal of surface water runoff away from the pro- posed building and off pavements and flatwork. We recommend the following precautions be observed during construction and maintained at all times after construction is completed. 1. Wetting or drying of the open demolition, foundation and utility excavations should be avoided. 2. Positive drainage should be provided away from foundations, flatwork and pave- ments. We recommend a minimum slope of at least 5 percent in the first 10 feet away from the structure in landscaped areas, where possible. Pavements and sidewalks adjacent to the structure should also be sloped for positive drainage. A minimum slope of 1 percent is suggested. More slope is desirable. Final grading of the pavement subgrade should be carefully controlled so that the designed cross slopes are maintained and low spots in the subgrade that could trap water are eliminated. 3. Concrete curbs and sidewalks may “dam” surface runoff and disrupt proper flow. Use of “chase” drains or weep holes at low points in the curb should be consid- ered to promote proper drainage. Areas behind curb and gutter should be back- filled and well-compacted to reduce ponding of surface water. Seals should be provided between the nearby curb and pavement to reduce infiltration. 4. Backfill around structures (if any) should be moisture treated and compacted as discussed in Fill and Backfill. 5. Landscaping should be carefully designed to minimize irrigation. Plants used close to buildings should be limited to those with low moisture requirements. Irri- gation should be limited to the minimum amount sufficient to maintain vegetation. Application of more water will increase likelihood of slab and foundation move- ments and associated damage. Landscaped areas should be adequately sloped to direct flow away from the improvements. Use of area drains can assist drain- ing areas that cannot be provided with adequate slope. 6. Impervious plastic membranes should not be used to cover the ground surface immediately surrounding foundations. These membranes tend to trap moisture and prevent normal evaporation from occurring. Geotextile fabrics can be used to control weed growth and allow evaporation. 7. Roof drains should be directed away from the structures and discharge beyond backfill zones or into appropriate storm sewer or detention area. Downspout ex- tensions and splash blocks should be provided at all discharge points. Roof drains can also be connected to buried, solid pipe out-lets. Roof drains should not be directed below slab-on-grade floors. Roof drain outlets should be main- tained. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 22 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend CTL|Thompson, Inc. provide construction observation services to allow us the opportunity to confirm whether soil conditions are consistent with those found during this investigation. If others perform these observations, they must accept responsibility to judge whether the recommendations in this report remain appropriate. GEOTECHNICAL RISK The concept of risk is an important aspect with any geotechnical evaluation, primarily be- cause the methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. We never have complete knowledge of subsurface conditions. Our analysis must be tempered with engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the recommendations pre- sented in any geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free. Our recommendations represent our judgment of those measures that are necessary to increase the chances that the structure and improvements will perform satisfactorily. It is critical that all recommendations in this report are followed during construction. Owners or property managers must assume re- sponsibility for maintaining the structure and use appropriate practices regarding drainage, land- scaping and maintenance. Improvements after construction should be completed in accordance with recommendations provided in this report and may require additional soil investigation and consultation. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of TKG Management, Inc. and your team for the purpose of providing geotechnical design and construction criteria for the Edison at University Plaza apartment project. The information, conclusions, and recommendations pre- sented herein are based upon consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, the type of structure proposed, the geologic setting, and the subsurface conditions encountered. The conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are not valid for use by others. Standards of practice evolve in geotechnical engineering. The recommendations provided are appropriate for about three years. If the proposed building is not constructed within about three years, we should be contacted to determine if we should update this report. TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. 23 of 23 EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 Our borings were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of subsurface condi- tions at this site. The borings are representative of conditions encountered only at the location drilled. Subsurface variations not indicated by the borings are likely. We believe this investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily used by geotechnical engineers practicing under similar conditions. No warranty, express or implied, is made. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report, or in the analysis of the influence of the subsurface conditions on the design of the structure or any other aspect of the proposed construction, please call. CTL | THOMPSON, INC. J. Mitchell Shirey, MSc. Staff Geologist Reviewed by: Benny I. Lujan, P.E. Jr. Principal Via e-mail: bturner@quadrantcolorado.com Bryce.Willaby@kimley-horn.com Andy.Resse@kimley-horn.com 10/28/2025 TH-10 TH-9 TH-8 TH-7 TH-6 TH-5 TH-4 TH-3 TH-2 TH-1 P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 LEGEND: INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BUILDING BORING INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PAVEMENT BORING TH-1 P-1 SITE S C O L L E G E A V E W DRAKE RD COLOMBIA RD PR I N C E T O N R D RE S E A R C H B L V D FIGURE 1 Locations of Exploratory Borings TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 0 70'35' APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1"=70' VICINITY MAP (FORT COLLINS, COLORADO) NOT TO SCALE EDISON APARTMENTS AMENITY 4" MIN.SLOPE TO DRAIN SLOPE TO DRAIN NOTES: 1. DRAIN PIPE SHOULD CONSIST OF 4-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE. THE PIPE SHOULD BE PLACED IN A TRENCH WITH A SLOPE OF AT LEAST 1/8 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET (DAYLIGHTED) OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 2. THE BOTTOM OF THE DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 4 INCHES BELOW BOTTOM OF FOOTING AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 3. TO HELP CONTROL THE HUMIDITY IN THE CRAWL SPACE, A MINIMUM 6-MIL (10-MIL FOR BETTER DURABILITLY) VAPOR RETARDER SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE CRAWL SPACE SOILS. THE RETARDER SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO CONCRETE FOUNDATION ELEMENTS AND EXTEND UP FOUNDATION WALLS AT LEAST 8-INCHES ABOVE TOP OF FOOTING. OVERLAP JOINTS 3-FEET AND SEAL 4. FOR FOOTINGS IN BASEMENT AREAS, WE RECOMMEND PLACING A 4-INCH THICK, 8-INCH WIDE SECTION OF VOID FORM PERPENDICULAR TO THE FOOTING ABOUT EVERY 10 TO 15 FEET AND AT WINDOW WELLS, TO ALLOW WATER IN WALL BACKFILL TO PASS BENEATH THE FOOTING INTO THE INTERIOR DRAIN. THIS CAN ALSO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY "TUNNELING" UNDER FOOTINGS AT THE TIME OF DRAIN INSTALLATION. THIS DETAIL SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DURING FOUNDATION DESIGN AND INCORPORATED IN TO THE FOUNDATION PLAN. ALTERNATIVELY, AN EXTERIOR FOUNDATION DRAIN CAN BE USED. BACKFILL STRUCTURAL FLOOR SLOPE PER OSHA SLOPE PER REPORT CRAWL SPACE OR VOID BELOW GRADE WALL (SEE NOTE 3) ENCASE PIPE IN 14 TO 1 12 INCH WASHED GRAVEL. EXTEND GRAVEL TO AT LEAST 12 HEIGHT OF FOOTING. FILL ENTIRE TRENCH WITH GRAVEL (SEE NOTE 1) (SEE NOTE 4) FOOTING OR PAD TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S COLLEGE AVENUE CTL I T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 FIGURE 2 Interior Foundation Wall Drain Detail SLOPE PER REPORT BACKFILL SLOPE EXCAVATION PER OSHA FOOTING OR PAD NOTES: 1. DRAIN PIPE SHOULD CONSIST OF 4-INCH DIAMETER RIGID PERFORATED PIPE. 2. THE PIPE SHOULD BE PLACED IN A TRENCH WITH A SLOPE OF AT LEAST 1/8 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET (DAYLIGHTED) OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 3. THE BOTTOM OF THE DRAIN PIPE SHOULD BE AT LEAST 2 INCHES BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTING AS MEASURED FROM THE HIGHEST POINT. 4. ENCASE DRAIN PIPE IN 1/4-INCH TO 1-1/2-INCH WASHED GRAVEL. EXTEND GRAVEL LATERALLY TO FOOTING AND AT LEAST 1/2 HEIGHT OF FOOTING. FILL ENTIRE TRENCH WITH GRAVEL. 5. COVER ENTIRE WIDTH OF GRAVEL WITH NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (MIRAFI® 140N, OR EQUIVALENT). ROOFING FELT IS AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. 6. TO HELP CONTROL HUMIDITY IN THE CRAWL SPACE, A MINIMUM 6-MIL (10-MIL FOR BETTER DURABILITY) VAPOR RETARDER SHOULD BE PLACED OVER THE CRAWL SPACE SOILS. THE RETARDER SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO CONCRETE FOUNDATION ELEMENTS AND EXTEND UP FOUNDATION WALLS AT LEAST 8 INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF FOOTING. OVERLAP JOINTS 3 FEET AND SEAL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 8" MIN. STRUCTURAL FLOOR CRAWL SPACE OR VOID ENGINEERED FILL FOUNDATION WALL (SEE NOTE 6) SLOPE GROUND SURFACE AWAY FROM FOOTING NO STEEPER THAN 1:1 TO DRAIN AWAY FROM FOOTING DRAIN PIPE GRAVEL GEOTEXTILE COVER ATTACH PLASTIC SHEETING TO FOUNDATION WALL TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S COLLEGE AVENUE CTL I T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 FIGURE 3 Exterior Foundation Wall Drain Detail TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 APPENDIX A SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 4,985 4,990 4,995 5,000 5,005 5,010 5,015 5,020 5,025 4,985 4,990 4,995 5,000 5,005 5,010 5,015 5,020 5,025 14/12 9/12 7/12 7/12 WC=18.0DD=111SW=0.8 WC=18.7DD=109SW=0.0 WC=18.0DD=110LL=29 PI=12-200=58 WC=18.9UC=878 WC=18.0DD=111SW=0.8 WC=18.7DD=109SW=0.0 WC=18.0DD=110LL=29 PI=12-200=58 WC=18.9UC=878 TH-1 El. 5021.2 19/12 9/12 9/12 6/12 5/12 WC=16.6DD=114SW=1.6 WC=20.5DD=107SW=0.1 WC=16.8DD=116SW=0.0 WC=24.0DD=104LL=31 PI=12-200=65 WC=23.4DD=105SW=0.0 WC=16.6DD=114SW=1.6 WC=20.5DD=107SW=0.1 WC=16.8DD=116SW=0.0 WC=24.0DD=104LL=31 PI=12-200=65 WC=23.4DD=105SW=0.0 TH-2 El. 5021.3 13/12 7/12 6/12 12/12 7/12 10/12 WC=16.9DD=112SW=0.4SS=<0.01 WC=17.2DD=110SW=0.0 WC=15.9-200=7 WC=16.9DD=112SW=0.4SS=<0.01 WC=17.2DD=110SW=0.0 WC=15.9-200=7 TH-3 El. 5021.4 14/12 12/12 6/12 7/12 WC=19.1DD=108SW=0.3 WC=15.9DD=119SW=0.3 WC=19.1DD=108SW=0.3 WC=15.9DD=119SW=0.3 TH-4 El. 5020.8 7/12 11/12 13/12 7/12 WC=22.4DD=97SW=0.3 WC=15.4DD=117SW=0.1 WC=22.4DD=97SW=0.3 WC=15.4DD=117SW=0.1 TH-5 El. 5020.7 8/12 12/12 18/12 6/12 10/12 WC=17.3DD=112SW=0.0 WC=8.6-200=8 WC=17.3DD=112SW=0.0 WC=8.6-200=8 TH-6 El. 5021.1 13/12 6/12 5/12 8/12 6/12 9/12 WC=17.1-200=50 WC=16.3DD=116SW=0.0 WC=17.1-200=50 WC=16.3DD=116SW=0.0 TH-7 El. 5021.0 7/12 8/12 13/12 9/12 13/12 WC=24.1DD=98SW=0.0 WC=17.8DD=113LL=33 PI=19-200=69 WC=24.1DD=98SW=0.0 WC=17.8DD=113LL=33 PI=19-200=69 TH-8 El. 5020.2 8/12 8/12 9/12 10/12 WC=18.7DD=101SW=0.0SS=<0.01 WC=23.2DD=104LL=46 PI=32-200=87 WC=18.7DD=101SW=0.0SS=<0.01 WC=23.2DD=104LL=46 PI=32-200=87 TH-9 El. 5020.2 8/12 11/12 8/12 6/12 11/12 WC=20.7DD=106SW=0.2 WC=10.0DD=128SW=0.0 WC=25.6UC=2,240 WC=20.7DD=106SW=0.2 WC=10.0DD=128SW=0.0 WC=25.6UC=2,240 TH-10 El. 5020.7 EL E V A T I O N - F E E T Summary Logs of Exploratory Borings EL E V A T I O N - F E E T FIGURE 1 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S COLLEGE AVENUE CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 4,980 4,985 4,990 4,995 5,000 5,005 5,010 5,015 5,020 5,025 4,980 4,985 4,990 4,995 5,000 5,005 5,010 5,015 5,020 5,025 18/12 15/12 9/12 WC=14.6DD=119SW=1.9SS=<0.01 WC=19.3DD=107LL=45 PI=27-200=83 WC=14.6DD=119SW=1.9SS=<0.01 WC=19.3DD=107LL=45 PI=27-200=83 P-1 El. 5019.7 14/12 11/12 11/12 WC=10.5DD=119LL=40 PI=24-200=48 WC=19.6DD=107SW=0.9SS=<0.01 WC=10.5DD=119LL=40 PI=24-200=48 WC=19.6DD=107SW=0.9SS=<0.01 P-2 El. 5020.0 20/12 11/12 7/12 WC=8.3DD=123SW=0.5SS=<0.01 WC=22.0DD=101LL=49 PI=32-200=84 WC=8.3DD=123SW=0.5SS=<0.01 WC=22.0DD=101LL=49 PI=32-200=84 P-3 El. 5020.5 4/12 6/12 14/12 WC=25.3DD=98SW=0.0SS=<0.01 WC=2.8-200=11 WC=25.3DD=98SW=0.0SS=<0.01 WC=2.8-200=11 P-4 El. 5021.5 7/12 6/12 8/12 WC=25.1DD=95LL=40 PI=21-200=69 WC=16.3DD=111SW=0.1SS=<0.01 WC=25.1DD=95LL=40 PI=21-200=69 WC=16.3DD=111SW=0.1SS=<0.01 P-5 El. 5020.8 10/12 9/12 9/12 WC=17.2DD=110SW=0.9SS=<0.01 WC=19.9DD=107LL=35 PI=18-200=62 WC=17.2DD=110SW=0.9SS=<0.01 WC=19.9DD=107LL=35 PI=18-200=62 P-6 El. 5019.6 EL E V A T I O N - F E E T FIGURE 1 DRIVE SAMPLE. THE SYMBOL 18/12 INDICATES 18 BLOWS OF A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.5-INCH O.D. SAMPLER 12 INCHES. EL E V A T I O N - F E E T WATER LEVEL MEASURED SEVERAL DAYS AFTER DRILLING ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2025.. ROAD BASE, ABOUT 1 TO 2 INCHES THICK. 2. 3. ASPHALT PAVEMENT, ABOUT 5 TO 6 INCHES THICK. THE BORINGS WERE DRILLED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 10 AND 16, 2025 USING 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS-FLIGHT, SOLID-STEM AUGERS AND A TRUCK-MOUNTED DRILL RIG. 1. LEGEND: NOTES: CLAY, SLIGHTLY SANDY TO SANDY, SILTY, GRAVELLY AT TIMES, MEDIUM STIFF TO VERY STIFF, MOIST TO VERY MOIST, UPPER PORTION COLORS INCLUDE OLIVE-BROWN, GRAYISH-BROWN, LIGHT BROWN, TAN, WHITE; LOWER PORTION CLAYS ARE REDDISH-BROWN, BROWN, GRAY (CL). SAND, SLIGHTLY GRAVELLY TO GRAVELLY, SLIGHTLY SILTY, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO WET, GRAY, REDDISH-BROWN, LIGHT BROWN, GRAY, LIGHT GRAY (SP-SM). SAND, SLIGHTLY SILTY, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, TAN, LIGHT BROWN, REDDISH-BROWN, GRAY (SP). WATER LEVEL MEASURED AT TIME OF DRILLING. BORING ELEVATIONS WERE SURVEYED BY OTHERS. THESE LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT. 4. Summary Logs of Exploratory Borings INDICATES APPROXIMATE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION (EL. 5,022 FEET). - - - - - - - - - INDICATES MOISTURE CONTENT (%). INDICATES DRY DENSITY (PCF). INDICATES SWELL WHEN WETTED UNDER OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (%). INDICATES PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (%). INDICATES LIQUID LIMIT. INDICATES PLASTICITY INDEX. INDICATES UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSF). INDICATES SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT (%). INDICATES SOIL SUCTION (pF). WC DD SW -200 LL PI UC SS pF TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S COLLEGE AVENUE CTL | T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE B-I – SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-1 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 18.0 111 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.8 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. FIGURE B-1 %% pcf pF Test Results SOIL SUCTION: SAMPLE OF: FROM: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-1 AT 9 FEET 18.7 109 SILT AND CLAY: Swell Consolidation -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure of 1100 psf. FIGURE B-2 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-2 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 16.6 114 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 1.6 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. FIGURE B-3 %% pcf pF Test Results SOIL SUCTION: SAMPLE OF: FROM: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-2 AT 9 FEET 20.5 107 SILT AND CLAY: Swell Consolidation -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.1 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 1100 psf. FIGURE B-4 %% pcf pF 16.8 SAMPLE OF: FROM: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT:116 LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-2 AT 14 FEET Swell Consolidation Test Results -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure of 1800 psf. FIGURE B-5 %% pcf pF 23.4 SAMPLE OF: FROM: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT:105 LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-2 AT 24 FEET Swell Consolidation Test Results -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure of 3000.0 psf. FIGURE B-6 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-3 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 16.9 112 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.4 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. FIGURE B-7 %% pcf pF Test Results SOIL SUCTION: SAMPLE OF: FROM: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-3 AT 9 FEET 17.2 110 SILT AND CLAY: Swell Consolidation -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure of 1100 psf. FIGURE B-8 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-4 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 19.1 108 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.3 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. FIGURE B-9 %% pcf pF Test Results SOIL SUCTION: SAMPLE OF: FROM: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-4 AT 9 FEET 15.9 119 SILT AND CLAY: Swell Consolidation -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.3 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 1100 psf. FIGURE B-10 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-5 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 22.4 97 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.3 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. FIGURE B-11 %% pcf pF Test Results SOIL SUCTION: SAMPLE OF: FROM: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-5 AT 9 FEET 15.4 117 SILT AND CLAY: Swell Consolidation -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.1 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 1100 psf. FIGURE B-12 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-6 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 17.3 112 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. FIGURE B-13 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-7 AT 9 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 16.3 116 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure of 1100 psf. FIGURE B-14 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-8 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 24.1 98 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. FIGURE B-15 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-9 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 18.7 101 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. FIGURE B-16 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-10 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 20.7 106 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.2 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 500 psf. FIGURE B-17 %% pcf pF Test Results SOIL SUCTION: SAMPLE OF: FROM: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-10 AT 9 FEET 10.0 128 SILT AND CLAY: Swell Consolidation -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure of 1100 psf. FIGURE B-18 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-1 AT 1 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 14.6 119 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 1.9 