Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Reports - Soils - 10/28/2025
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