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 150 psf. FIGURE B-19 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-2 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 19.6 107 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.9 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 150 psf. FIGURE B-20 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-3 AT 2 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 8.3 123 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.5 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 150 psf. FIGURE B-21 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-4 AT 1 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 25.3 98 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited no movement when wetted under an applied pressure of 150 psf. FIGURE B-22 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-5 AT 4 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 16.3 111 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.1 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 150 psf. FIGURE B-23 %% pcf pF Swell Consolidation Test Results FROM: SAMPLE OF: MOISTURE CONTENT: DRY UNIT WEIGHT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-6 AT 1 FEET SILT AND CLAY: SOIL SUCTION: 17.2 110 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1 1 10 100 Co m p r e s s i o n ( -) o r E x p a n s i o n ( + ) — % Applied Pressure -KSF Sample exhibited expansion of 0.9 percent when wetted under an applied pressure of 150 psf. FIGURE B-24 Sample of:Sand:%Silt/Clay:% From:Gravel:%Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Particle Size (mm) Hydrometer Analysis Sieve Name -Elapsed Time -- - - -#43/8 in % Passing - - - - - - - - % Passing Particle Size (mm) -- #200#40#16#10 11 0.074 16-29 0.425 0.149 #100 46 1.19 59 2 - - - -- - - -- - - 91 4.75 100 9.525 - - - - --- Sieve Analysis - - - - -- - 80 - 11 -9 SAND, GRAVELLY, SL. SILTY (SP-SM) P-4 AT 4 FEET 0.001 25 HR 45 MIN 0.002 7 HR 15 MIN 0.005 60 MIN 0.009 19 MIN 0.019 4 MIN 0.037 1 MIN 0.074 #200 0.149 #100 0.297 #50 0.42 #40 0.59 #30 1.19 #16 2.38 #8 4.76 #4 9.52 3/8" 19.1 3/4" 36.1 1-1/2" 76.2 3" 127 5" 200 8" 2 #10 152 6" SANDS FINE MEDIUM COARSE GRAVEL FINE COARSE COBBLES DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS PE R C E N T P A S S I N G 0 10 20 30 50 60 70 80 90 100 PE R C E N T R E T A I N E D 40 100 90 80 70 60 40 30 20 10 0 SILT (NON-PLASTIC) CLAY 50 Gradation/ Hydrometer Test Results FIGURE B-25 Sample of:Sand:%Silt/Clay:% From:Gravel:%Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Particle Size (mm) Hydrometer Analysis Sieve Name -Elapsed Time -- - - -#43/8 in % Passing - - - - - - - - % Passing Particle Size (mm) -- #200#30#16#8 7 0.074 112652 0.59 0.149 #100 75 1.19 94 2.38 - - 0.297 #50- - - -- - - 99 4.75 100 9.525 - - - - --- Sieve Analysis - - - - -- - 92 - 7 -1 SAND, SL. GRAVELLY, SL. SILTY (SP-SM) TH-3 AT 19 FEET 0.001 25 HR 45 MIN 0.002 7 HR 15 MIN 0.005 60 MIN 0.009 19 MIN 0.019 4 MIN 0.037 1 MIN 0.074 #200 0.149 #100 0.297 #50 0.42 #40 0.59 #30 1.19 #16 2.38 #8 4.76 #4 9.52 3/8" 19.1 3/4" 36.1 1-1/2" 76.2 3" 127 5" 200 8" 2 #10 152 6" SANDS FINE MEDIUM COARSE GRAVEL FINE COARSE COBBLES DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS PE R C E N T P A S S I N G 0 10 20 30 50 60 70 80 90 100 PE R C E N T R E T A I N E D 40 100 90 80 70 60 40 30 20 10 0 SILT (NON-PLASTIC) CLAY 50 Gradation/ Hydrometer Test Results FIGURE B-26 Sample of:Sand & Gravel:%Silt/Clay:% From:Gravel:%Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Particle Size (mm) Hydrometer Analysis Sieve Name -Elapsed Time -- - - -#43/8 in % Passing - - - - - - - - % Passing Particle Size (mm) -- #200#30#16#8 8 0.074 121929 0.59 0.149 #100 46 1.19 70 2.38 - - 0.297 #501/2 in - - -- 100 12.7 89 4.75 99 9.525 - - - - --- Sieve Analysis - - - - -- - 92 - 8 -11 SAND, GRAVELLY, SL. SILTY (SP-SM) TH-6 AT 14 FEET 0.001 25 HR 45 MIN 0.002 7 HR 15 MIN 0.005 60 MIN 0.009 19 MIN 0.019 4 MIN 0.037 1 MIN 0.074 #200 0.149 #100 0.297 #50 0.42 #40 0.59 #30 1.19 #16 2.38 #8 4.76 #4 9.52 3/8" 19.1 3/4" 36.1 1-1/2" 76.2 3" 127 5" 200 8" 2 #10 152 6" SANDS FINE MEDIUM COARSE GRAVEL FINE COARSE COBBLES DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS PE R C E N T P A S S I N G 0 10 20 30 50 60 70 80 90 100 PE R C E N T R E T A I N E D 40 100 90 80 70 60 40 30 20 10 0 SILT (NON-PLASTIC) CLAY 50 Gradation/ Hydrometer Test Results FIGURE B-27 Specification Title:Onsite/Native (Granular) ASTM D75 / AASHTO T2 / CDOT CP30 Material Description: Sample Location:S-2, 2211 South College, FC11735 R-Value (ASTM D2844) 42 34 25 0100200300400500600700 Exudation Pressure (psi) 0 20 40 60 80 100 R- V a l u e Test Point Moisture (%) Exudation Pressure (psi) R-Value 1 16.6 426 42 2 17.7 324 34 3 18.9 213 25 R- Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure 32 Remarks: 16.6 17.7 18.9 0100200300400500600700 Exudation Pressure (psi) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t ( % ) Sampling Method: CTL Thompson 400 North Link Lane Fort Collins, CO 80524 Craig Ellis 2025-2026 Miscellaneous Services (CTL) Client: Report Date: Soil/Aggregate Laboratory Summary 25-0505.SoilSampling.0028; ver: 1Sep 30, 2025 Work Order No.: Work Order Date:Sep 19, 2025 Reviewed by:Joe Zorack Results apply only to the specific items and locations referenced and at the time of testing, observations or special inspections. Unless noted otherwise, samples were received in adequate condition. This report should not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. 41 Inverness Drive East, Englewood, Colorado www.groundeng.com 303-289-1989 Englewood | Commerce City | Loveland | Granby | Gypsum | Colorado Springs Page 2 of 2 Specification Title:Onsite/Native (Clay or Silt) ASTM D75 / AASHTO T2 / CDOT CP30 Material Description: Sample Location:Soil Sampling, S-1, South College, FC11735 R-Value (ASTM D2844) 49 40 34 21 0100200300400500600700 Exudation Pressure (psi) 0 20 40 60 80 100 R- V a l u e Test Point Moisture (%) Exudation Pressure (psi) R-Value 1 12.3 328 40 2 11.2 497 49 3 13.0 251 34 4 13.8 114 21 R- Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure 38 Remarks: 11.2 12.3 13.0 13.8 0100200300400500600700 Exudation Pressure (psi) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t ( % ) Sampling Method: CTL Thompson 400 North Link Lane Fort Collins, CO 80524 Craig Ellis 2025-2026 Miscellaneous Services (CTL) Client: Report Date: Soil/Aggregate Laboratory Summary 25-0505.SoilSampling.0027; ver: 1Oct 6, 2025 Work Order No.: Work Order Date:Sep 19, 2025 Reviewed by:Joe Zorack Results apply only to the specific items and locations referenced and at the time of testing, observations or special inspections. Unless noted otherwise, samples were received in adequate condition. This report should not be reproduced, except in full, without the written permission of GROUND Engineering Consultants, Inc. 41 Inverness Drive East, Englewood, Colorado www.groundeng.com 303-289-1989 Englewood | Commerce City | Loveland | Granby | Gypsum | Colorado Springs Page 2 of 2 UNCONFINED PASSING PASSING WATER- MOISTURE DRY LIQUID PLASTICITY APPLIED COMPRESSIVE NO. 4 NO. 200 SOLUBLE DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY LIMIT INDEX SWELL PRESSURE STRENGTH SIEVE SIEVE SULFATES BORING (FEET)(%)(PCF)(%)(PSF)(PSF)(%)(%)(%)DESCRIPTION TH-1 4 18.0 111 0.8 500 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-1 9 18.7 109 0.0 1100 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-1 14 18.0 110 29 12 58 CLAY, SANDY, SILTY (CL) TH-1 19 18.9 878 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-2 4 16.6 114 1.6 500 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-2 9 20.5 107 0.1 1100 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-2 14 16.8 116 0.0 1800 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-2 19 24.0 104 31 12 99 65 CLAY, SANDY, SILTY (CL) TH-2 24 23.4 105 0.0 3000 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-3 4 16.9 112 0.4 500 <0.01 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-3 9 17.2 110 0.0 1100 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-3 19 15.9 7 SAND, GRAVELLY, SL. SILTY (SP-SM) TH-4 4 19.1 108 0.3 500 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-4 9 15.9 119 0.3 1100 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-5 4 22.4 97 0.3 500 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-5 9 15.4 117 0.1 1100 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-6 4 17.3 112 0.0 500 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-6 14 8.6 89 8 SAND, GRAVELLY, SL. SILTY (SP-SM) TH-7 4 17.1 50 CLAY, SANDY, GRAVELLY (CL) TH-7 9 16.3 116 0.0 1100 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-8 4 24.1 98 0.0 500 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-8 9 17.8 113 33 19 69 CLAY, SANDY, SILTY (CL) TH-9 4 18.7 101 0.0 500 <0.01 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-9 19 23.2 104 46 32 87 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-10 4 20.7 106 0.2 500 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-10 9 10.0 128 0.0 1100 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TH-10 19 25.6 2240 CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-1 1 14.6 119 1.9 150 <0.01 CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-1 4 19.3 107 45 27 83 CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-2 1 10.5 119 40 24 48 CLAY, SANDY, GRAVELLY (CL) P-2 4 19.6 107 0.9 150 <0.01 CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-3 2 8.3 123 0.5 150 <0.01 CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-3 4 22.0 101 49 32 84 CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-4 1 25.3 98 0.0 150 <0.01 CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-4 4 2.8 91 11 SAND, GRAVELLY, SL. SILTY (SP-SM) P-5 2 25.1 95 40 21 69 CLAY, SANDY (CL) TABLE B-I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING ATTERBERG LIMITS SWELL TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-30 UNCONFINED PASSING PASSING WATER- MOISTURE DRY LIQUID PLASTICITY APPLIED COMPRESSIVE NO. 4 NO. 200 SOLUBLE DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY LIMIT INDEX SWELL PRESSURE STRENGTH SIEVE SIEVE SULFATES BORING (FEET)(%)(PCF)(%)(PSF)(PSF)(%)(%)(%)DESCRIPTION TABLE B-I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING ATTERBERG LIMITS SWELL TEST RESULTS P-5 4 16.3 111 0.1 150 <0.01 CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-6 1 17.2 110 0.9 150 <0.01 CLAY, SANDY (CL) P-6 4 19.9 107 35 18 62 CLAY, SANDY (CL) S-1 0-5 14.1 39 20 53 CLAY, SANDY, GRAVELLY (CL) S-2 0-5 20.9 45 26 67 CLAY, SANDY (CL) FIGURE B-31 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 APPENDIX C FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT MATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES C-1 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 MATERIAL GUIDELINES FOR FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENTS Aggregate Base Course (ABC) 1. A Class 5 or 6 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) specified ag- gregate base course should be used. A recycled concrete alternative which meets the Class 5 or 6 designation is also acceptable. 2. Aggregate base course should have a minimum Hveem stabilometer value of 78. Aggregate base course or recycled concrete material must be mois- ture stable. The change in R-value from 300 psi to 100 psi exudation pres- sure should be 12 points or less. 3. Aggregate base course or recycled concrete should be laid in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches, moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557, AASHTO T180). The material should be placed without segregation. 4. Placement and compaction of aggregate base course or recycled concrete should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the underlying subgrade is properly prepared and tested. Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) 1. HMA should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler, hydrated lime and asphalt cement. Mixes shall be designed with 1 percent lime. Some mixes may require polymer modified asphalt cement, or make use of up to 20 per- cent reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). A project mix design is recom- mended and periodic checks on the project site should be made to verify compliance with specifications. 2. HMA should be relatively impermeable to moisture and should be designed with crushed aggregates that have a minimum of 80 percent of the aggre- gate retained on the No. 4 sieve with two mechanically fractured faces. 3. Gradations that approach the maximum density line (within 5 percent be- tween the No. 4 and 50 sieves) should be avoided. A gradation with a nomi- nal maximum size of 1 or 2 inches developed on the fine side of the maxi- mum density line should be used. 4. Total void content, voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) and voids filled should be considered in the selection of the optimum asphalt cement con- tent. The optimum asphalt content should be selected at a total air void con- tent of about 4 percent. The mixture should have a minimum VMA of 14 per- cent and between 65 percent and 80 percent of voids filled. 5. Asphalt cement should be PG 58-28 for local streets and PG 64-22 for col- lectors and arterials. C-2 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 6. Hydrated lime should be added at the rate of 1 percent by dry weight of the aggregate and should be included in the amount passing the No. 200 sieve. Hydrated lime for aggregate pretreatment should conform to the require- ments of ASTM C 207, Type N. 7. Paving should only be performed when subgrade temperatures are above 40°F and air temperature is at least 40°F and rising. 8. HMA should not be placed at a temperature lower than 245°F for mixes con- taining PG 58-28 and PG 64-22 asphalt, and 290°F for mixes containing pol- ymer modified asphalt. The breakdown compaction should be completed be- fore the mixture temperature drops 20°F. 9. The maximum compacted lift should be 3 inches and joints should be stag- gered. No joints should be placed within wheel paths. 10. HMA should be compacted to between 92 and 96 percent of Maximum The- oretical Density. The surface shall be sealed with a finish roller before the mix cools to 185°F. 11. Placement and compaction of HMA should be observed and tested by a rep- resentative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the subgrade is properly prepared, tested and proof-rolled. Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) 1. Portland cement concrete should meet CDOT Class P concrete and have a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi at 28 days and a minimum mod- ulus of rupture (flexural strength) of 600 psi. A job mix design is recom- mended and periodic checks on the job site should be made to verify compli- ance with specifications. 2. Portland cement should be Type II “low alkali” and should conform to ASTM C 150. Portland cement should conform to ASTM C 150. 3. Portland cement concrete should not be placed when the subgrade or air temperature is below 40oF. 4. Free water should not be finished into the concrete surface. Atomizing noz- zle pressure sprayers for applying finishing compounds are recommended whenever the concrete surface becomes difficult to finish. 5. Curing of the portland cement concrete should be accomplished by the use of a curing compound. The curing compound should be applied in accord- ance with manufacturer recommendations. 6. Curing procedures should be implemented, as necessary, to protect the pavement against moisture loss, rapid temperature change, freezing, and mechanical injury. C-3 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 7. Construction joints, including longitudinal joints and transverse joints, should be formed during construction or sawed after the concrete has begun to set, but prior to uncontrolled cracking. 8. All joints should be properly sealed using a rod back-up and approved epoxy sealant. 9. Traffic should not be allowed on the pavement until it has properly cured and achieved at least 80 percent of the design strength, with saw joints already cut. 10. Placement of portland cement concrete should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm. Placement should not commence until the sub- grade is properly prepared and tested. C-4 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Experience has shown that construction methods can significantly affect the life and serviceability of a pavement system. A site-specific mix design is recommended and peri- odic checks during the project should be made to verify compliance with specifications. We recommend the proposed pavement be constructed in the following manner: 1. The subgrade should be stripped of organic matter, scarified, moisture con- ditioned and compacted. Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D698). 2. Utility trenches and all subsequently placed fill should be moisture condi- tioned, compacted, and tested prior to paving. As a minimum, fill should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density. 3. After final subgrade elevation has been reached and the subgrade com- pacted, the resulting subgrade should be checked for uniformity and all soft or yielding materials should be replaced prior to paving. Concrete should not be placed on soft, spongy, frozen, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade. 4. If areas of soft or wet subgrade are encountered, the material should be sub- excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural backfill. Where extensively soft, yielding subgrade is encountered, we recommend the exca- vation be inspected by a representative of our office. 5. Aggregate base course should be laid in thin, loose lifts no more than 6 inches, moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry den- sity (ASTM D698). 6. Asphaltic concrete should be hot plant-mixed material compacted to be- tween 92 and 96 percent of maximum Theoretical density. The temperature at laydown time should be at least 245°F. The surface shall be sealed with a finish roller prior to the mix cooling to 185°F. 7. The maximum compacted lift should be 3 inches and joints should be stag- gered. No joints should be within wheel paths. 8. Paving should only be performed when subgrade temperatures are above 40°F and air temperature is at least 40°F and rising. 9. Subgrade preparation and placement and compaction of all pavement mate- rial should be observed and tested. Compaction criteria should be met prior to the placement of the next paving lift. The additional requirements of the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County should apply. C-5 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 RIGID PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Rigid pavement sections are not as sensitive to subgrade support characteristics as flexible pavement. Due to the strength of the concrete, wheel loads from traffic are distrib- uted over a large area and the resulting subgrade stresses are relatively low. The critical factors affecting the performance of a rigid pavement are the strength and quality of the concrete, and the uniformity of the subgrade. We recommend subgrade preparation and construction of the rigid pavement section be completed in accordance with the following recommendations: 1. The subgrade should be stripped of organic matter, scarified, moisture con- ditioned and compacted. Subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D698). 2. After final subgrade elevation has been reached and the subgrade com- pacted, the resulting subgrade should be checked for uniformity and all soft or yielding materials should be replaced prior to paving. Concrete should not be placed on soft, spongy, frozen, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade. 3. The subgrade should be kept moist prior to paving. 4. Curing procedures should protect the concrete against moisture loss, rapid temperature change, freezing, and mechanical injury for at least 3 days after placement. Traffic should not be allowed on the pavement for at least one week. 5. Curing of the portland cement concrete should be accomplished by use of a curing compound in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. 6. Construction joints, including longitudinal joints and transverse joints, should be formed during construction or should be sawed shortly after the concrete has begun to set, but prior to uncontrolled cracking. All joints should be sealed. 7. Construction control and inspection should be performed during the sub- grade preparation and paving procedures. Concrete should be carefully monitored for quality control. The additional requirements of the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County should apply. The design sections are based upon 10-year and 20-year periods. Experience in the Denver area indicates virtually no maintenance or overlays are necessary for a 20-year de- sign period. We believe some maintenance and sealing of concrete joints will help pave- ment performance by helping to keep surface moisture from wetting and softening or heav- ing subgrade. To avoid problems associated with scaling and to continue the strength gain, we recommend deicing salts not be used for the first year after placement. C-6 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS A primary cause for deterioration of pavements is oxidative aging resulting in brittle pavements. Tire loads from traffic are necessary to "work" or knead the asphalt concrete to keep it flexible and rejuvenated. Preventive maintenance treatments will typically preserve the original or existing pavement by providing a protective seal or rejuvenating the asphalt binder to extend pavement life. Annual Preventive Maintenance • Visual pavement evaluations should be performed each year. • Reports documenting the progress of distress should be kept current to pro- vide information on effective times to apply preventive maintenance treat- ments. • Crack sealing should be performed annually as new cracks appear. 3 to 5-Year Preventive Maintenance • The owner should budget for a preventive treatment (e.g. chip seal, fog seal, slurry seal) at approximate intervals of 3 to 5 years to reduce oxidative em- brittlement problems. 5 to 10-Year Corrective Maintenance • Corrective maintenance (e.g. full-depth patching, milling and overlay) may be necessary, as dictated by the pavement condition, to correct rutting, cracking and structurally failed areas. C-7 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA – 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735.000-125-R1 MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR RIGID PAVEMENTS High traffic volumes create pavement rutting and smooth, polished surfaces. Pre- ventive maintenance treatments will typically preserve the original or existing pavement by providing a protective seal and improving skid resistance through a new wearing course. Annual Preventive Maintenance • Visual pavement evaluations should be performed each spring or fall. • Reports documenting the progress of distress should be kept current to pro- vide information of effective times to apply preventive maintenance. • Crack sealing should be performed annually as new cracks appear. 4 to 8 Year Preventive Maintenance • The owner should budget for a preventive treatment at approximate intervals of 4 to 8 years to reduce joint deterioration. • Typical preventive maintenance for rigid pavements includes patching, crack sealing and joint cleaning and sealing. • Where joint sealants are missing or distressed, resealing is mandatory. 15 to 20 Year Corrective Maintenance • Corrective maintenance for rigid pavements includes patching and slab re- placement to correct subgrade failures, edge damage and material failure. • Asphalt concrete overlays may be required at 15 to 20-year intervals to im- prove the structural capacity of the pavement. Project: Edison at For t Collins Automobile Parking Areas AASHTO '93/'98: Flexible Pavement Design Pavement Diagram Recommended Surface (5.50 in) Layer Thicknesses (in) Recommended Surface: 5.50 in Total SN: 2.42 (Required minimum design SN: 2.35) Details Scenario:Automobile Parking Areas Last Modified: October 21, 2025 2:02:58 pm Design Parameters Design Period: 20 years Reliability Level (R): 90% Combined Standard Error (S ): 0.5 Initial Servicability Index (p ): 4.5 Terminal Servicability Index (p ): 2 Delta Servicability Index (ΔPSI): 2.5 Total Design ESALs (W ): 58,400 0 i t 18 Layers Recommended Surface - Asphalt Thickness:5.50 in DISCLAIMER | TERMS OF SERVICE | PRIVACY POLICY Copyright 2025 PaveXpress 10/21/25, 2:03 PM PaveXpress Suite Created By:James Shirey TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 FIGURE C-1 Project: Edison at For t Collins Automobile Parking Areas AASHTO '93/'98: Flexible Pavement Design Pavement Diagram Recommended Surface (4.00 in) Aggregate Base (5.50 in) Layer Thicknesses (in) Recommended Surface: 4.00 in Aggregate Base: 5.50 in Total SN: 2.37 (Required minimum design SN: 2.35) Details Scenario:Automobile Parking Areas Last Modified: October 21, 2025 1:54:38 pm Design Parameters Design Period: 20 years Reliability Level (R): 90% Combined Standard Error (S ): 0.5 Initial Servicability Index (p ): 4.5 Terminal Servicability Index (p ): 2 Delta Servicability Index (ΔPSI): 2.5 Total Design ESALs (W ): 58,400 0 i t 18 Layers Recommended Surface - Asphalt Thickness:4.00 in Aggregate Base - Base Thickness:5.50 in Structural Coefficient:0.11 Drainage Coefficient:1 DISCLAIMER | TERMS OF SERVICE | PRIVACY POLICY Copyright 2025 PaveXpress 10/21/25, 2:02 PM PaveXpress Suite Created By:James Shirey TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 FIGURE C-2 Project: Edison at For t Collins Access Drives and Truck/Fire Lanes AASHTO '93/'98: Flexible Pavement Design Pavement Diagram Recommended Surface (6.50 in) Layer Thicknesses (in) Recommended Surface: 6.50 in Total SN: 2.86 (Required minimum design SN: 2.85) Details Scenario:Access Drives and Truck/Fire Lanes Last Modified: October 21, 2025 2:03:37 pm Design Parameters Design Period: 20 years Reliability Level (R): 90% Combined Standard Error (S ): 0.5 Initial Servicability Index (p ): 4.5 Terminal Servicability Index (p ): 2 Delta Servicability Index (ΔPSI): 2.5 Total Design ESALs (W ): 219,000 0 i t 18 Layers Recommended Surface - Asphalt Thickness:6.50 in DISCLAIMER | TERMS OF SERVICE | PRIVACY POLICY Copyright 2025 PaveXpress 10/21/25, 2:03 PM PaveXpress Suite Created By:James Shirey TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 FIGURE C-3 Project: Edison at For t Collins Access Drives and Truck/Fire Lanes AASHTO '93/'98: Flexible Pavement Design Pavement Diagram Recommended Surface (5.00 in) Aggregate Base (6.00 in) Layer Thicknesses (in) Recommended Surface: 5.00 in Aggregate Base: 6.00 in Total SN: 2.86 (Required minimum design SN: 2.85) Details Scenario:Access Drives and Truck/Fire Lanes Last Modified: October 21, 2025 2:05:37 pm Design Parameters Design Period: 20 years Reliability Level (R): 90% Combined Standard Error (S ): 0.5 Initial Servicability Index (p ): 4.5 Terminal Servicability Index (p ): 2 Delta Servicability Index (ΔPSI): 2.5 Total Design ESALs (W ): 219,000 0 i t 18 Layers Recommended Surface - Asphalt Thickness:5.00 in Aggregate Base - Base Thickness:6.00 in Structural Coefficient:0.11 Drainage Coefficient:1 DISCLAIMER | TERMS OF SERVICE | PRIVACY POLICY Copyright 2025 PaveXpress 10/21/25, 2:05 PM PaveXpress Suite Created By:James Shirey TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 FIGURE C-4 CDOT (MODIFIED AASHTO) RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN Project:Automobile Parking Areas What is the Design ESAL ?58,400 What is the Reliability ?90 What is the Serviceability Loss ?2.5 What is the Concrete Elastic Modulus ?3,400,000 psi What is the Concrete Modulus of Rupture ?650 psi What is the Drainage Factor ?1.0 What is the Standard Deviation ?0.44 What is the Load Transfer Coefficient ?4.2 What is the R-value ?32 Computed Resilient Modulus =6,502 psi If R is not available, Input Resilient Modulus = psi DESIGN RESILIENT MODULUS = 6,502 psi Design Concrete Slab Thickness is 5 inches TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 FIGURE C-5 CDOT (MODIFIED AASHTO) RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN Project:Access Drives and Truck/Fire Lane What is the Design ESAL ?219,000 What is the Reliability ?90 What is the Serviceability Loss ?2.5 What is the Concrete Elastic Modulus ?3,400,000 psi What is the Concrete Modulus of Rupture ?650 psi What is the Drainage Factor ?1.0 What is the Standard Deviation ?0.44 What is the Load Transfer Coefficient ?4.2 What is the R-value ?32 Computed Resilient Modulus =6,502 psi If R is not available, Input Resilient Modulus = psi DESIGN RESILIENT MODULUS = 6,502 psi Design Concrete Slab Thickness is 6.5 inches TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 FIGURE C-6 TKG MANAGEMENT, INC. EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA - 2211 S. COLLEGE AVENUE CTL|T PROJECT NO. FC11,735-125-R1 FIGURE C-7 Access Drive and Truck/Fire Lanes Reliability, R (%) = 90 Overall Standard Deviation, So = 0.44 Equivalent Single Axle Loads, ESAL = 219,000 Resilient Modulus, Mr (psi) = 6,502 ∆ psi = 2.5 Design Structural Number, SN = 2.8 Automobile Parking Reliability, R (%) = 90 Overall Standard Deviation, So = 0.44 Equivalent Single Axle Loads, ESAL = 58,400 Resilient Modulus, Mr (psi) = 6,502 ∆ psi = 2.5 Design Structural Number, SN = 2.3 PROMMTY FORT cowA&( „ , DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD Prepared For: 0 DPC Development Company 7000 E. Belleview Ave., Suite 290 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Prepared By: BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF CORPORATION 1743 Wazee Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 303) 292-5056 July 13,1998 101111D BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF CORPORATION 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT for UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATION ................... 1. INTRODUCTION ............................... 2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE 1 3 5 3. DEVELOPED FLOWS................................................................................................................. 6 4. RUNOFF DETENTION AND RELEASE.............................................................................. 9 5. EROSION CONTROL.............................................................................................................. 11 6. MISCELLANEOUS................................................................................................................... 14 7. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................15 APPENDIX A - LOCATION MAP APPENDIX B -HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS HISTORIC (EXISTING) APPENDIX C - HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS DEVELOPED APPENDIX D - EROSION CONTROL CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the Drainage and Erosion Control Report for University Center PUD was prepared by me or under my direct supervision in accordance with the provisions of the City of DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER Fort Collins STO A DESIGN CRITERIA and CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS for the owners t eof. p.. Ri(a- mes anon E. or o Registration No. 24639 p For and On Behalf of Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporatio 9 z: 2 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation R\Y111S WKV MORVNRPJppC DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD 1. INTRODUCTION Project Location The University Center PUD is a proposed re -development of a portion of the University Center Mall. The project site is located in the Southeast One -Quarter of Section 23, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The project site is bounded on the south by existing commercial development (K-Mart Plaza Expansion), on the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad, on the north by Montgomery Wards, and on the east by McDonalds and College Avenue. Site Characteristics The general topography of the site consists primarily of existing asphalt parking lot, buildings, and curb, gutter and sidewalk. The southwest corner and western portion of the site consists of poorly covered range type land. The slopes range from 0.5 to 3 percent. The grading and utility plans were developed based on survey conducted by J.R. Engineerng, Ltd. Soils The soils for this site are comprised of the Nunn clay loams. The Nunn clay loam complex consists of nearly level soils on high terraces and fans. Pertinent characteristics of this soil include slow to medium runoff and a slight to moderate hazard of wind and water erosion. Nunn clay loams are categorized in Hydrologic Group C. The source for this soil data is the "Soil Survey for Larimer County Area, Colorado," prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Purpose and Scope of Report This report defines the proposed drainage and erosion control plan for University Center PUD, including consideration of all on -site and tributary off -site runoff. 1 3 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation A\f]ItS W0.TMORUNIIPIDJC 1 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD Design Criteria -- This report was prepared to meet or exceed the submittal requirements established in the City of Fort Collins' "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" SDDCCS), dated May 1984 and updated April 29, 1997. An additional update of the SDDCCS manual is expected to be completed by the City of Fort Collins by the first part of 1998. Runoff computations were prepared for the 2-year and 100-year storm frequency utilizing the rational method. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" UDFCD), 1984, developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, has been utilized. Master Drainage Basin This site falls within the Spring Creek Major Drainage Basin and a report entitled "Spring Creek Master Drainageway Plan" was prepared by Engineering Professionals, Inc. in March 1988. It is not anticipated that the proposed University Center PUD will have a negative impact on the Spring Creek Major Drainage Basin. 1 4 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation R\9)\AWICDM 0.UN[VIDOC DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD 2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE For the purposes of this report, the historic flows for the site are considered to be the current existing drainage flows. A discussion of the drainage patterns was -presented-in-the Drainage and Erosion Control Report for the University Center PUD, dated November 6, 1996, and is presented here again. In general, the existing drainage patterns for this site consist of the routing of flows to existing area inlets in the following areas: the east parking area of this site; the loading ramps at the rear of King Soopers; the existing businesses on the north and south; and the existing dirt area in the southwest comer of this site. An offsite drainage basin located along the southwestern portion of the site (the Berlington Northern Railroad property) conveys flows onto the project site which then flows northerly along the western edge of the existing asphalt parking area behind King Soopers, then flows to an offsite swale near the northwest corner of the property within existing railroad right- of-way (To our knowledge, this swale is not contained in an existing easement.) The flows are then conveyed to a low area, west of the previously existing storage units, and outfalls into the Sherwood Lateral. The proposed re -development of portions of this site will not result in changes to the flows and drainage structures on the east side of this site. The historic runoff calculations are included in Appendix B of this report. 1 5 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation C\9II15\WKOATOAVNR/IOJC DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD 3. DEVELOPED FLOWS Method The Rational Method was used to determine both the 2-year and 100-year developed flows for the sub -basins impacted by the redevelopment. A detailed description of the hydrologic analysis is provided later in this section. Flow Characteristics Drainage within the redeveloped area will surface flow to detention ponds. The existing drainage patterns have been maintained where possible. All grading has been designed to carry flows away from structures to the proposed drainage facilities. Flow patterns are illustrated on the Drainage, Grading and Erosion Control Plan in the pocket at the back of this report. Offsite flows generated from the Burlington Northern Railroad property will flow onsite, consistent with the historical flow pattern, and will be detained in Pond 3. A qualitative summary of the drainage patterns within each developed sub -basin is provided in the following paragraphs. Detention and release rates are described in Section 4, "Runoff Detention and Release". Sub -basin Al is 0.83 acres in area and is located on the east side of the proposed building expansion in the parking area. This sub -basin drains to Pond 1 which is located within the north -south driveway east of the building expansion. Sub -basin A2 is 0.26 acres in area and is located on the south side of the proposed building expansion in the parking area. This sub -basin drains to Pond 2 which is located within the east -west drive lane south of the building expansion. Sub -basin B is 8.43 acres in area and consists of the parking and landscaped areas west of the proposed and existing buildings and also the rooftop for King Soopers and Tenants A through D. The detention for this sub -basin is located along the west property line within a landscaped area and parking lot. Sub -basin OFF IS 0.62 acres in area and is an off site area part of the Burlington Railroad right-of-way and consists of grassed native ground. This basin flows on to the developed site, however, it is not accounted for in the detention volume for Pond 3 and will be discharged from the overflow spillway. 6 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation R\AIISIVMJII\OLVNRPICOC DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD Sub -basin ON is 0.14 acres in area and consists of paved and landscaped areas which flow off site to the northern property and the Burlington Railroad right-of-way. The flow from this-basinds-subtracted-from the -release rate of-Pond3.- - - Sub -basins C, D, E, F and G consist of the small basins that outline the loading ramps on the west side of the facility. The areas of these basins are 0.09, 0.09, 0.04, 0.03 and 0.02 acres respectively. Ponding in these sub -basins is not anticipated unless the inlets become plugged. There are no other basin flows contributing to these ramp basins, however, if the ramps were to fill with water, they would spill over to Pond 3. Otherwise flows gravity drain to a common sump, then water is pumped to Pond 3. Hydrologic Analysis of the Developed Drainage Conditions The Rational Method was used to determine both 2-year and 100-year peak runoff values for each Sub -basin (See the Runoff Computations spreadsheet in Appendix C). Runoff coefficients were assigned utilizing Table 3-2 of the City of Fort Collins SDDCCS Manual. As stated above, the Rational Method was used for all hydrologic analyses for the project site. The Rational Method utilized the SDDCCS equation: Q=CfCIA where Q is the flow in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, Cf is the storm frequency adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour. The frequency adjustment factor, Cf is 1.0 for the initial 2-year storm and 1.25 for the major 100-year storm. The appropriate rainfall intensity information was developed based on rainfall intensity duration curves in the SDDCCS Manual (See Figure 3-1 in Appendix Q. In order to utilize the rainfall intensity curves, the time of concentration is required. The following equation was used to determine the time of concentration: t ti+t, where k is the time of concentration in minutes, t, is the initial or overland flow time in minutes, and t, is the travel time in the ditch, channel, or gutter in minutes. t 7 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 0. V:f f5\ WKO V \ORUNRPIUD[ DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD The initial or overland flow time is calculated with SDDCCS Manual equation: t;=[1.87(1.1- C Cf )L°s]/(S)OM where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the average slope of the basin in percent, and C and Cf are as defined previously. All hydrologic calculations associated with the redeveloped sub -basins are attached in Appendix C of this report. 1 8 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation AV)i 15\WK'ORI\ORAINRII.CIX' DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD 4. RUNOFF DETENTION AND RELEASE Detention Ponds Detention Ponds 1 and 2 are located in the southeast portion of the proposed retail building expansion. These detention areas have a sump type outlet structure that acts as the outfall. Pond 3 is located along the western edge of the project site and has an 18" PVC drain pipe stubbed through the pond retaining wall in which flows are discharged. The release from these ponds will be controlled by orifice plates designed for the lesser of the following: the 2-year historic flows to the outfall at manholes ST-MH-1 and ST-MH-2, or the restricted flow in the existing pipes downslope of these manholes. The later will control the release rates for all ponds. Details of the outlet structures and orifice sizes are shown on the Drainage, Grading and Erosion Control Plan in the back pocket of this report. We considered flows into existing ST-MH-1, which apparently receives flows from the DPC site and from Offsite Basin EEX6 to the south of the site. This offsite runoff flows entirely into Basin Al. Offsite Basin EEX7 does not flow onto the University Center site. The historical flow from the DPC site was calculated previously by our firm to be 1.68 cfs see page 2 of the Appendix). The combined release rates from Ponds 1&2 is 1.63 cfs, which meets the Historical release criteria. Due to the runoff contribution from EEX6, (see Sheet 1 of 2, Back Pocket of this Report), the storage capacity of Pond 1 would likely be exceeded in the event of a major storm. However the overflow spillway as shown on the Drainage Plan, would release this excess volume to the east side of the site. This overflow runoff would be collected in existing downstream area inlets, which is probably what has historically occurred, if indeed this offsite runoff actually enters the site. The FAA model was used to determine the required detention volumes for all ponds and calculations are presented in Appendix C. The rate of release from Ponds 1 and 2 is restricted by the open channel capacity of the outflow pipe at manhole ST-MH-1 of 1.63 cfs which was calculated using Flowmaster. The restricted outflow at ST-MH-1 is less than the required historical 2 year release of 1.68 cfs and we have conservatively designed the volume of Ponds 1 and 2 to accommodate the 100 year storm at the restricted release rates. 1 9 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation M-9:i15\I KOMOAV VRITppC 1 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT 1 UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD POND POND SIZE FOR RESTRICTED OUTFLOW FAA Method) 1 3945 cf 2 980 3 58262 The rate of release from Pond 3 is restricted by the open channel capacity of the outflow pipe at manhole ST-MH-2 of 4.68 cfs which was calculated using Flowmaster. The restricted outflow rate at ST-MH-2 is less than the required historical 2 year release of 5.25 cfs and we have conservatively designed the volume of Pond 3 to accommodate the 100 year storm at the restricted release rate. The overflow spillway for Pond 1 consists of the driveway south of the pond and runs along the south side of McDonalds leading to S. College Ave. The overflow spillway for Pond 2 consists of the driveway east of the pond. Pond 2 is graded such that if the capacity is exceeded, it will spill over to Pond 1, then out to the S. College Ave. storm system. In the event that the outlet structures for Ponds 1 and 2 becomes plugged, flows would travel through the spillways after the pond capacities have been exceeded. For the 100 year storm, the combined flow through the Pond 1 spillway would be approximately 9.27 cfs. The overflow spillway for Pond 3 is a rip rap lined opening in the western berm of the pond and is situated at elevation 5017.1 ft. Flow is discharged to the railroad right-of- way in the same manor as flows in the rear of the retail buildings traveled historically. Flow Rates Released to College Avenue Outfall System - Existing and Developed The proposed drainage system has been designed to discharge at a rate not to exceed the 2 year release rate for storm events less than 100 year. It is not anticipated that there will be negative impact to the College Avenue storm sewer system based on this proposed design. 10 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation F \vi:15\1\RYlkf\ORV \'PITGCC DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD 5. EROSION CONTROL Introduction F L This section represents the Erosion Control Report for the University Center PUD and was prepared to meet the regulatory requirements of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This report was prepared following the guidelines and regulations within the SDDCCS Manual. General Description The proposed improvements comprise portions of the western and southern portions of the site, which totals 9.66 acres. The general topography of this site consists primarily of existing asphalt parking lot, buildings, and curb, gutter and sidewalk. The southwest comer and western portion of the site consist of poorly covered range type land. The slopes range from 0.5 to 3 percent. Soil Description In accordance with the Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) "Soil Survey of Fort Collins Area, Colorado," the soils on -site consist of the following: Rainfall Wind Hydrologic Soil Designation Erodibility Zone Erodibility Zone Soil Group Nunn clay loam Slight to Moderate Slight to Moderate C Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Erosion and Sedimentation will be controlled on -site by the use of silt fence, vehicle tracking control, and inlet protection. Erosion control calculations and construction schedule is included in Appendix D, and locations of proposed sediment control structures is shown on the Drainage, Grading & Erosion Control Plan in the back pocket of this report. The measures are designed to limit the overall sediment yield increase due to construction as required by the City of Fort Collins. 11 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation R\f]IIA WPCDAp\p0.11NPRCpC DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD Dust Abatement During the performance of the work or any operations appurtenant thereto, the Contractor shall apply water as necessary to reduce dust nuisance, and to prevent dust which has originated from his operations from damaging crops, orchards, cultivated fields, and dwellings, or causing a nuisance to persons. The Contractor will be responsible for any damage resulting from dust originating from his operations. Tracking Mud on City Streets Wherever construction vehicles access routes or intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking onto the paved surface. Stabilized construction entrances are required per the detail shown on the Plan. The contractor will be responsible for clearing mud tracked onto city streets on a daily basis. Maintenance All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. Permanent Stabilization Reseeding and mulching shall be performed immediately following the disturbance of soil areas and soil stockpiles not otherwise permanently stabilized such that an established cover can be obtained. Vegetation shall not be considered established until a ground cover is achieved which is demonstrated to be mature enough to control soil erosion to the satisfaction of the City and to survive severe weather conditions. Security The estimated security amount for erosion control measures, as shown on the Drainage, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 12 0. V )CIS WKDMOMINII/I CCC DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD Grading and Erosion Control Plan, is $3,920. This amount was determined by multiplying the engineers probable estimate to construct these measures by a factor of 1.5. Erosion control measures included; area inlet filters, siltfence, vehicle tracking control and dryland grass seeding._ _ 13 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation R V ] S X KL.W ORNNRR O.^C DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD 6. MISCELLANEOUS Variances A variance is being requested for one sump and one sump pump to be installed to drain the proposed truck ramps at the rear of Tenants B and D and King Soopers. The sump is proposed to be located in a landscaped area west of Tenant B and shall discharge into Pond 3. Irrigation Ditches The proposed redevelopment of University Mall does not impact the outfall into the Sherwood Lateral which is the only irrigation ditch adjacent to the site. 1 Ditch Company Approval Because this is the existing outfall for the drainage from this area and the proposed drainage plan does not impact the flows currently released into the Sherwood Lateral, ditch company approval is not required. Maintenance Agreements The developer will be responsible for the maintenance of all permanent drainage structures. 14 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation 4\YJI15\WPLORV\ORIINRII.00C DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD 1 7 I REFERENCES 1. _"Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report -University Center P.U.D.," prepared by JR Engineering, Ltd., Revised March 11, 1996. 2. "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report - University Center P.U.D.," prepared by JR Engineering, Ltd., dated May 20,1996. 3. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards," (SDDCCS), dated May 1984, revised April 29,1997. 4. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual," Volumes 1 and 2, dated March 1969, and Volume 3 dated September 1992. 5. "Drainage and Erosion Control Report - University Center P.U.D.," prepared by Bucher Willis and Ratliff Corporation, dated November 6,1996. 15 Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation A V 1i S WPCOIJ\pAU.YR11'yCC APPENDIX A LOCATION MAP r s aW rV.ft.ere 1{ u Lt v Wv Li iw..r ft V lab r i Q Ewart P SPECT ROAD. tt L. a z p W xmbrt r y n, LD 2 x..a.n eQpt E H-12fir w« o- W SECTI L 23s Q SITE - J sb y5' II R+vmn p"o DR KE ROAD Or do 6 o- VICINITY MAP N TS UNIVERSITY CENTER MALL Bolt BLX3-ER, WUZ & R,TLFF 9 -11- 9 7 coRPCIZATiON 1743 wAZM srn=r, oeMO;L q XW= B=-W-M-50s APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS HISTORIC (EXISTING) t P Nm t mmoN O 1 Z0 w yW = O 0wU N 3 n a O q Q LL W = C7 C9 F Z Z m Q J X C 4 w O ZO 0 4 F- N NZO FQ¢- a Ja J F W Q J Z U C7 w iJ Z UEr W W 1- W m toCrO ( w a Z 2 Y W Z O C m yZ Y O LUroo ? F a wO C.10 ai U WH W In N m m N O O to m P O m m m m m m m ca m m m m m m ma. n O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O IIIIII III IIIIIII IIIIIIIiI LL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W N N V N N N N N N N N N N N 101N N Z Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W LLO < f0 ITfn N O mO O O P O N I Q y O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z s IIIIIII III Illllllllllllillll LL c CD0 o O O o 0 o 0 0 c W In In In If7 I17 II] In Y] In101 InI'm 1,=lIn In w In101 In In Z O O O O O O O O c c c c O c c c c LL J O W O O C O O O O O O O O O O C Q Q 1,=l 1,=lccOoccOccCDcO c O QO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllll 0 LL m N t N 1n N N m In In cn N W m m c rn m rn m m m 1 1G7 m1 1 m 1 1G m m m Z Q c c o 6 c c c c c c c c c c c c LL CD O Z O O O m m C Q F5 C O O C c C O O O c O O O O O C W J C O O O O c O O O O O O O O O O G Lrn IIIIIIilllllllilllllllllllllllll LL - Q LL N N in In In N I!] In In Ifl U] N In Z w c o 1 1rn 1 1m m m m Imlm m m m m m m m m O O O C c C O c c c c c c c c c c Y LL J O N N N f0 to P- O P m m co P m P to N cD N m C P vi to N 10 P O W G C O O C O O O O O O O O C O O C QOC J TJIJGJI;Zl 101 I 1=1 1=1 I I I I I I I I 1=1 I I I I I J jOQCOOOOOOOCCOOCOCO ZO Ha o cn P cn z w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w a w O O U o WN H W O J ON N II'] O r- N 1nO Rm ON Or O G O O O O O O IL< O LL LU CN OU O C O 0 C C O O W LL Q Q U o NO O Q o o O Q Z J Z W LL n Q LL O O O O O O O O W Q Z W N h N to to In In In W m O O O O O O CD O Lu U y m U FN m O LL JJ LLILL W= 0 Q O O LL, O C O G C O O CD O Z y Q W I I I I IOZO O C LLO W to toO toO toO toW to0 toO to N O m O C O O O 0 O U O _Z C O O CD(D C Lr) Q D C C O n O N O O C O C O C O O CNQm I I I IZ O W aHa LL LL LI)l V)l ull Lr)l LolJZWIG7ImImlQI11to W J O O O O C O CDO CD Z U (j U YU F O QF_ WZ Q C C O N CDCD N CDO Q Q D O O O O O CDO j CL z OU O I I I O I I I I O I I I I I I I I IOQCOOCOIn rm Z } Z O m O Q W W Q X O X X co X 0 W W W W W W W W JO w U C W a Z 0 r i Z 0 W LLLUVZz 0LL. — U 0 X WLL1 m N 0 Zp m Z H Q w O Z 2 p w O J U N NY N Q D LULU Z NI NI NI NI N W N Z V W INI IN INI INI INI INI INI INI INI IN IIIIIII fl f0 l7 Q f0 C tG Ci C IN OR Q V A l7 O N O O c 4 C ENv mn U Y N_ O O O O O O O N N O O N O O O m O CNWZJNNINNNIl7INININIl7ININl7 v I I Iu7r C] mi mi miINIOIINI NI OI PIIIiIIImIIIII 1 m NI NI N N11IIqII'l I 1111 I I II III r N N NI NI N N N NI NI NI N N NIIiqlIIIIIiIIII'I mI mI m mI O O I I I ImI^ I^ i 11 I I ImlcILUIINv CD 1101 IN Imi F 101INI IC)lNIC:,l INNNIl7ININ r Egli IIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I IIml1,71IIII o oR it IIII II II IIII^I m III III I i I I0 ILUJ-- m ml< J l l I l o 0 oc101 oiClcGNILIzQ> II oNfI II IIoI oII to tI omIl II III oIII Ii f oto III II 0 Il Iit 00IIIII 0 0 oo IIQIIIIIC_ Z7Z o a Z I; zlW H I I I I I I I I I i l l inWWWIWWWWl W l IWI IWI IW IIIIIII WWWIWW m Z O N cna N ZO OLL W U- U C7 Ir O Z ap UU. H a 0 XWNW 1 CLa o JW W Z U o w Z IrCQ U w w ZYW O u ym N C U O co.. 0 O N < 0 Z 7CLQM03UOwO v J w N NY a w N NIZII INI INI IN IOILL l7 t7 R l7 O l7 N O N O O O R C s Z m E N o m Y N O O O O O O O w VI NI N N m NI naAN I iIINIIIII i l 101V I I I I l OI O) m i ININv JLU H I NI C t'1 I PIINIJEto mI o o a o 0 m c vi n e7 e7 O u N N O l7laJCv 101 101 101 101 101J ui 0. 0IaUI1010INI10i0M 101cZ G N I I lO I O O 101 INIQ 9 Z 10 o 2 I IWI IWI Iwl IWI WI IWI IWIj m to L7 Nc m UO W a 9 c0m 0 X W Q Z O N Q N y B: Z O O U LL. o Z Z p U F- 0 XWyW 2 m y O YCQL 7 Wm Z E o 01 0 0 0 z Io IoI lol lol lol Ioi Iol IoI Io to I IoI Io IIIIIIIw 1 O 7 P t0 Q f0 P C1 P In m Q P m O O N cc p m C z E y n0 G is m « U QW O O O O OON QNI N l'1 y m Ivvu mIINIIaiiI'i I i IOI i l INI lol IoI I'I I i INI I I INI IyI i U ` O tD CEO INI I^ I^I I{ O IN iol IOI I II I NNI NI N NI N NI N N NI N NI N n` I I I lql I I I P O m f7 O y P O e m I IG7I Iml IOyv I I Iml Iml 11 M Iuj C v 101 iolNI 101101 NI 11101101 N NI IN 1011 NI NI INIZJ I III I I I I I I i l l I I i al I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 11 1y- q l^ I^Il l lfy0LL 00 O Il I Il O O C OIiIlIIlIlIlIlIlIi'O Ill I Il'O IlIl IlIl Il IO ilIl I I Iz Qq IoIoI Io I Io III 0 0 tocI II o o IfI oIofofIo I II o IoI to v... Z o a1. 1101w IJ Iw1 IJ IJI:: I I im, Jam:& W Nwwt7wwP w y w f0 w 1 w Ww W W Q O Z O r N 0 z O LULLUz Oz U N 0 O XLU W r m N 0 p m Z 0 ¢ OW O Z 2 UO w O D U N NY W v LL Z E u° u mLLJup N O c V Z 0 N NLLJYIIIuccIr f N C O O n N N f7 C O o O I I iNI O N W uj NQ`Il,l llm OI N mlIIIiN I ICJ W cII IZ I I i I I of iol NI Z o a z 1 1w2 Iwl Id 1w1 1!w Iwlin o m X wl Z W c-n WV7Mw wU toW 3 u o LL LIJU F=- z Q w r= z rn a z waw o zQ m Qo V) U3wF- z2 O fN N Y uy Q w Nn Iw J II III I I I I I i Q U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m IIITi I i HIM II III IIIoIII Q INI IO I I IMIQ I I CRImI 1 CI IOIuIml1IVIOIclNNICI)N LL I I I 11n I I16ton1NtoLOntoO IEIw117I1{] 117 to In to1!'1 In In O to tl] 11') In I N tT U n N O N m N O r O f 1 t fI n N O to m Q O OI O O OI C O O OI O C O OI O O OI o lolO CDof of oO oO cO cC Oof 0O 0l o C O 0O 0O 0O O0I Oof QofU U rn ml mI mI m m+ I m mi m mI m MI mI101 mi mi I00000oco000000000 l0 to I^m I co IcI 11 I Iol c IoIcoIoIoIoIoIoooIoI i z7L c w N to to m a)o_ N m v 0 J n W W X W mw W W l W 1 W W W W W W W W W L ¢ L w UJI III IIIIII IIcoa I I I I I I I I I I( I I I I r WFQ Z W0 N W toWU N on a OJ N LL D F Z_ M a w zO 0 QO N ` i W F- W to of Z CW uj } NoW O a WrQ z w0 ¢ VI wWQWU O rn d O N O LL0 W7 F z z z witO I aOrN ` it WWz w w C Y WO m O C Q m O z < LU O z 9 a c0 w O J 0 U m ui r J r C I I I I I I I W ... Z E U o I I I I I II a Im ILO nl ml IOI I<I If7InimNONmINIui N N NI N N N NI N NI N NI NI NII I` I I o cl o of o 0 0 0 0 0l o oI of o Ol cl oIo0000oco000000occ V ml LO I nI N m N m 17 OI I YlI IN NI rl O IGOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOC U N Nl Nl N Nl Nl Nl N N C I Iol In lol IcI lolUofoIclcIofo0ocofofoI cm Q ml 16-1 lnOlO O Nl q 17OI OmiOOOCOGOCCCG C W QC W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W l l l l l l( l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l w u z Z Q W WO N O JJ U QQ LLJL H LLO OZw 2 LW O0) H 0 o Q N X LL w LL LL O J F W Q Z W7 wW OWU N N d O N o LL w = C7z Q W r z 2 Q J X K Q W O zO a: F Q a i- cU— It'1fD Omm 1N O Nm 3 QJLL W LL a 0 mmc0 SD X i fl r i I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS DEVELOPED 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .. u.7/.. DESIGNED.. DATE. NIP CHECKED......... DATE.............. . SHEET... . OF ... . 01-e ' t c i•1.<,.-KS:i'._ v- r HG e-9::, f I i j I !i I f I i I e7z.e—c7Sa-- r1 j_ C, f9?G C' 1 GS f GG/ 17' G 7^..v+.. l ii.E:CC liorl d i 7 Z/98- f FiE 'E2F02MiNNG=Tt+E ff P'-MsT IoD /Nh Y'SISII rr VAS 7'h 3vSTJPr-2Et kSB;h'E5-j R'HiER--1.4}A f p p-SuST-PorfU-+loft-rME-S%ram ORDER;'(b-oV 9E=-k EQV?tk'iE•-S'foiZ-A{vc 'APtFE TY: -r2i<'E 45E Lf TE O_ 0..52.-c 5 RoM-=qf.1 D-2—Met—; '1.415--'CSZIT ER1 4--/1ND-FfE 1-t—'T C-AsE ' PrTE RvC 1_oN 1 __ rlh ?c EAs- i TOI • I.I cis _Tp 1 Z Drainage Calculations SUBDIVISION University Mall PUD Redevelopment LOCATION Ft. Collins, CO DESIGN STORM 2 YR RECURRENCE INTERVAL COMPUTATIONS BY NRM DATE 6/1/98 SUBMITTED BY: Bucher, Willis, Ratliff, Corp. 2-YEAR HISTORIC FLOW ANALYSIS Calculated historic total flows to existing manhole southwest of McDonalds (STMH 1) Basin Basins E16 & EEX2 Total 2 yr Release Rate = 1.68 cis 11 t A" C2 Ci A•C(2) A'C•Cf tc(eff).. 12 02 1.82 0.4 1.0 0.73 0.73 12.3 2.31 1.68 A" C2 Ci A•C(2) A'C*Cf tc(eff).. 12 02 1.62 0.69 1.0 1.12 1.12 6.1 2.95 3.30 0.73 0.81 1.0 0.59 0.59 5 3.3 1.95 BASED ON 10-YR AND 100-YR HISTORIC DRAINAGE CONDITION INFORMATION FROM THE BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 6, 1996. 1 Rational.As Existing pipe downslope of ST MH 1 Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File untitled Worksheet University Center Mall Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Full Flow Capacity Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.015 Channel Slope 0.002790 ft/ft Diameter 1.00 ft Results Depth 1.00 ft Discharge 1.63 ft3/s -- Flow Area 0.79 ftz Wetted Perimeter 3.14 ft Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth 0.54 ft Percent Full 100.00 Critical Slope 0.008506 ft/ft Velocity 2.08 ft/s Velocity Head 0.07 ft Specific Energy FULL ft Froude Number FULL Maximum Discharge 1.75 ft3/s Full Flow Capacity 1.63 ft3/s Full Flow Slope 0.002790 ft/ft BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF FlowMaster v4.1b Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 POND 1 Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File r:\97415\wpcorp\pond0702.fm2 Worksheet STORM PIPE - POND 1 TO STMH-1 Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.011 Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft t Diameter 1.00 It Discharge 1.11 ft3/s 1 Results Depth 0.45 ft Flow Area 0.34 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 1.47 ft Top Width 1.00 It Critical Depth 0.44 It Percent Full 45.02 Critical Slope 0.004217 ft/ft Velocity 3.24 ft/s Velocity Head 0.16 It Specific Energy 0.61 It Froude Number 0.97 Maximum Discharge 2.86 ft3/s Full Flow Capacity 2.66 ft3/s Full Flow Slope 0.000695 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. 2, 1998 BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF 14:16:23 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203)755-1666 1 FlowMaster v4.1b Page 1 of 1 POND 2 Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File r:\97415\wpcorp\pond0702.fm2 Worksheet DRAIN PIPE - POND 2 TO STMH-1 Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.011 Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft Diameter 1.00 ft Discharge 0.52 ft3/S Results Depth 0.30 ft Flow Area 0.20 ftz Wetted Perimeter 1.16 ft Top Width 0.92 ft Critical Depth 0.30 ft Percent Full 29.96 % Critical Slope 0.004018 ft/ft Velocity 2.63 fUS Velocity Head 0.11 It Specific Energy 0.41 ft Froude Number 1.00 Maximum Discharge 2.86 ft3/s Full Flow Capacity 2.66 ft3/s Full Flow Slope 0.000153 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. 2, 1998 BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF FlowMaster v4.1b 14"14'44 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 5 DETENTION STORAGE CALCULATIONS FAA METHOD PROJECT NAME: University Mall PUD Redevelopment DATE.- 6/1/08 DESIGN BY: NRM/AJW INPUT Storm Sewer Restricted Design Storm: 100 -Yr Allowable Release Rate: 1.11 Basins: Al Outflow Adjustment Factor 1.0 Area: 0.83 Acres Effective Release Rate: 1.11 cfs C 0.95 OUTPUT Time Intensity Released Required min) 1700 0 (cfs) Volume (ft') Storage (ft') 0 0 0 0 5 9.00 21129 333 1,796 10 7.30 37454 666 2,788 15 6.20 41400 999 31401 20 5.20 4,920 1,332 31588 25 4.75 5,618 11665 31953 30 4.20 51961 1,998 31963 40 3.50 6,623 2,664 31959 50 3.00 79097 3.330 31767 60 2.60 7,380 31996 31384 70 2.25 71451 4,662 21789 80 2.10 71948 51328 29620 90 1.83 71771 51994 11777 100 1.70 87043 61660 11383 110 1.60 87327 71326 11001 120 1.50 81516 71992 524 130 1.40 8,610 8.658 0 MAXIMUM STORAGE VOLUME OF 3963 cf IS REQUIRED AT TIME........: 30 minutes after beo. of storm Total Runoff 10,000 ---- --S(3RAG1=—VS—-ME- 9.000 - — --- —31— Released Volume 8,000 X— Storage 7,000- 6,000 5,000 - W 4,000 XX—=-yZ— — --- --- 3,000_.._._.___...... _._...__..:...._.....,_____.... .... _----- > X. ZOO j 1,000 _ +. xX X 0 — 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 TIME (min) Ear IPROJECT NAME: INPUT Design Storm: Basins: Area: Itch: IOUTPUT DETENTION STORAGE CALCULATIONS FAA METHOD University Mall PUD Redevelopment Storm Sewer Restricted 100 -Yr Allowable Release Rate: A2 Outflow Adjustment Factor 0.26 Acres Effective Release Rate: 0.95 DATE: DESIGN BY 0.52 1.0 0.52 cfs Time Intensity Released Required min) 1t00 Q (cfs) Volume (ft') Storage (ft') 0 0 0 0 5 9.00 667 156 511 10 7.30 11082 312 770 15 6.20 1,378 468 910 20 5.20 11541 624 917 25 4.75 11760 780 980 30 4.20 11867 936 931 40 3.50 29075 11248 827 50 3.00 2,223 11560 663 60 2.60 27312 19872 440 70 2.25 21334 27184 150 80 2.10 2,490 21496 0 90 1.83 2,434 21808 0 100 1.70 27519 31120 0 110 1.60 21608 31432 0 120 1.50 21668 37744 0 130 1.40 2,697 4,056 0 IMAXIMUM STORAGE VOLUME OF IS REQUIRED AT TIME........: 10.000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, 000 0 0 6/1/98 NRM/AJW 980 cf 25 minutes after beg. of storm 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Total Runoff iF— Released Volume X—Storage w J 0 TIME (min) FJ' 0 0 0 CD wo >> (o 2 2 tco LO o o o r N W voV W vn -'W a:v0 I U C6 U ¢U rn o Z o Z o Z T T r iCVVtirVLam /am LamW w CD0T 02 02 W w w D W O 7 W D W r 0 oa N ; 0<o 0<NT \ LLJWgvo W<C \ WZv^ o g°' \ ga ga y X Q d>^ O a> M d>^ T ' 0 W J (O W J^ W W n C d w T W I-w h1 0 a z \ z T\i z \ a w v V v im D LL JJ J 0 0 0 r 0 (D ' IT a w > N > co O > "=CD O CONM D r T V In z U U U O O 0 co r > co0Mj > ((J ( O o , 0 Q to r it (V t v v CD O i U m U T U r cl) Q ? Z Z Z a wLOLO (n( n moor U Z w oo w oo W - orro w = _ _ U co J J W W W Qw0 Qc N_( j Qw (on(on Qw `o(nmo Z > H T Z vo ('M O Z o r co Z O \ O 07 In 0 Z O n "7 - J J J L LL o Q o d d d LW Z W W 0(no .u7O(n W ,m OOOZw I T w -"< J( ciL6c6 ( Dr l _jvu(cr-r, ! 0 0 0 0 F- Z W r r T ) W T r T z ui T T T r T o a-j as w o a aL 0 PROJET ...................... NO.. G/. DESCRICPTION .'r'.." .......DESIGNED,-07Z--' DATE, DATE .... IL -. .. .. .. -. .. -. .. -. .. -. .. .. -. .. .. .. .. .. .. -. .. .. .. .. . CHECKED. . SHEET. ........... o Existing pipe downslope of ST MH 2 Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File untitled Worksheet University Center Mall Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Full Flow Capacity Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.015 Channel Slope 0.007000 ft/ft Diameter 1.25 it Results Depth 1.25 ft Discharge 4.68 ft3/S ---- Flow Area 1.23 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 3.93 ft Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth 0.88 ft Percent Full 100.00 % Critical Slope 0.009913 ft/ft Velocity 3.82 ft/S Velocity Head 0.23 ft Specific Energy FULL ft Froude Number FULL Maximum Discharge 5.04 ft3/S Full Flow Capacity 4.68 ft3/s Full Flow Slope 0.007000 ft/ft Or 17, 1998 16:48:37 Haestad Methods, Inc BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF FlowMaster v4.1b 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 18" PVC PIPE AT 0.25% SLOPE Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File untitled Worksheet University Center Mall Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Full Flow Capacity Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.011 Channel Slope 0.002500 ft/ft Diameter 1.50 ft Results Depth 1.50 ft Discharge 6.21 ft3/s QPo vd s Flow Area 1.77 ftz Wetted Perimeter 4.71 ft Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth1 0.96 ft Percent Full 100.00 Critical Slope 0.004529 ft/ft Velocity 3.51 ft/s Velocity Head 0.19 ft Specific Energy FULL ft Froude Number FULL Maximum Discharge 6.68 ft3/s Full Flow Capacity 6.21 ft3/s Full Flow Slope 0.002500 ft/ft Feb 12, 1998 10:53:31 None FlowMaster v4.1b Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 DETENTION STORAGE CALCULATIONS FAA METHOD 0*z PROJECT NAME: University Mall PUD Redevelopment DATE: 6/1/98 DESIGN BY: NRM INPUT Storm Sewer Restricted Design Storm: 100 -Yr Allowable Release Rate: 4.68 Basins: B Outflow Adjustment Factor 1.0 Area: 8.43 Acres Effective Release Rate: 4.68 cfs C": 0.95 OUTPUT Time min) Intensity 1100 Q (cfs) Released Volume (ft') Required Storage (ft') 0 0 0 0 5 9.00 21,623 11404 20,219 10 7.30 359077 27808 32,269 15 6.20 44,687 47212 40,475 20 5.20 49,973 53616 44,357 25 4.75 57,061 71020 50,041 30 4.20 60,544 87424 52,120 40 3.50 677271 11,232 56,039 50 3.00 72,077 14,040 58,037 60 2.60 747960 16,848 58,112 70 2.25 75,680 191656 56,024 80 2.10 80,726 22,464 58,262 90 1.83 78,924 259272 53,652 100 1.70 81,687 28,080 537607 110 1.60 84,570 309888 53,682 120 1.50 86,492 33.696 52,796 130 1.40 87,453 36,504 50,949 MAXIMUM STORAGE VOLUME OF IS REQUIRED AT TIME........: 10,000 9.000 8,000 7,000 6.000 5,000 41000 3.000 2,000 11000 0 0 20 40 60 58262 cf 80 minutes after beg. of storm STvr tAGE-VS-- E so 100 120 140 Page 1 iN-Total Runoff 31- Released Volume X-Storage w J O TIME (min) PROJECT. DESCRIPTION . 1/.Hiv... ........... DESIGNED.,.4 DATE... lip ,,............................................... CHECKED......... DATE.............. . SHEET. OF.... . L Hbr Y I a 0 m O mm m0 O LLLLO tN00] NMOLOM rI-ONN iS NOLOOG O Q u o w a OMr000 fM Ctl N N M NO(ONO H E CO (O T (O 6 o 00 c to (p a E 00 t 0 TO J CO J Wwz 00 to a oN o0 Z U QN LO O V O p a 00agn 000LOccO c n °-- r r O N (O z LL cr tLac o r- (n o W c NNcoU)LO a) N r N Z N O N h f- N r0 a oOnoO w T N O N I I N 'CT T O O O I O O rn u ti coco0000NtOO 0 0 0 0 0 n J O O O O O w 0 0 0 0 0 T r T T T O Z U co co O N (O w 0 6 0 06 cc a o 3 CLm o w y- CC) CMr- CO T cc Er a:< o6a000 Z a7 N — U NI C\J_ .L D li mm m QQCO00 m Z O O m O ¢ w o z p z a T N CO CO mUcn2mm0. 0LUN000U) N ftm ca U) z 0 F- Q LLLL O z co co rl JQJ W w 0E o z o - m U a z cc¢ c o m 3 c a w ¢ O ¢ a:H a c } z 3 a d U O N c LL CO m' y ccUz mzcc0UzFQLLI z o ¢ 0 ( mUUwU m a 0 NYNE N N o LLLL0 cNt0CD COT I r lqr t\ n Nr N ONrmI I-f-O')OM n HQMdv nNmOO Co OC7OO o w N t LO LO Qi N LO U') LO UIi LO 00 O rl LLj od 00 06 06 0 OON I O 0000 U .E LO Ln m U) LL) Lfi LO 6 H r Co co C Lei CO a E 00 O J = LO CD NJ JWz O O zQ U rn O O U LO CC) CD m O LO OD CO O E NrcM ODD C rV5Lo 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Og- LO CD CD O O LO CO 0 O Q O oCl) r r O N LO r r O N zQ L W N O m LO Lr) 0NC `. N C.O N O O J N r N N r N C'MOO cc 0) mmd'v I Iv I CD N I r 0 O O 0 0 cQ O O 06 O O O O O O LETa) w cnaa) is mmIttI'll ca aCl) (D0co0) I INI OONI r0 0000 E O O N O O al 6 6 6 O m C N aICce) O O O N i O O O O n IU I" T T T O O Q r' T T r cap LL J LO Ln cc LO LONNNN N CV N N NJ C p LOLOLOLO O LOmLOOo co 0 co N LO 0 00 co c0 N 0 U 7cc to co cc CD N1 CO mm'V V Q E O N E CD r U O O O O co 0Oco00 0000 c o LL 7 N m r CM LL z C d Q¢m00 UOWLL m Q C R m rn c t W o r N C`7 CO qT l!i Co I 0 o a 0V S. A H nW x W2 A cnY rn n Table 3-3 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPOSITE ANALYSIS. Character of Surface. Runoff Coefficient Streets, Parking Lots, Drives: Asphalt ...................................... 0.95 Concrete.. 0.95 Gravel ....................................... 0.50 Roofs.......................................... 0.95 Lawns, Sandy Soil:- Flat<2%..................................... 0.10 Average 2to 7% ........ eep .................... .... . Lawns, Heavy Soil: O Z Flat<2%..................................... 0.20 Ver3(jP 7 to Est D ZS S Steep>7%..................................... 0.35 3.1.7 Time of Concentration In order to use the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curve, the time of concentration must be known. The time of concentration, T„ represents the time for water to flow from the most remote part of the drainage basin under consideration to the design point under consideration. The time of concentration can be represented by the following equation. T. = t.v + tc Where: T, = Time of Concentration, minutes t,,, = overland flow time, minutes tt = travel time in the gutter, Swale, or storm sewer, minutes The overland flow time, t,,,, ,can be determined either by the following equation 1 or the "Overland Time of Flow Curves" from the Urban Storm Drainace Criteria Manual, included in this report (See Figure 3-2). 1.87(1.1-CCf)D12TGv= S113 Where: T,,,= Overland Flow Time of Concentration, minutes S = Slope, % C = Rational Method Runoff Coefficient D = Length of Overland Flow, feet (500' maximum) C. = Frequency Adjustment Factor The travel time, t,, in the gutter, Swale, or storm sewer can be estimated with the help of Figure 3-3. 3.1.8 Adjustment for Infrequent Storms The preceding variables are based on the initial storm, that is, the two to ten year -storms. For storms with higher intensities an adjustment of the runoff coefficient is recl:'red because of the lessening amount of infiltration, depression retention, and other losses that have a proportionally smaller effect on storm runoff. These frequency adjustment factors are found in Table 3-4. May 1984 Desicn Criteria Revised January 1997 3-5 G 3.1.6 Runoff Coefficients I The runoff coefficients to be used with the Rational Method referred to in Section 3.2 Analysis Methodology" can be determined based on either zoning classifications or the types of surfaces on the drainage area. Table 3-2 lists the runoff coefficients for the various types of zoning along with the zoning definitions. Table 3.3 lists coefficients for the different kinds of surfaces. Since the Land Development Guidance System for Fort Collins allows land development to occur which may vary the zoning requirements and produce runoff coeffi- cients different from those specified in Table 3-2, the runoff coefficients should not be based solely on the zoning classifications. The Composite Runoff Coefficient shall be calculated using the following formula: C = (ZC;A;)/At Where C = Composite Runoff Coefficient C, = Runoff Coefficient for specific area A; A; = Area of surface with runoff coefficient of C; n = Number of different surfaces to be considered At = Total area over which C is applicable: the sum of all A,'s is equal to At Table 3-2 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS Description of Area or Zoning Coefficient Business: S , BLD...................................................................................... 0.85 Business: B , C.................................................................................. Industrial: IL, IP.......................................................................................... 0.85 Industrial: IG............................................................................................... 0.95 Residential: RE, RLP.................................................................................. 0.45 Residential: RL, ML, RP............................................................................. 0.50 Residential: FILM, RMP.............................................................................. 0.60 Residential: P.M, MM.................................................................................. 0.65 Residential: RH.......................................................................................... 0.70 Parks, Cemeteries...................................................................................... 0.25 Playgrounds............................................................................................... 0.35 RailroadYard Areas................................................................................... 0.40 UnimprovedAreas...................................................................................... 0.20 Zoning Definitions R- E Estate Residential District — a low density residential area primarily in outlying areas with a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet. R- L Low Density Residential District — low density residential areas located throughout the City with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. MAY 1984 R- M Medium Density Residential District — both low and medium density residential areas with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet for one -family or two-family dwellings and 9,000 square feet for a multiple family dwelling. R- H High Density Residential District— high density residential areas with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet for one -family or two-family dwellings, 9,000 square feet for a multiple family dwelling, and 12,000 square feet for other specified uses. R- P Planned Residential District — designation of areas planned as a unit (PUD) to pro- vide a variation in use and building placements with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. R- L-P Low Density Planned Residential District — areas planned as a unit (P'JD) to permit variations in use, density and building placements, with a minumum lot area of 6,000 square feet. 3- 3 DESIGN CRITERIA a DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF 50 30 20 Z w FU C L 1= 10 LU a Q 5 U.1 c 3 Q U 2C LU F- 3 1 I I XI/ e Q e A:' a= J i T 1 1 IU I I I I I I Q' Cl I I;1 aT.mT' I I II IIo Q c e U UTI h I I I IIOIr O 4T I T QW aT . III I 1 1 I I I I I I I 111 5 I I I I III I I I I I I I I i l 1 .2 .3 .5 I 1 (;72 3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN T PER SECOND Figure 3-3 ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELOPED" LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. REFERENCE:: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975. 5-1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT n I Irl/• inl y0 84 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY, STORM SEWERS TABLE XIV. Values of Effective Absolute Roughness and Friction tEffective Absolute Conduit Material Roughness Manning Hama -Williams Darcy-weisbach) n (ftl) C k (ft) Closed conduits Asbestos -cement pipe 0.001-0.01 0.011-0.015 100-140 Brick 0.005-0.02 0.013-0.017 — Cast iron pipe — — Uncoated (new) 0.000S5 Asphalt dipped (new) 0.0004 Cement -lined & seal coated 0.001-0.01 0.011-0.015 100-140 Concrete (monolithic) Smooth forms 0.001-0.005 0.012-0.014 — Rough forms 0.005-0.02 0.015-0.017 — Concrete pipe 0.001-0.01 0.011-0.015 100-140 Corrugated -metal pipe Q/f_-in. X 2'73'-in. corruga- tions) Plain 0.1 -02 0.022-0.026 — t Pared invert 0.03 -0.1 0.015-0.022 — Spun asphalt lined 0.001-0.01 0.011-0.015 100-140 Plastic pipe (smooth) 1 0.01 1 0.011-0.015 1 100 140 Vitrified clay Pipes 0.001-0.01 0.011-0.015 100-140 Liner plates 0.005-0.01 0.013-0.017 Open channels Lined channels a. Asphalt = 0.013-0.017 = b. Brick 0.012-0.015 c. Concrete 0.001-0.03 0.011-0.020 — d. Rubble or riprap 0.02 0.020-0.035 — e. Vegetal — 0.030-0.40 " — Excavated or dredged Earth, straight and uniform 0.01 0.020-0.030 — Earth, winding, fairly uni- form = 0.00-0.04= RoRock0.030-0.045 Unmaintained 0.050-0.14 — Natural channels (minor streams, top width at flood — — stage < 100 ft) 0.1 -0.0 — Faith. regular section 0.03 -0.07 Irregular section with pools — 0.04 -0.10 — Assume dimensional units contained in 1.32 term in formula. See References (2) 19) (20). (Varies with depth and velocity.) the values obtained in laboratory tests with clear water and clean conduits. The range in coefficients for a given pipe material is explained partially by the disturbing influences mentioned previously in the general discussion of coefficients. A coefficient which «ill yield higher friction losses should be selected for sewers with High disturbing influences. Because of the physical and hydraulic conditions which may influence a friction formula coefficient, the values given in Table XIV for one fric- Gsu O.O// PROJECT liNlV>TY N1AL:_........................... NO. 7 1I5 DESGRIPrioN G IRATE... QPRACITY ... DE516NED . NKM DATE_ PROJECT ...................................................... NO.. DESCRIPTION ................................... DESIGNED.,.4.4,,'... . DATE CHECKED......... DATE.............. . eelLZ wd c 0.62 --A- 2.9 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL Cep] 0.7 H w 0.6 F- w z 0.5 w 0.4 G 2 f— a 0.3 w 0 c z 0.2 0 z 0 a 0.1 EXAM STORM INLETS Z3 0.0 0 I 2 3. 4 FLOW INTO INLET PER SO. FT. OF OPEN AREA.(CFS/FT2) FIGURE 4-I. CAPACITY OF GRATED INLET IN SUMP 0 10-15-68 Denver Regional Council of Governments I PROJET ................... NO.. VE5CMCPTION, * ....... * ....... .............. VE51SNEP j4Vn% VA7r-. ..e-7 -f<2 lb IMF JhL CHECKPJ:l ........ DATE . ............ . sHEeT.,Z5or-. I F I ep, 4 4.5 Jo. 2s,? OVERFLOW CHANNEL ALONG W. PROPERTY LINE Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File untitled Worksheet University Center PUD Flow Element Method Triangular Channel Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.060 Channel Slope 0.006500 ft/ft Left Side Slope 20.50 H : V Right Side Slope 7.50 H : V Discharge 67.93 ft3/s Results Depth 1.66 ft Flow Area 38.60 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 46.64 It Top Width 46.49 ft Critical Depth 1.08 ft Critical Slope 0.064714 ft/ft Velocity 1.76 fUS Velocity Head 0.05 It Specific Energy 1.71 ft Froude Number 0.34 Flow is subcritical. Jun 2, 1998 BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF FlowMaster v4.1b 11:29:58 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT ..... ........4, ....................... NO.. DESCRIPTION ........................... DESIGNED.DATE.. CHECKED......... DATE.............. SHEET..Z.7. OF.... IF 27114 100 YR FLOW IN PROFILE A STORM PIPE Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File untitled Worksheet University Center PUD Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.011 Channel Slope 0.002500 ft/ft Diameter 1.50 ft Discharge 4.68 ft3/s Results Depth 0.97 ft Flow Area 1.21 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 2.81 ft Top Width 1.43 ft Critical Depth 0.83 ft Percent Full 64.86 Critical Slope 1,004045 ft/ft Velocity 3.86 fUS Velocity Head 0.23 ft Specific Energy 1,20 ft Froude Number 0.74 Maximum Discharge 6.68 ft3/s Full Flow Capacity 6.21 ft3/s Full Flow Slope 0.001421 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. 1 2. 1998 BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF 17:34:42 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 1 FlowMaster v4.1b Page 1 of 1 100 YR FLOW IN PROFILE B STORM PIPE Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File untitled Worksheet University Center PUD Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.011 Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft Diameter 1.00 ft Discharge 0.42 ft3/S Results Depth 0.27 ft Flow Area 0.17 ft? Wetted Perimeter 1.09 it Top Width 0.89 ft Critical Depth 0.27 ft Percent Full 26.85 Critical Slope 0.004028 ft/ft Velocity 2.47 fUS Velocity Head 0.10 ft Specific Energy 0.36 it Froude Number 1.00 Maximum Discharge 2.86 ft3/s Full Flow Capacity 2.66 ft3/S Full Flow Slope 0.000100 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. Jun 2, 1998 17:41 :02 BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF FlowMaster v4.1b Hassled Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 100 YR FLOW IN PROFILE C STORM PIPE Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File untitled Worksheet University Center PUD Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.011 Channel Slope 0.004000 ft/ft Diameter 1.00 ft Discharge 1.63 ft3/s Results Depth 0.57 It Flow Area 0.46 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 1.70 ft Top Width 0.99 ft Critical Depth 0.54 ft Percent Full 56.53 Critical Slope 0.004574 ft/ft Velocity 3.56 ft/s Velocity Head 0.20 ft Specific Energy 0.76 ft Froude Number 0.92 Maximum Discharge 2.86 ft3/s Full Flow Capacity 2.66 ft3/s Full Flow Slope 0.001499 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. Pun 2, 1998 BUCHER, WILLIS 8 RATLIFF 17:36:41 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 z7- FlowMaster v4.1b Page 1 of 1 NO.....5> DESGRIGPTION.. lLyr . DESIGNED ATE... b lip„ GHEGKED .:...... DATE............. . SHEET. c OF.... . iGcrCCChC.--.2_l!__w iir e _G_y!!K-iiG_:_ 1 - I Lv,'s rcon._-...GzLabsw s», -f `%a d C s -r-- -- I 1 - - - I I e 1 I ; I 28A 1 100 YEAR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS PIPE DATA FLOW DATA HEAD LOSSES HYD. DATA STATION/REACH SIZE/ TYPE LENGTH SLOPE FLOW AREA n WETTED PERIMETER P) NORMAL DEPTH (d) V Q H v_-_.. V2/2g S ..... S Hi H Hm E.G.L. H.G.L. COMMENTS ISTMH2 ft) ftZ) ft) fps) cfs) ft) 1 5013.401 5013.17 Start HGL at the top of pipe at existing manhole 2 0.011 1 2.81 1 1 3.86 4.68 0.232 1 2.51 E-03 10.640 1 10.186 I 5014.23 1 5014.00 80 degree deflection at manhole STMH3 18 1 255 0.25 1.21 0.011 2.81 3.86 4.68 0.232 2.51 E-0-310.6531 10.237 5015.121 5014.89 STMH4 18 260 0.25 1.21 90 degree deflection at manhole 1.21 0.011 1 2.81 1 3.86 4.68 0.232 2.51 E-031 0.5951 1 0.005 1 18 1 237 0.25 1 1 I I 5015.721 5015.49 STMHS 1 0.011 2.81 1 I 3.86 4.68 0.232 2.51 E-031 0.5801 1 10.237 5016.531 1 5016.30 90 degree deflection at manhole1823110.25 1.21 STMH6 1 1 0.011 I 2.81 1 1 I 3.86 4.68 1 0.232 2.51 E-03 0.040 1 1 I 5016.571 1 5016.3418160.25 1.21 POND 3 1 1 1 3.86 1 0.232 1 I 1 l 1 I 1 I 1 I 5013.301 5013.14 Start HGL at the top of pipe at existing manhole 1 TMH 1.47 0.45 3.24 1.11 0.163 4.05E 031 0.486 0.163 1 12 120 0.4 0.34 1 0.011 1 1 1 1 5013.951 5013.79LOND1I1 1 1 3.24 0.163111 i Tiv1Hi 1IS OND2 1 1 12 160 0.3 1 d-.3-11 1 1 0.011 1 I 1 1.16 I 1 I 0.30 1 1 2.63 I 1 0.52 0.107 I 2.23E-03 10.3571 1 I 1 10.026 I I 5013.251 5013.631 5013.14 5013.52 Start HGL at the top of pipe at existing manhole 1 1 2.63 1 1 0.107 1 I I BWR CORP:nrm/ajw Hgl417.xls 7/2/98 I zs' 1.4 1.2 1.0 No z 0.8 w U ujw O U c(n 0.6 OJ 0.4 0.2 0.0 0' BENDS AT MANHOLES BEND NO SPECIAL AT MANHOLEviSHAPING BEND AT MANHOLE CURVED OR DEFLECTOR I 20' 40' 60' 80' 90' 100' DEFLECTION ANGLE y DEGREES NOTE: HEAD LOSS APPLIED AT OUTLET OF MANHOLE CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO ISSUEDAPRIL 199 STANDARDS & SPECIFICATIONS REVISED: STORM SEWER 4/95 D.B. ENERGY LOSS COEFFICIENT DRAWING NO. 400-33 111v1 ® Qzvz Q PLAN USE EQUATION 400-4 Kj = 0.05 Q3 SECTION CASE I INLET OR STRAIGHT THROUGH MANHOLE ON MAIN UNE Q1V1 Q2V2 PLAN USE EQUATION 400 Kj = 0.25 Q2V2 Q1V1 W CASE III 0' Kj 22-1/2 0.75 Q3 45 0.50 60 0.35 0.25 N SEENOLATERALSEE CASE 1 01V1 USE EQUATION 400-8 PLAN Q1 V1 qw CASE III MANHOLE ON MAIN UNE wrru or P_RANCH LATERAL Q2V2 Q2V2 SECTION CASE 11 INLET ON MAIN LINE WITH BRANCH LATERAL a Q2V2 RE PLAN USE EQUATION 400-4 Kj = 1.25 SECTION CASE IV INLET OR MANHOLE AT BEGINNING OF UNE CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO STANDARDS & SPECIFICATIONS MANHOLE JUNCTION LOSSES Q2V2 ISSUED: April 1992 REVISED: 5/95 D.B. DRAWING NO. 400-34 APPENDIX D EROSION CONTROL 1 RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION MARCH 1991 B-14 DESIGN CRITERIA EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: VNIve2S1r( CENTER MALL STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: i.1RM DATE: 2 // 98 Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment Rov HErIEO -Solt =__— 00-___ __-- Q-%o ---- _-::._-=A1,A2,-8 SEDlMErri 00 0.50 8 STRAW. &4,Lr GAZeiER/GeAvCL F,[i&a /,00 0110 A1, A zj Q AcrCQ,XC PAVEMENT 0.01 00 Ali A2 F3 S IL-r 'FEr1cE 1.0 0.S0 MAJOR BASIN PS M SUB BASIN AREA Ac) CALCULATIONS 11.35 AI 0.8.3 Roucyenle0 SOIL. = 0. 14 acres t'AVErIF.NT i JALKS. • - _ 0, 69 OCCCS Wicl C'FCLC or=(0.14)(1,0)+ 0.69(0.01) C =0.176 W tci I'Factor CO.9)(0.9)(0.S) P = o 1046 AZ 0.33 ROUG14Ep4eo S01L = O,OZS acCeg TFAVEMEM T- F WALKS 0. 30Z OCIreS wta c Fpc4_0f, - 0,6Z8 + 0.302,(0.01) C = 0.0gz9 P = 0. (046 I-FF - I - (CxP)lao = 9¢.17 > PS g g.3S RoVGHEAEO SotL = 1.30 ccCeS PAVEM"T'WALKS=70S acteS CA55UME ROOF K E-9"WvLE-.s 'to rave+AEj a WAikS) Wu C-ncCO2= 1.30(I)+ 7.CS(o.ol) C = 0.1G4 W8 P--'Foc+or=(o.q)(O.9)(O.S(0 5)=o.Zozs FF = /-(C XF& 100 =9 ,-7 > s E t=NEr 88.6(o,g3)t`1•O o,33)+96.7 5.35]951 MARCHRCH 1991 9-15 DESIGN CRITERIA z o a a.000 O vwInlnln In Co Co Co Co Co o rnrnrn0,000000 o Vv VIn In In In In In v w w w w w w w w w w o w o, rn 1, a, ct C+ 0+ rn 0, 0.1 o V• vaVVvavvvvvinlnln M w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w o nwwwOto+wrna,rn rnrna.o+rn rn o vV vvvvvvvvv r vv vv N w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w O O t^f V' In t0 t0 t0 n n n n n n n n n n n n w w w w w w O O—v eT V' V'wV'd''V' V'C vri Cowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww O wNMvInthm%o%otototownnnnnnnnl- nwww Q a 01 Mvvd 4444; 4 v4 C aeYavv v-.; 44 Uwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww0wwwww O to o N M v i n n w In to to to w to to to to to n. n n. n. n r E CO Mw'qw w V'v V' . V'd wV'-Wa wePvv V'd'V'v V•-W V w H Co w Co Co w w Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co w Co Co Co Co w w w Co Co Co Co a O v 01 ri N M M v e! V' V' In In In In In u1 In In In t0 to t0 t0 w to I` O p d' U Co Co w Co w w Co w w w Co Co w Co Co Co Co w Co Co w Co w Co Co Co a O O to Co 0 H H N N M M M M v v V' v v V' V' V' In In In LO to to Il It Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co 00 w Co InNlnnw0%00ririr-INNNNNMMMC'1Mvvvlwv O In 1 O ota R 0 Co k. In NMMMMM44444444444444444444QOCoCO00 Co w CV Co w Co Co w Co Co Co Co Co w w w w w w Co Co Co Co W W ao aIn r-4CoHmvInlntctonnnwwwwCoCo0Mrno0000 ma o oD .. pi F. a Z}- Ez wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 1 a O 1p lnwO r-INM V' V'lL'1 to In 1010 t0 1p 1p n n n n w w w 0 m M O Irl o H In V' r-IN N M M M M M M M M M M M 99 M M M M M M M M M M w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w t/t 6 3 w U In r-i.-I lnnwOOraNNMMMef'e>'V'V' V'Inlnlnlo lolonn Q.' M r-INNNNMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM to I J aCo Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Cowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Il 0rZ4 O M N t0 w 01 O r-I N V' V' V' V' V' Mr M M M In InInInt0 t0 w t0 0 Q ly M Ori.--Ir•-I riNNNNN NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I' a CowCoCoCoCoCowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ww In In InONN. M. v. Inc.n. n.n.w.w.wo%m.a.%0). m.(7.%000000 O 1 a a N 01OOr1.14 N N N N N Nk J o nCowwCoCowwCoCOCocoCoCowwwwwwwwwwww C z O V' In O M In toCOCO 0) O O O H v-I H H N N N N M M M M MM V c N p -9 r- V) N w01000OC OOrir-I ri r• I ri rl 1; ri 1: 1; ri 1: 1: 1; 1; 1414 nnwwaowwwCoOowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww m go ao ` o t 1{ It 1 to wN Co V'tn nn Co0lONOO r- lr-1 ri ri riNNNMMMMM 1; toww4 C 0;a;0;0;0; 000Q0000000000 0 aA 1p r nnnnnnnnnnnwwwwwwwwwwwwwww IV I.; Ninl cvm N v n 01 O H N M M -tr -W In In In In t0 to t0 to n n w t0 w W p ra V tcnnnnwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn H.tu In 01O V'tonwwnnnt0to%0Ln V' vMMNN01t0vHmko 4 O O NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNr-Ir; 1;1I00 U- 0 r nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn a w x o° o N (Yl 3E- 000 c oOOOOoc000000000o0000oiZ O 0 E o0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1{ aZG. G.a-' HNM--:rIntonw010riNMvIntOnwcncu)clnoln0 h, O rlHHHr-irir-Iris HC% jNMM V' V' U'1 ARCH 1991 8-4 DESIGN CRITERIA CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE Zy JECT: TQU Va%VEVSlii a-EATEV, MALLENCEFOR19196ONLYCOMPLETEDBY: N P M STANDARD FORM C DATE: Z 1 O S icate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. or modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer. YEAR i 99$ MONTH UN I -SUL I AuG I SeP I ocrl /VOV I Der-1 GRADING RIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers egetative Methods oil Sealant Other SOIL RoUGENINr, AIFALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin ; SEbjAetj-j TRAP/C)ETeWTta:J Inlet Filters FiL-rE9-S Straw Barriers WLST STRAW (QAVIL-RS Silt Fence Barriers ' ' $tLT fE/4cE Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving EK15in3G C t f VTOtherNEWAtFAVj VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Lettings/Mats/Blankets ther PEKM SEED PLAN71rJ4 INSTALLED BY COAriZ 4CTOZ MAINTAINED BY C0i4 r2AC-'r0R ITION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR s SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON MARCH 1991 B-16 DESIGN CRITERIA Rl' ._ I r a lip 1 _ ----- ____-- _F_ _ __ 1-- - r'I _e EEX3 _s,--- EE%4 EE%5 _____________ _ __--______-___- -: 11 WRF71 Y I 0.—t --_ AL6 EMMAr V / WI- i-,` /` I` J =</ L- 'Llwj ,i-• _ --Z _ -L i IEO YNETHE MY i-------- --MAY i'' C 1 / T.y{.i. ..`.m,.ifrf.//• ' I I I I - - __ ''.r. - NWa {- i.. t I' -.--`I ,a ,, lid Jolit I 1 I' i t G W ]I wNnm I I I I 1 1 lA n -- 1 I `I ,W„ d l Ni. IION1001ERY WAIIDS / I I III I y— \ I % / / I • .r t UNIYER9tt TOYM W1rER E4 it% E2 -_ E1 - I EE%I I I I it f pE /ie »0. I"E K'yy' thi, EEXd / 1 94] ] e ,(• :y+f •-'T1 T _ u R - _ OIL .74 IS 110111,14 rI I I aim \ E9 I(• -II Lww'nownw- •- .'i "'.11 !.. 1 " mA'Wra 111 / 1 I • I I EIO \ nun II I E7 V I I ! ES —---„„ li I II 6.NW aNUE ` I / IS I I »a X I le V I`} I` A_ ter. eE1aAREA e] NUNNMAIM NjWr \ 6 _ell LLLL Y--.- 19... >. e• _ - _ ''' t \may' _\1 a IT • All INPUTi- W9P w- r-.---' --- CQIEOE AVFIIIIE —° fbLLECE A)ETIIIE___-__-_____ WNM Wvuss na. 9ex . wau I s TA CR%lEOE A\4TAIE - T GS w HI,STORIC EXISTING DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE g y i LEGEND w WAIEH VIUK O WB MfEA C/ WATER m&oN= — • WAm LWE114 SlVtll NNtW WE SANITARY SEMA IINE I . EN STgW MMYNgE a1W.1 SEWER TINE FAO v UTITY MI.E • — CAS LINE • •+i 14 10 EIECTOC TRANSFORMER• — UIOERI]IW19 FIfCIfiC TINE ... .. •. 1. 1 . e A 0 0. O EIECINIC I'],FDESfAL » SON • _ rFl£pXplf IINF40 am CEOWWS TEE — — — — ONAXEPO ELECTRIC IU3 1 ECNFERW. 9 WEE —— WRWERW UNE IS B C_ J COM'rREi ,MFA9 WE HENCE ] 1 1 SIRE HYwrT u CXWN UNN PENCE 60 30 0 60 120 • : n v- W] Y L sTRFEr SIGNAL POST X A19 G UG jT POST EE E19 El SAM DEscNARM d SCALES V = 60' O n.9 u I x:s 1. e.» SI 0.19 1D YEAR CO MEJENT AREA ( ACRES) ROW DIRECM)" 1 1 R» I, 1 R1T- EAST WAFtaM CaJi4tp SEC23 IEW` hREO 2--I/2 A\UWIMUY CIV IN RµCE BOX WR W NWENT EC4M DATED BEN. I& 1995 N F- N Q BIT Nn nZ N O 0 N0J 30 0 0 U O WK O co ry n a Q cf) Z Oa J r- 0 CC J o HUWIm" VO z um Q IL 0 U PROJECT NA RM 9(p59E%DR.DWC DEstlI BY Mv, MAW BY PNV CIECKED BY DEB 55. E OAT 11-3-96 REN90Ra SHEET 1 OF WL T n E 9 STY NM 5 B CURB OPENNG J •' - 'RAN E = 30VIINVEL = Sgli.i2-s. NU 3TA1+0R,OGOU$ET SIR?URE( M' CURB U'.. MEHIONLEGETAIL ON MEET C-13KINGL) / 1 } J / i-( 2 CURB J 9PEXING16LFle, PVC O STA 5+".43 RIM U- '* D.Q6 1 1 V / " ,,:. F J IN E .'J012. ^7- I .... , . L (- MEA%E17M) _. 11 14 POND 2 OUTLET STRUCTURE-INV 5012.92 RIM 5016.5POND2 RAGE VOLUME = 979 OF 149 LF 5EE PKIFRE- RIM ELINVEL = WAIERRO3 si& MHRIM 'EL f INV El. RIMRIM EL 0 WI INV EL p SOI 8I 1 12•,aVC O RAYIF VOLUME! = l.D lw Yk~.. X E 9T4 MH a POND 3.. STA 1+2 31 58,262 CF RIM 50Ji AO 100 YR ELI INV 501<.04 RELEASE b UINV 55 L Y.el I LSE 6" PIPE / IT TO REMAIN B> . 68LR 6" PVC O 0.3% IS' NYLOPLAST CATCHF, :. 2• CATCH BASIN /2 (NOTE 1 6" PVC RIM SO' NEW C NSTRUCTIO) II 15' NTLOPLAST RIM 501as W o.571 INV OM CATCH BASIN it I I 2. 3B9(ROTE 1) INV IN (5) 012SUMP WIT! Fir In SOi8.6 I Il •I I RIIM OUE 5012.T8 INV DU W) 5012.30 (ME 501TA NCONSTRUOpPOND2 y[RFIpW / ® WA SEWER GROSSING INV IN (X) SPILLWAY I(3EE OEfAIL 1 / 'I ( AIL E%ISi TENANTS) NOTE 1. MT 3 ANY IN 'SE ONSHED8) I 6P • W18p INV IN s 17. 87 1 I I INV CHAT SEEINSIDEo D STA 1 2 PRECAST 1 ISEA1IRIM EL W5011.54ANY EL On 5011.67 I' CHASE E I • e J_W_ - 1 A J 5EE DETFO ON: i Ca / ]L7 / g xc xe I Y f;l'I, N IEW PAD'P I5, 940 SF tl ExistHim RAW FBI 3Z _ SECTS2 9EWRf, F F BCC 1]BO µli 8' PVC 0 0.5X 42 C. O. BAY W10.78 V 6" PVC O 26X WATER/SEWER CW NO CEEARANCE=2. P SEE NOTE 1 SHT 3 LAST 5. YWROw SIR 3 ( NOTE OCATCH II #N I NOTE SO AW12. 78 M . NV Nil. PUMP ON SHEETC-13) ICIm AND IIIRIOATEA , L EXISTING OjNANNEL 13- _ CAPACITY PS 72.2 CFS INSTALS 550 LL SILT WATER / CL CE=0;50' SEE N TE 1. SHT 3) O. INV SGII.60 ALM 8" PVC O 0.5% / C.O. ANY U11.B2J 23 LF 6" PVjp O 0.5%- 15" NYLOPLART CA BASIN # 4 (NOTE 1) INV OJT SOIL" All PTIIIIII! 1111 GRAPHIC SCALE 1' =SO HORIZDON]AL LEGEOR DRAINAGE BOUNDARY 19 BASIN DESIGNATION 5.15 AREA ( ACRES) FLOW DIRECTION QI DESIGN PoINT OABU N MEET T6) LTER (SEE DETAIL G PROPOSED INLET e EXISTING INLET SANITARY MANHOLE PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE 0 PROPOSED CLEAHOUT PROPOSED STORM SEWER W-cr - EXISTING STORM SEWER P WM - NEW 6• WATER LINE X- W 9( ABANDONED STORM SEWER CONCRETE TRICKLE CHANNEL SILT FENCE (SEE DEAL ON SHEEP 6) EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS 100 YEAR POND WATER SURFACE PATTERNED. COLORED CONCRETE ( NOTE 2) NOTES: 1. ALL 15' CATCH BASINS SHALL BE NYWPIAST 15" CATCH PATTERNED, COLORED CONCRETE SHALL MATCH PATTERN AND COLOR OF EXISTING PATTERNED CONCRRE ON SITE AND SHALL HAVE A THICKNESS OF 9 INCHES, SEE ARCHITECTURAL STT2 V1 JIj PEAN FOR MORE INFORMATION. WER CROSSING. SUBSTITUTE SDR35 SINN SC EID000 DR13PVCPOPE AND DTND 10' NON BOTH SESFWDRCROSSI(SEEON ) DRAINAGE SUMMARYBEROSIONCONSTRUCTIONPLANNOTES: 1. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SYORAIYATER LITLTY EROSION CONTROL 5. THE PROPERTY MALL BE WATERED AND MADNTAINED AT ALL TIME DURING INSPECTOR MUST BE NOTIFIED AT BEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SO AS TO PREVENT WINO -CAUSED EROSION. ALL CONSTRUCTION ON THIS SDL LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUED WHEN yyw.,•.,w<r."A I+w+. u .<ay„ FUGITIVE DUST IMPACTS ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AS DETERMINED IN -THE CITY 2.'AND DISTURBING ACTIVITY ST.CKWUG SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY OF FORT COLLINS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: -, LAND DREQUIRED ACTIVITY (STOCKM, AREA STRIPPING. GRADING, ETCD ALL - OTHER REQUIRED EROSION CONSTRO. MEASURES SHALLBEINDICATEDDIATTHE6. ALL TEMPORARYREPAIRED OR EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHAD BE APPROPRIATE p TIME INSCTHE CLOEN,STCRpEICDON SpEryWELNACNESAS INDICATyEDp IN TIE INSPECTED AND REPAIRED OR ECONSERUCT$;p AS NECESSARY AFT R EACH CONTROLDREP8RTCSHOWN 1T L EEC Irt CORNER Of ATH 5E5HEETN RNTEN CD FUNCTION.UNOFF EVENT IN AI I.IRTORETAINEDRSEOICNEI(TVS,E PARTICULARLY E0 FIND f ONTHEIR OF610N Pr. YylAINA (m) 0 (. IF) G100 (41* Q Al oA 212 7,06 e A9 016 0.75 ul e 6 6.A5 15,41 67A2 GF] W2 Gn 0.91 ON 0.14 0." M74 C GUM 0.25 0.]] 0 0.08 0.26 0.]] C 0.w 0.11 0. 34 0.G6 0.21 AN I0 0.02 OA6 0. 17 3. PPE -DISTURBANCE VEGETATION SHA1LL BE PROTECTED AND RETAINED PAVED ROADWAY SURFACES, SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED 0[ IN A WIND EROSION 0011111 : RIMNATIONS ygly ]Lp 9 NAOE LFy1a ! y4 1 - 100 YR WATER V501T.3• WHEREVER POSSIBLE. REMOVAL OF (DISTURBANCE OF EXISTING VEGETATION MANNER AND LOCATION SO AS NOT TO CAUME THEIR RELEASE IM1 ANY SOIL ROUGHENING 3.0' O PoNO 3 - 1W YR WA SMWJCE SHALL BE UMITED TO THE AREA REOUINED FDA IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION DRAINAGEWAY. PW0' 2 EL- COOT TYPE 13 WALE ((COOT STANDARD PLAN OPERATIONS. ANO FOR THE SHORTEST PRACTICAL PERIOD OF TIME. NO SOIL STOCKPILE SHALL EXCEED TEN ( 1(Iy) FEET 2 M-604-13 ON SNfFE6) IN HEIGHT. SOIL RAINFALL. EROSION RETAINWG WAIL tOO M WRIER SUMALYEl-yplT l• 1. ALL SOILS EXPOSED DURING LAND' DISTURBING ACTIVITY (STRIPPING. GRADING. STOCKPILES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SEII TRANSPORT BV SURFACE FLOW O T.O.W. EL S015.5 UTRHV INSTALLATIONS. STOCKPNNiG• FIWHG ETC.) SHALL BE SCARIFIED A ROUGHENING, WATERING, AND PERIMETER SILjT FENCING. ANY SAIL TOCKPIM CONTROL MINIMUM OEPM OF 6' BY RIPPING OR DISCING ALONG "NO CONTOURS UNTIL REMAINING AFTER SO DAYS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED. SEDIMENT TRAP IN POND li' PVC W 0.4% ORIFICE !MATE MILLION, VEGETATION, OR OTHER PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL IS INSTALLED. INLET FILTERS HOLE NA=IOe' NO SOILS INAREASOUTSIDEFBpJ(ECT STREET RIGHTS OF WAY SHALL REMAIN 6. CITY ORDINANCE PROHIBITS THE TRACKING, DROPPING, OR DEPOSITNG OF STRAW BARRIERS PRINCE RIME TRASH RACK OVER WWI 16' PVC RIPE EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBING AC10VIT1 FOR MORE THAN THIRTY (W) DAYS SOILS OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL ONTO CITY STREETS BV OR FROM NY VEHICLE. SILT FENCE PLATE HOUR DALaI.T' - FORD I PLOW LE: W11.L W ORS% BMW REQUIRED TEMPORARY OR !PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL E.G. ANY INADVERTENT DEPOSITED MATERML SHALL BE CLEANED IMMED TELY BY EXISTING AC PAVEMENT PLATE HOLE qA:-29" - PRO 2 TO SM yN > FLOW FLOW M SED/MULCH• LANDSCAPING, ETC.y IS INSTALLED, UNLESS OTHERWISE THE CONIMCTOR. 3fY NEW AC PAVEMENT W 8 \.. APPROVED BY THE STORMWATER UITLNY. TRACKING CONTROL COOT I'TEPoIX 13 P^ 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL PROV,)SIONS OF THE PA CONCREF LE.•3012.80' - PoND11 NO CITY OF FORT COLONS STORM 8 DRAINAGE TECHNICAL CRITERIA, EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS VEGETATIVE: LE.•W12. 63' - PoPo R -pTTOY - AS THEY (APPLY TO THIS PflOJ 1 4t 2 OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAIL POND 3 a°•. O= Cis PERMANENT SEED PIANTING PONDS OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAIL N. T. S. N.T.S. E N h f- I N N Iy W MZNO0 NJ P J_ 3poCL CI O VLIM AAA E M n co aZ z J 0 CC cl) cca HUzWa U z Ja Ir O r LL O ZU LUZ~ U NDECT NA 97415 FEE: DRAIN40M DESIG1 BY MI OMAN BY AJW/ NRM OEIXm BY AN ONE DATE 6/ 3/9e R<' JS00 SHEET 2 Oi 2 Appendix B – Hydrologic Calculations and Exhibits 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 0.49 0.86 1.84 Note: Time Intensity Frequency Tabulation Intensity values from the City of Fort Collins Intensity-Duration-Frequency Tables; Chapter 5, Section 3.4- 1 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, 2018 Edition. RAINFALL INTENSITY K:\NCO_Civil\296193000_Edison\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs_Edison PROJECT NAME: Edison at University Plaza 10/28/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 296193000 CALCULATED BY: JBB CHECKED BY:AGR SOIL: GROUP C Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers Commercial LAND USE:AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA 2-YEAR COEFF.0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.85 100-YEAR COEFF.0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.85 IMPERVIOUS %20%90%100%40%80% Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers Commercial TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)C(2)C(100)Imp % E1 E1 0.08 0.02 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.89 1.00 93% E2 E2 0.04 0.10 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.89 1.00 92% E3 E3 0.04 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.89 1.00 93% E4 E4 0.04 0.09 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.90 1.00 94% E5 E5 0.03 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.87 1.00 92% E6 E6 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.95 1.00 90% E7 E7 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.40 0.49 41% E8 E8 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.95 1.00 100% E9 E9 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.95 1.00 100% E10 E10 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.95 1.00 90% E11 E11 0.09 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.78 0.97 82% 0.40 1.03 3.00 0.00 0.00 4.42 0.88 1.00 90% 9%23%68%0%0% S1 S1 0.09 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.62 0.78 65% S2 S2 0.18 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.67 0.83 70% S3 S3 0.14 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.81 1.00 85% 0.41 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.74 0.92 77% 29%0%71%0%0% W1 W1 0.27 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.69 0.86 72% W2 W2 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.95 1.00 90% W3 W3 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.95 1.00 90% W4 W4 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.35 0.44 36% W5 W5 0.12 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.74 0.93 78% W6 W6 0.30 2.22 2.15 0.00 0.00 4.67 0.90 1.00 90% 0.77 2.99 2.98 0.00 0.00 6.74 0.86 1.00 86% 11%44%44%0%0% 1.58 4.02 7.01 0.00 0.00 12.61 0.86 1.00 87% 13%32%56%0%0% 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. BASIN SUBTOTAL On-Site Basins Flowing On-site RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION BASIN SUBTOTAL BASIN SUBTOTAL TOTAL K:\NCO_Civil\296193000_Edison\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs_Edison PROJECT NAME: Edison at University Plaza 10/28/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 296193000 CALCULATED BY: JBB CHECKED BY: AGR SOIL: GROUP C Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers Commercial LAND USE:AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA 2-YEAR COEFF.0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.85 100-YEAR COEFF.0.20 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.85 IMPERVIOUS %20%90%100%40%80% Lawns, Clayey Soil Rooftop Asphalt, Concrete Gravel/Pavers Commercial TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)(AC)C(2)C(100)Imp % E6 E6 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.95 1.00 90% E7 E7 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.40 0.49 41% E8 E8 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.95 1.00 100% E9 E9 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.95 1.00 100% E10 E10 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.95 1.00 90% E11 E11 0.09 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.78 0.97 82% 0.18 0.81 0.62 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.87 1.00 86% 11%50%39%0%0% S1 S1 0.09 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.62 0.78 65% S2 S2 0.18 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.67 0.83 70% S3 S3 0.14 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.81 1.00 85% 0.41 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.74 0.92 77% 29%0%71%0%0% W1 W1 0.27 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.69 0.86 72% W2 W2 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.95 1.00 90% W3 W3 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.95 1.00 90% W4 W4 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.35 0.44 36% 0.35 0.77 0.52 0.00 0.00 1.64 0.79 0.99 78% 21%47%32%0%0% 0.94 1.58 2.17 0.00 0.00 4.69 0.80 1.00 81% 20%34%46%0%0% 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. BASIN SUBTOTAL On-Site Basins Flowing On-site RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION BASIN SUBTOTAL BASIN SUBTOTAL TOTAL K:\NCO_Civil\296193000_Edison\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR LID CIA Calcs_Edison-BB LID AREAS Edison at University Plaza DATE: 10/28/2025 296193000 JBB AGR FINAL Tc DESIGN AREA C2 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP.TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN Ac Ft %Min.Ft.%fps Min.tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP.Min.Min. E1 0.90 0.89 78 2.8%2.5 315 1.2%0.195 4.2 1.2 3.7 393 1.5%93%12.2 5.0 E2 0.56 0.89 78 2.3%2.6 244 1.2%0.195 4.2 1.0 3.5 322 1.5%92%11.8 5.0 E3 0.41 0.89 81 1.6%3.1 122 1.5%0.195 4.7 0.4 3.5 203 1.5%93%11.1 5.0 E4 0.62 0.90 78 2.4%2.4 279 1.4%0.195 4.6 1.0 3.4 357 1.6%94%12.0 5.0 E5 0.32 0.87 63 4.1%2.1 283 0.6%0.195 3.0 1.6 3.7 346 1.2%92%11.9 5.0 E6 0.60 0.95 132 0.5%4.1 120 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.7 4.8 252 0.5%90%11.4 5.0 E7 0.11 0.40 33 5.0%4.4 107 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.7 5.1 140 1.6%41%10.8 5.1 E8 0.12 0.95 47 4.2%1.2 106 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.6 1.8 153 1.6%100%10.9 5.0 E9 0.16 0.95 44 3.1%1.3 142 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.9 2.1 186 1.1%100%11.0 5.0 E10 0.21 0.95 66 0.5%2.9 60 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.4 3.2 126 0.5%90%10.7 5.0 E11 0.40 0.78 115 2.8%4.6 66 0.8%0.195 3.4 0.3 4.9 181 2.1%82%11.0 5.0 S1 0.21 0.62 35 0.5%6.7 63 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.4 7.1 98 0.5%65%10.5 7.1 S2 0.47 0.67 12 0.5%3.5 241 0.5%0.195 2.7 1.5 5.0 253 0.5%70%11.4 5.0 S3 0.76 0.81 62 1.4%3.8 71 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.4 4.2 133 0.9%85%10.7 5.0 W1 0.77 0.69 74 1.8%5.5 123 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.8 6.2 197 1.0%72%11.1 6.2 W2 0.27 0.95 67 0.5%2.9 62 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.4 3.3 129 0.5%90%10.7 5.0 W3 0.50 0.95 114 0.5%3.8 135 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.8 4.6 249 0.5%90%11.4 5.0 W4 0.10 0.35 55 3.1%7.1 235 0.9%0.195 3.7 1.1 8.2 290 1.3%36%11.6 8.2 W5 0.43 0.74 37 2.7%2.9 139 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.8 3.8 176 1.0%78%11.0 5.0 W6 4.67 0.90 293 0.5%8.0 315 0.5%0.195 2.7 1.9 9.9 608 0.5%90%13.4 9.9 CHECKED BY: On-Site Basins 2-Year Time of Concentration Tc CHECK (URBANIZED BASINS) PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: DATA INITIAL TIME (Ti) TRAVEL TIME (Tt) SUB-BASIN CALCULATED BY: K:\NCO_Civil\296193000_Edison\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs_Edison Edison at University Plaza DATE: 10/28/2025 296193000 JBB AGR FINAL Tc DESIGN AREA C100 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE R VEL Tt COMP.TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc BASIN Ac Ft %Min.Ft.%fps Min.tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP.Min.Min. E1 0.90 1.00 78 2.8%1.2 315 1.2%0.195 4.2 1.2 2.4 393 1.5%93%12.2 5.0 E2 0.56 1.00 78 2.3%1.3 244 1.2%0.195 4.2 1.0 2.2 322 1.5%92%11.8 5.0 E3 0.41 1.00 81 1.6%1.4 122 1.5%0.195 4.7 0.4 1.9 203 1.5%93%11.1 5.0 E4 0.62 1.00 78 2.4%1.2 279 1.4%0.195 4.6 1.0 2.3 357 1.6%94%12.0 5.0 E5 0.32 1.00 63 4.1%0.9 283 0.6%0.195 3.0 1.6 2.5 346 1.2%92%11.9 5.0 E6 0.60 1.00 132 0.5%2.7 120 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.7 3.4 252 0.5%90%11.4 5.0 E7 0.11 0.49 33 5.0%3.8 107 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.7 4.5 140 1.6%41%10.8 5.0 E8 0.12 1.00 47 4.2%0.8 106 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.6 1.4 153 1.6%100%10.9 5.0 E9 0.16 1.00 44 3.1%0.9 142 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.9 1.7 186 1.1%100%11.0 5.0 E10 0.21 1.00 66 0.5%1.9 60 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.4 2.3 126 0.5%90%10.7 5.0 E11 0.40 0.97 115 2.8%1.8 66 0.8%0.195 3.4 0.3 2.1 181 2.1%82%11.0 5.0 S1 0.21 0.78 35 0.5%4.5 63 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.4 4.9 98 0.5%65%10.5 5.0 S2 0.47 0.83 12 0.5%2.2 241 0.5%0.195 2.7 1.5 3.7 253 0.5%70%11.4 5.0 S3 0.76 1.00 62 1.4%1.3 71 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.4 1.8 133 0.9%85%10.7 5.0 W1 0.77 0.86 74 1.8%3.2 123 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.8 3.9 197 1.0%72%11.1 5.0 W2 0.27 1.00 67 0.5%1.9 62 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.4 2.3 129 0.5%90%10.7 5.0 W3 0.50 1.00 114 0.5%2.5 135 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.8 3.3 249 0.5%90%11.4 5.0 W4 0.10 0.44 55 3.1%6.3 235 0.9%0.195 3.7 1.1 7.4 290 1.3%36%11.6 7.4 W5 0.43 0.93 37 2.7%1.4 139 0.5%0.195 2.7 0.8 2.3 176 1.0%78%11.0 5.0 W6 4.67 1.00 293 0.5%4.0 315 0.5%0.195 2.7 1.9 6.0 608 0.5%90%13.4 6.0 On-Site Basins CHECKED BY: SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK DATA TIME (Ti)(Tt)(URBANIZED BASINS) 100-Year Time of Concentration PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: CALCULATED BY: K:\NCO_Civil\296193000_Edison\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs_Edison DATE: 10/28/2025 Edison at University Plaza 296193000 JBB P1 (1-Hour Rainfall) =0.82 AGR REMARKS DESIGN POINT AREA (AC) RUNOFF COEFF tc (min) C*A(ac) I (in/hr) Q (cfs) E1 0.90 0.89 5.00 0.80 2.85 2.28 E2 0.56 0.89 5.00 0.50 2.85 1.43 E3 0.41 0.89 5.00 0.37 2.85 1.04 E4 0.62 0.90 5.00 0.56 2.85 1.61 E5 0.32 0.87 5.00 0.28 2.85 0.78 E6 0.60 0.95 5.00 0.57 2.85 1.62 E7 0.11 0.40 5.08 0.05 2.85 0.13 E8 0.12 0.95 5.00 0.11 2.85 0.32 E9 0.16 0.95 5.00 0.15 2.85 0.43 E10 0.21 0.95 5.00 0.20 2.85 0.57 E11 0.40 0.78 5.00 0.31 2.85 0.89 S1 0.21 0.62 7.06 0.13 2.52 0.33 S2 0.47 0.67 5.02 0.31 2.85 0.89 S3 0.76 0.81 5.00 0.62 2.85 1.76 W1 0.77 0.69 6.21 0.53 2.67 1.41 W2 0.27 0.95 5.00 0.26 2.85 0.73 W3 0.50 0.95 5.00 0.48 2.85 1.35 W4 0.10 0.35 8.21 0.04 2.40 0.08 W5 0.43 0.74 5.00 0.32 2.85 0.91 W6 4.67 0.90 9.92 4.21 2.30 9.69 W4 W5 W6 E1 E2 E8 W3 E5 E7 DESGIN BASIN On-Site Basins E3 E4 W1 E9 E10 E11 S3 W2 E6 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 2 YEAR EVENT PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: CALCULATED BY: CHECKED BY: S1 S2 K:\NCO_Civil\296193000_Edison\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs_Edison DATE: 10/28/2025 Edison at University Plaza 296193000 JBB P1 (1-Hour Rainfall) =2.86 AGR REMARKS DESIGN POINT AREA (AC) RUNOFF COEFF tc (min) C*A(ac) I (in/hr) Q (cfs) E1 0.90 1.00 5.00 0.90 9.95 8.97 E2 0.56 1.00 5.00 0.56 9.95 5.60 E3 0.41 1.00 5.00 0.41 9.95 4.11 E4 0.62 1.00 5.00 0.62 9.95 6.21 E5 0.32 1.00 5.00 0.32 9.95 3.14 E6 0.60 1.00 5.00 0.60 9.95 5.97 E7 0.11 0.49 5.08 0.06 9.95 0.57 E8 0.12 1.00 5.00 0.12 9.95 1.19 E9 0.16 1.00 5.00 0.16 9.95 1.59 E10 0.21 1.00 5.00 0.21 9.95 2.09 E11 0.40 0.97 5.00 0.39 9.95 3.89 S1 0.21 0.78 7.06 0.17 8.80 1.46 S2 0.47 0.83 5.02 0.39 9.95 3.87 S3 0.76 1.00 5.00 0.76 9.95 7.56 W1 0.77 0.86 6.21 0.66 9.31 6.16 W2 0.27 1.00 5.00 0.27 9.95 2.69 W3 0.50 1.00 5.00 0.50 9.95 4.98 W4 0.10 0.44 8.21 0.04 8.38 0.37 W5 0.43 0.93 5.00 0.40 9.95 3.96 W6 4.67 1.00 9.92 4.67 8.03 37.51 W4 W5 W6 CHECKED BY: E2 W3 E3 E8 W1 W2 E6 S2 E9 E10 E11 S3 CALCULATED BY: STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: DESIGN BASIN On-Site Basins E1 E4 E5 E7 S1 K:\NCO_Civil\296193000_Edison\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs_Edison PROJECT NAME:Edison at University Plaza DATE: 10/28/2025 PROJECT NUMBER: 296193000 CALCULATED BY:JBB CHECKED BY: AGR IMPERVIOUSNESS %Q2 Q100 E1 E1 0.90 93%2.28 8.97 E2 E2 0.56 92%1.43 5.60 E3 E3 0.41 93%1.04 4.11 E4 E4 0.62 94%1.61 6.21 E5 E5 0.32 92%0.78 3.14 E6 E6 0.60 90%1.62 5.97 E7 E7 0.11 41%0.13 0.57 E8 E8 0.12 100%0.32 1.19 E9 E9 0.16 100%0.43 1.59 E10 E10 0.21 90%0.57 2.09 E11 E11 0.40 82%0.89 3.89 S1 S1 0.21 65%0.33 1.46 S2 S2 0.47 70%0.89 3.87 S3 S3 0.76 85%1.76 7.56 W1 W1 0.77 72%1.41 6.16 W2 W2 0.27 90%0.73 2.69 W3 W3 0.50 90%1.35 4.98 W4 W4 0.10 36%0.08 0.37 W5 W5 0.43 78%0.91 3.96 W6 W6 4.67 90%9.69 37.51 12.61 87%28.28 111.88 On-Site Basins Flowing On-Site DESIGN POINT RATIONAL CALCULATIONS SUMMARY TRIBUTARY BASINS TRIBUTARY AREA (AC) PEAK FLOWS (CFS) TOTAL K:\NCO_Civil\296193000_Edison\Project Files\Eng\Drainage\PR CIA Calcs_Edison PROJECT NAME:The Edison at University Plaza DATE:10/29/2025 PROJECT NUMBER:296193000 CALCULATED BY:JBB CHECKED BY: AGR Total Site Area:6.37 acres Improvement Area to LID (Sub-basin EAST):1.61 acres 0.8 Imperviousness 86%0.296 Total Site Impervious Area:1.42 acres 2073.0 CF Added/Modified Impervious Area:1.42 acres 1377 CFTotal WQCV Provided a: (12 hours draintime) WQCV Calculations EAST CHAMBERS WQCV Total WQCV Req. (CF) PROJECT NAME:The Edison at University Plaza DATE:10/29/2025 PROJECT NUMBER:296193000 CALCULATED BY:JBB CHECKED BY: AGR Total Site Area:6.37 acres Improvement Area to LID (Sub-basin SOUTH):1.44 acres 0.8 Imperviousness 77%0.248 Total Site Impervious Area:1.03 acres 1558.1 CF Added/Modified Impervious Area:1.03 acres 2511 CFTotal WQCV Provided WQCV Calculations SOUTH CHAMBERS a: (12 hours draintime) WQCV Total WQCV Req. (CF) PROJECT NAME:The Edison at University Plaza DATE:10/29/2025 PROJECT NUMBER:296193000 CALCULATED BY:JBB CHECKED BY: AGR Total Site Area:6.37 acres Improvement Area to LID (Sub-basin WEST):1.64 acres 0.8 Imperviousness 78%0.253 Total Site Impervious Area:1.29 acres 1807 CF Added/Modified Impervious Area:1.29 acres 1498 CFTotal WQCV Provided WQCV Calculations WEST CHAMBERS a: (12 hours draintime) WQCV Total WQCV Req. (CF) PROJECT NAME:The Edison at University Plaza DATE:10/29/2025 PROJECT NUMBER:296193000 CALCULATED BY:JBB CHECKED BY: AGR Total Site Area:6.37 acres Improvement Area to Detention Pond (Sub-basin WEST Detention): 0.81 acres 1 Imperviousness 60%0.236 Total Site Impervious Area:0.41 acres 833 CF Added/Modified Impervious Area:0.41 acres 18374 CFTotal WQCV Provided WQCV Calculations WEST DETENTION POND a: (40 hours draintime) WQCV Total WQCV Req. (CF) Project Number: Project Location: Calcs By: Design Point:EAST Design Storm:WQ Isolator Volume 1164 ft3 Developed "C":1.00 Area (A):1.61 acres Max. Release (QOUT):0.4 cfs Time Time WQ Intensity QWQ Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (Minutes)(Seconds)(in/hr)(cfs)(ft3)(ft3)(ft3) 5 300 1.43 2.29 688 120 568 10 600 1.11 1.78 1067 240 827 15 900 0.94 1.51 1355 360 995 20 1200 0.81 1.30 1555 480 1075 25 1500 0.72 1.15 1727 600 1127 30 1800 0.65 1.05 1884 720 1164 35 2100 0.59 0.94 1978 840 1138 40 2400 0.54 0.86 2067 960 1107 45 2700 0.50 0.80 2152 1080 1072 50 3000 0.46 0.74 2222 1200 1022 55 3300 0.44 0.70 2311 1320 991 60 3600 0.41 0.66 2376 1440 936 65 3900 0.39 0.63 2449 1560 889 70 4200 0.37 0.59 2468 1680 788 75 4500 0.35 0.56 2536 1800 736 80 4800 0.33 0.53 2550 1920 630 85 5100 0.32 0.52 2628 2040 588 90 5400 0.31 0.49 2652 2160 492 95 5700 0.29 0.47 2661 2280 381 100 6000 0.28 0.45 2705 2400 305 105 6300 0.27 0.43 2739 2520 219 110 6600 0.26 0.42 2763 2640 123 115 6900 0.26 0.41 2833 2760 73 120 7200 0.25 0.39 2840 2880 -40 Inputs Results Isolator Row Volume Calculation (FAA Method) Edison at University Plaza EAST Chamber 296193000 XXXX S College Ave BAW Project Number: Project Location: Calcs By: Design Point:SOUTH Design Storm:WQ Isolator Volume 555 ft3 Developed "C":1.00 Area (A):1.44 acres Max. Release (QOUT):0.73 cfs Time Time WQ Intensity QWQ Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (Minutes)(Seconds)(in/hr)(cfs)(ft3)(ft3)(ft3) 5 300 1.43 2.05 616 219 397 10 600 1.11 1.59 955 438 517 15 900 0.94 1.35 1212 657 555 20 1200 0.81 1.16 1391 876 515 25 1500 0.72 1.03 1544 1095 449 30 1800 0.65 0.94 1685 1314 371 35 2100 0.59 0.84 1769 1533 236 40 2400 0.54 0.77 1849 1752 97 45 2700 0.50 0.71 1925 1971 -46 50 3000 0.46 0.66 1987 2190 -203 55 3300 0.44 0.63 2067 2409 -342 60 3600 0.41 0.59 2125 2628 -503 65 3900 0.39 0.56 2190 2847 -657 70 4200 0.37 0.53 2208 3066 -858 75 4500 0.35 0.50 2268 3285 -1017 80 4800 0.33 0.48 2281 3504 -1223 85 5100 0.32 0.46 2350 3723 -1373 90 5400 0.31 0.44 2372 3942 -1570 95 5700 0.29 0.42 2380 4161 -1781 100 6000 0.28 0.40 2419 4380 -1961 105 6300 0.27 0.39 2449 4599 -2150 110 6600 0.26 0.37 2471 4818 -2347 115 6900 0.26 0.37 2534 5037 -2503 120 7200 0.25 0.35 2540 5256 -2716 Inputs Results Isolator Row Volume Calculation (FAA Method) Edison at University Plaza SOUTH Chamber 296193000 XXXX S College Ave BAW Project Number: Project Location: Calcs By: Design Point:WEST Design Storm:WQ Isolator Volume 669 ft3 Developed "C":1.00 Area (A):1.64 acres Max. Release (QOUT):0.79 cfs Time Time WQ Intensity QWQ Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow (Release) Volume Storage Detention Volume (Minutes)(Seconds)(in/hr)(cfs)(ft3)(ft3)(ft3) 5 300 1.43 2.34 701 237 464 10 600 1.11 1.81 1087 474 613 15 900 0.94 1.53 1380 711 669 20 1200 0.81 1.32 1584 948 636 25 1500 0.72 1.17 1759 1185 574 30 1800 0.65 1.07 1919 1422 497 35 2100 0.59 0.96 2015 1659 356 40 2400 0.54 0.88 2106 1896 210 45 2700 0.50 0.81 2192 2133 59 50 3000 0.46 0.75 2263 2370 -107 55 3300 0.44 0.71 2354 2607 -253 60 3600 0.41 0.67 2421 2844 -423 65 3900 0.39 0.64 2494 3081 -587 70 4200 0.37 0.60 2514 3318 -804 75 4500 0.35 0.57 2583 3555 -972 80 4800 0.33 0.54 2598 3792 -1194 85 5100 0.32 0.52 2676 4029 -1353 90 5400 0.31 0.50 2701 4266 -1565 95 5700 0.29 0.48 2711 4503 -1792 100 6000 0.28 0.46 2755 4740 -1985 105 6300 0.27 0.44 2790 4977 -2187 110 6600 0.26 0.43 2814 5214 -2400 115 6900 0.26 0.42 2886 5451 -2565 120 7200 0.25 0.40 2893 5688 -2795 Isolator Row Volume Calculation (FAA Method) WEST Chamber Inputs Results Edison at University Plaza 296193000 XXXX S College Ave BAW Fort Collins Duration (min.) Intensity WQ (in/hr) Intensity 2-year (in/hr) Intensity 10-year (in/hr) Intensity 100-year (in/hr) 5 1.43 2.85 4.87 9.95 6 1.34 2.67 4.56 9.31 7 1.26 2.52 4.31 8.80 8 1.20 2.40 4.10 8.38 9 1.15 2.30 3.93 8.03 10 1.11 2.21 3.78 7.72 11 1.07 2.13 3.63 7.42 12 1.03 2.05 3.50 7.16 13 0.99 1.98 3.39 6.92 14 0.96 1.92 3.29 6.71 15 0.94 1.87 3.19 6.52 16 0.91 1.81 3.08 6.30 17 0.88 1.75 2.99 6.10 18 0.85 1.70 2.90 5.92 19 0.83 1.65 2.82 5.75 20 0.81 1.61 2.74 5.60 21 0.78 1.56 2.67 5.46 22 0.77 1.53 2.61 5.32 23 0.75 1.49 2.55 5.20 24 0.73 1.46 2.49 5.09 25 0.72 1.43 2.44 4.98 26 0.70 1.40 2.39 4.87 27 0.69 1.37 2.34 4.78 28 0.67 1.34 2.29 4.69 29 0.66 1.32 2.25 4.60 30 0.65 1.30 2.21 4.52 31 0.64 1.27 2.16 4.42 32 0.62 1.24 2.12 4.33 33 0.61 1.22 2.08 4.24 34 0.60 1.19 2.04 4.16 35 0.59 1.17 2.00 4.08 36 0.58 1.15 1.96 4.01 37 0.58 1.16 1.93 3.93 38 0.56 1.11 1.89 3.87 39 0.55 1.09 1.86 3.80 40 0.54 1.07 1.83 3.74 41 0.53 1.05 1.80 3.68 42 0.52 1.04 1.77 3.62 43 0.51 1.02 1.74 6.56 44 0.51 1.01 1.72 3.51 45 0.50 0.99 1.69 3.46 46 0.49 0.98 1.67 3.41 47 0.48 0.96 1.64 3.36 48 0.48 0.95 1.62 3.31 49 0.47 0.94 1.60 3.27 50 0.46 0.92 1.58 3.23 51 0.46 0.91 1.56 3.18 52 0.45 0.90 1.54 3.14 53 0.45 0.89 1.52 3.10 54 0.44 0.88 1.50 3.07 55 0.44 0.87 1.48 3.06 56 0.43 0.86 1.47 2.99 57 0.43 0.85 1.45 2.96 58 0.42 0.84 1.43 2.92 59 0.42 0.83 1.42 2.89 60 0.41 0.82 1.40 2.86 65 0.39 0.78 1.32 2.71 70 0.37 0.73 1.25 2.59 75 0.35 0.70 1.19 2.47 80 0.33 0.66 1.14 2.38 85 0.32 0.64 1.09 2.29 90 0.31 0.61 1.05 2.21 95 0.29 0.58 1.01 2.13 100 0.28 0.56 0.97 2.06 105 0.27 0.54 0.94 2.00 110 0.26 0.52 0.91 1.94 115 0.26 0.51 0.88 1.88 120 0.25 0.49 0.86 1.84 IDF Table for Rational Method (FCSCM Table 3.4.1) Chamber ID Total Required WQ Volume (cf)a WQ Inflowb (cfs) Chamber Type Chamber Unit Release Ratec (cfs) Chamber Unit Volumed (cf) Installed Chamber Unit Volume, inc. Aggregatee (cf) Mimimum No. of Chambers for WQCVf Minimum WQ Release Rateg (cfs) Minimum Required Isolator Row Volume by FAA Methodh (cf) Design Controli No. of Chambers Provided Provided WQ Release Ratej (cfs) Provided Isolator Row Volumek (cf) Total Installed System Volumel (cf) 1 2073 2.50 SC-800 0.024 50.60 81.00 26 0.61 1164 WQCV 26 0.61 1316 2106 SC-740 a. Total required WQCV calculated per 12-hr drain time. b. WQ inflow is approximated as one-half the 2-yr peak runoff rate. c. Release rate per chamber, limited by flow through geotextile with accumulated sediment. d. Volume within chamber only, not accounting for void spaces in surrounding aggregate. The Isolator Row(s) are sized per this unit volume. e. Volume includes chamber and void spaces (40%) in surrounding aggregate, per chamber unit. The total system WQCV is sized per this unit volume. f. Number of chambers required to provide full WQCV within total installed system, including aggregate. g. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers. This is used at the 'outlet control' for the FAA calculations. h. Minimum 'chamber-only' volume to ensure dirty water is fully contained within Isolator Row. i. Is design controlled by Isolator Row volume or WQCV. j. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers provided. This is the approximate controlled discharge from the WQ event. k. Volume provided in chambers only (no aggregate storage). This number must meet or exceed the required FAA storage volume. l. System volume includes total number of chambers, plus surrounding aggregate. This number must meet or exceed the required 12-hr WQCV. Chamber Configuration Summary EAST BASIN LID Chamber ID Total Required WQ Volume (cf)a WQ Inflowb (cfs) Chamber Type Chamber Unit Release Ratec (cfs) Chamber Unit Volumed (cf) Installed Chamber Unit Volume, inc. Aggregatee (cf) Mimimum No. of Chambers for WQCVf Minimum WQ Release Rateg (cfs) Minimum Required Isolator Row Volume by FAA Methodh (cf) Design Controli No. of Chambers Provided Provided WQ Release Ratej (cfs) Provided Isolator Row Volumek (cf) Total Installed System Volumel (cf) 1 1558 2.98 SC-800 0.024 50.60 81.00 20 0.47 555 WQCV 20 0.47 1012 1620 SC-740 a. Total required WQCV calculated per 12-hr drain time. b. WQ inflow is approximated as one-half the 2-yr peak runoff rate. c. Release rate per chamber, limited by flow through geotextile with accumulated sediment. d. Volume within chamber only, not accounting for void spaces in surrounding aggregate. The Isolator Row(s) are sized per this unit volume. e. Volume includes chamber and void spaces (40%) in surrounding aggregate, per chamber unit. The total system WQCV is sized per this unit volume. f. Number of chambers required to provide full WQCV within total installed system, including aggregate. g. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers. This is used at the 'outlet control' for the FAA calculations. h. Minimum 'chamber-only' volume to ensure dirty water is fully contained within Isolator Row. i. Is design controlled by Isolator Row volume or WQCV. j. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers provided. This is the approximate controlled discharge from the WQ event. k. Volume provided in chambers only (no aggregate storage). This number must meet or exceed the required FAA storage volume. l. System volume includes total number of chambers, plus surrounding aggregate. This number must meet or exceed the required 12-hr WQCV. Chamber Configuration Summary SOUTH BASIN LID Chamber ID Total Required WQ Volume (cf)a WQ Inflowb (cfs) Chamber Type Chamber Unit Release Ratec (cfs) Chamber Unit Volumed (cf) Installed Chamber Unit Volume, inc. Aggregatee (cf) Mimimum No. of Chambers for WQCVf Minimum WQ Release Rateg (cfs) Minimum Required Isolator Row Volume by FAA Methodh (cf) Design Controli No. of Chambers Provided Provided WQ Release Ratej (cfs) Provided Isolator Row Volumek (cf) Total Installed System Volumel (cf) 1 1807 2.93 SC-310 0.016 14.70 29.30 62 0.97 669 WQCV 62 0.97 911 1817 SC-740 a. Total required WQCV calculated per 12-hr drain time. b. WQ inflow is approximated as one-half the 2-yr peak runoff rate. c. Release rate per chamber, limited by flow through geotextile with accumulated sediment. d. Volume within chamber only, not accounting for void spaces in surrounding aggregate. The Isolator Row(s) are sized per this unit volume. e. Volume includes chamber and void spaces (40%) in surrounding aggregate, per chamber unit. The total system WQCV is sized per this unit volume. f. Number of chambers required to provide full WQCV within total installed system, including aggregate. g. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers. This is used at the 'outlet control' for the FAA calculations. h. Minimum 'chamber-only' volume to ensure dirty water is fully contained within Isolator Row. i. Is design controlled by Isolator Row volume or WQCV. j. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers provided. This is the approximate controlled discharge from the WQ event. k. Volume provided in chambers only (no aggregate storage). This number must meet or exceed the required FAA storage volume. l. System volume includes total number of chambers, plus surrounding aggregate. This number must meet or exceed the required 12-hr WQCV. Chamber Configuration Summary WEST BASIN LID Chamber ID Total Required WQ Volume (cf)a WQ Inflowb (cfs) Chamber Type Chamber Unit Release Ratec (cfs) Chamber Unit Volumed (cf) Installed Chamber Unit Volume, inc. Aggregatee (cf) Mimimum No. of Chambers for WQCVf Minimum WQ Release Rateg (cfs) Minimum Required Isolator Row Volume by FAA Methodh (cf) Design Controli No. of Chambers Provided Provided WQ Release Ratej (cfs) Provided Isolator Row Volumek (cf) Total Installed System Volumel (cf) 1 10401 2.50 SC-800 0.024 50.60 81.00 129 3.04 1164 WQCV 129 3.04 6527 10449 SC-740 a. Total required WQCV calculated per 12-hr drain time. b. WQ inflow is approximated as one-half the 2-yr peak runoff rate. c. Release rate per chamber, limited by flow through geotextile with accumulated sediment. d. Volume within chamber only, not accounting for void spaces in surrounding aggregate. The Isolator Row(s) are sized per this unit volume. e. Volume includes chamber and void spaces (40%) in surrounding aggregate, per chamber unit. The total system WQCV is sized per this unit volume. f. Number of chambers required to provide full WQCV within total installed system, including aggregate. g. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers. This is used at the 'outlet control' for the FAA calculations. h. Minimum 'chamber-only' volume to ensure dirty water is fully contained within Isolator Row. i. Is design controlled by Isolator Row volume or WQCV. j. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers provided. This is the approximate controlled discharge from the WQ event. k. Volume provided in chambers only (no aggregate storage). This number must meet or exceed the required FAA storage volume. l. System volume includes total number of chambers, plus surrounding aggregate. This number must meet or exceed the required 12-hr WQCV. Chamber Configuration Summary EAST BASIN DETENTION Chamber ID Total Required WQ Volume (cf)a WQ Inflowb (cfs) Chamber Type Chamber Unit Release Ratec (cfs) Chamber Unit Volumed (cf) Installed Chamber Unit Volume, inc. Aggregatee (cf) Mimimum No. of Chambers for WQCVf Minimum WQ Release Rateg (cfs) Minimum Required Isolator Row Volume by FAA Methodh (cf) Design Controli No. of Chambers Provided Provided WQ Release Ratej (cfs) Provided Isolator Row Volumek (cf) Total Installed System Volumel (cf) 1 9303 2.98 SC-800 0.024 50.60 81.00 115 2.71 555 WQCV 115 2.71 5819 9315 SC-740 a. Total required WQCV calculated per 12-hr drain time. b. WQ inflow is approximated as one-half the 2-yr peak runoff rate. c. Release rate per chamber, limited by flow through geotextile with accumulated sediment. d. Volume within chamber only, not accounting for void spaces in surrounding aggregate. The Isolator Row(s) are sized per this unit volume. e. Volume includes chamber and void spaces (40%) in surrounding aggregate, per chamber unit. The total system WQCV is sized per this unit volume. f. Number of chambers required to provide full WQCV within total installed system, including aggregate. g. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers. This is used at the 'outlet control' for the FAA calculations. h. Minimum 'chamber-only' volume to ensure dirty water is fully contained within Isolator Row. i. Is design controlled by Isolator Row volume or WQCV. j. Release rate per chamber times number of chambers provided. This is the approximate controlled discharge from the WQ event. k. Volume provided in chambers only (no aggregate storage). This number must meet or exceed the required FAA storage volume. l. System volume includes total number of chambers, plus surrounding aggregate. This number must meet or exceed the required 12-hr WQCV. Chamber Configuration Summary SOUTH BASIN DETENTION Appendix C – Hydraulic Calculations Appendix D – Drainage Exhibits GG F.O. C G VAULT ELEC T ELEC F.O. HYD SS SS SS SS SS CT V HYD HYD S C GGGGGG ELEC ELEC ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR ELEC ELEC ELEC EEE EE FDC FDC ELEC ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR E C.O. C.O. FDC C.O. FDC H2O C.O. W VAULT CABLE TRAFFIC VAULT T TELE VAULT F.O. C T VAULT CABLE VAULT CABLE CONTROL IRR CONTROL IRRHYD ELEC W CS W CS HYD ELEC S SS S CTV CTV CTV CTV E E E CTVCTVCTV CTV CTV EEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W CTVCTV E E E E E E E E CTVCTV CT V CT V CT V CT V E E EE G G GGGG E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E CT V CTVCTV FO FO FO FO CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V E E E CT V CT V CT V FO FO CT V CT V CT V CTV CTV CTV CTV G G G G G GGG G G G GGGGG E E E E EEEE E G G G G G CT V E E E E SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS C.O. C.O. D D D D C.O. D DD D D CO L L E G E A V E N U E (R O W V A R I E S ) BA Y R D (R O W V A R I E S ) RA I L R O A D MA X G U I D E W A Y UNDISTURBED AREA UNDISTURBED AREA TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . DESIGNED BY: BAW DRAWN BY: MKL CHECKED BY: AGR DATE: 10/29/25 NO . RE V I S I O N BY DA T E © 2 0 2 5 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S O U T H T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION K: \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 2 9 6 1 9 3 0 0 0 _ E d i s o n \ C A D D \ E x h i b i t s \ D r a i n a g e E x h i b i t s \ E x I m p e r v i o u s E x h i b i t . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET TH E E D I S O N A T U N I V E R S I T Y P L A Z A 296193000 PRELIMINARY RNORTH EX I S T I N G I M P E R V I O U S E X H I B I T EX-C 1 OF 1 PROPERTY LINE LEGEND: EASEMENT LINE PERVIOUS AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA SUMMARY CALCULATIONS PROJECT AREA 6.28 AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 5.36 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 4.77 AC REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.59 AC T > > > X X X GG F.O. C G VAULT ELEC T ELEC F.O. HYD SS SS SS SS SS HYD S C FDC H2O W VAULT CABLE TRAFFIC VAULT T TELE VAULT F.O. C T VAULT CABLE VAULT CABLE CONTROL IRR CONTROL IRRHYD ELEC S SS S W W W W W W W W W W W W G G GGGG W W W W W W W W W W GGGGG SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS C.O. C.O. D DD D D CO L L E G E A V E N U E (R O W V A R I E S ) BA Y R D (R O W V A R I E S ) RA I L R O A D MA X G U I D E W A Y UNDISTURBED AREA UNDISTURBED AREA TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . DESIGNED BY: BAW DRAWN BY: MKL CHECKED BY: AGR DATE: 10/29/25 NO . RE V I S I O N BY DA T E © 2 0 2 5 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S O U T H T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION K: \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 2 9 6 1 9 3 0 0 0 _ E d i s o n \ C A D D \ E x h i b i t s \ D r a i n a g e E x h i b i t s \ P r o p I m p e r v i o u s E x h i b i t . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET TH E E D I S O N A T U N I V E R S I T Y P L A Z A 296193000 PRELIMINARY RNORTH PR O P O S E D I M P E R V I O U S E X H I B I T EX-D 1 OF 1 PROPERTY LINE LEGEND: EASEMENT LINE PERVIOUS AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA SUMMARY CALCULATIONS PROJECT AREA 6.28 AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 5.36 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 4.77 AC REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.59 AC T > > > X X X GG F.O. C G ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR E E E EE E E CONTROL IRR V.P. VAULT ELEC T ELEC F.O. HYD G G GSS SS SS SS SS SS CT V CT V CT V G HYD S C C.O. C.O. C.O. FDC H2O C.O. W VAULT CABLE TRAFFIC VAULT T TELE VAULT F.O. C T VAULT CABLE VAULT CABLE CONTROL IRR CONTROL IRR HYD ELEC S SS S CTV CTV EEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V W W W W W W W W W W W W CTVCTV E E EE G G GGGG E E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W E E E E E E E E E E E E CT V CTVCTV FO FO FO FO CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V E E E CT V CT V CT V FO FO CT V CT V CT V GGGGG E E E E EEEE E CT V E E E E SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS C.O. C.O. C.O. D DD D D CO L L E G E A V E N U E (R O W V A R I E S ) BA Y R D (R O W V A R I E S ) RA I L R O A D MA X G U I D E W A Y UNDISTURBED AREA UNDISTURBED AREA W W W G G G G G W W W W W W W W W W W W E E NORTH PROPERTY LINE LEGEND: EASEMENT LINE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE UNDERGROUND CHAMBER SYSTEM EAST TREATMENT AREA EAST UNDERGROUND CHAMBER SYSTEM SOUTH TREATMENT AREA SOUTH UNDERGROUND CHAMBER SYSTEM WEST TREATMENT AREA WEST UNTREATED AREA PROJECT LID SUMMARY TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR IMPROVEMENTS 4.77 AC MINIMUM AREA TO BE TREATED BY LID MEASURES TOTAL REQUIRED TREATED IMPERVIOUS AREAS 3.58 AC 75% TOTAL PROPOSED TREATED IMPERVIOUS AREAS BY UNDERGROUND SYSTEM 3.74 AC 78% THE EDISON AT UNIVERSITY PLAZA LID TREATMENT EXHIBIT 10/29/2025 © LID TREATMENT BASIN IMPERVIOUS AREA (SF) REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME (CF) PROVIDED WATER QUALITY VOLUME (CF) DESCRIPTION EAST 61,855 2,073 2,106 26 - SC-800 CHAMBERS SOUTH 44,867 1,558 1,620 20 - SC-800 CHAMBERS WEST 56,192 1,807 1,817 62 - SC-310 CHAMBERS F.O. C G VAULT ELEC T ELEC F.O. HYD HYD C GGGGGG ELEC ELEC ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR ELEC ELEC ELEC EEE EE ELEC ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR ELEC BRKR E C.O. C.O. C.O. FDC H2O C.O. W VAULT CABLE TRAFFIC VAULT T TELE VAULT F.O. C T VAULT CABLE VAULT CABLE CONTROL IRR CONTROL IRRHYD ELEC ELEC C.O. C.O. D D D D C.O. D DD D D A EX-W 8.3 0.90 B EX-S2 0.26 0.90 F OS2 OS1 E D OS-A OS3 CO L L E G E A V E N U E (R O W V A R I E S ) BA Y R D (R O W V A R I E S ) RA I L R O A D MA X G U I D E W A Y PR I V A T E D R I V E PR I V A T E D R I V E PRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVE C EX-S1 0.83 0.90 EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING 2 3 5 1 E3 0.56 0.95 E 0.58 0.90 E2 0.1 0.95 E1 0.98 0.87 E5 0.29 0.95 TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . DESIGNED BY: BAW DRAWN BY: MKL CHECKED BY: AGR DATE: 10/29/25 NO . RE V I S I O N BY DA T E © 2 0 2 5 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S O U T H T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION K: \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 2 9 6 1 9 3 0 0 0 _ E d i s o n \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ V - D R A I N A G E . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET TH E E D I S O N A T U N I V E R S I T Y P L A Z A 296193000 PRELIMINARY RNORTH HI S T O R I C D R A I N A G E E X H I B I T EX-A 1 OF 1 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CATCH CURB AND GUTTER EXISTING STORM LINE # = BASIN DESIGNATION AC = AREA IN ACRES I = % IMPERVIOUSNESS # # AC I # = DESIGN POINT EXISTING BASIN BOUNDARY EXISTING FLOW ARROW LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR XXXX XXXX EXISTING BUILDING T > > > > X X XX X X GGG F.O. C G VAULT ELEC T ELEC F.O. HYD SS SS SS SS SS SS CT V CT V G HYD S C FDC H2O W VAULT CABLE TRAFFIC VAULT T TELE VAULT F.O. C T VAULT CABLE VAULT CABLE CONTROL IRR CONTROL IRRHYD ELEC S SS S CTV CTV CTV EEEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V W W W W W W W W W W W W W W CTVCTVCTV E E EEE G G G G G G G G E E E E E E E E E E E W WW W W W W W W W W W E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E CT V CTVCTVCTV FO FO FO FO FO FO CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V CT V E E E E CT V CT V CT V CT V FO FO FO CT V CT V CT V CT V GGGGGGG E E E E EEEEE E CT V E E E E E E SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS C.O. C.O. D DD D D W W W W G G G G G G W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W E E 3 5 OS3 1 TH I S D O C U M E N T , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N S P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E O F A N D I M P R O P E R R E L I A N C E O N T H I S D O C U M E N T W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . DESIGNED BY: BAW DRAWN BY: MKL CHECKED BY: AGR DATE: 10/29/25 NO . RE V I S I O N BY DA T E © 2 0 2 5 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . 33 2 5 S O U T H T I M B E R L I N E R O A D , S U I T E 1 3 0 FO R T C O L L I N S , C O L O R A D O 8 0 5 2 5 ( 9 7 0 ) 8 2 2 - 7 9 1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CONSTRUCTION K: \ N C O _ C i v i l \ 2 9 6 1 9 3 0 0 0 _ E d i s o n \ C A D D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ C - D R A I N A G E . d w g PROJECT NO. SHEET TH E E D I S O N A T U N I V E R S I T Y P L A Z A 296193000 PRELIMINARY RNORTH PR O P O S E D D R A I N A G E E X H I B I T C6.0 20 OF 20 PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PROPOSED STORM LINE # = BASIN DESIGNATION AC = AREA IN ACRES I = % IMPERVIOUSNESS # = DESIGN POINT PROPOSED BASIN BOUNDARY PROPOSED FLOW ARROW EXISTING FLOW ARROW LEGEND