HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH - FDP200020 - - DRAINAGE REPORT FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT N UNITED CIVIL
Design Group
•
i
T
, e S
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
A Portion of Tract A
Seven Lakes Business Park P.1.1.0
Fort Collins, CO
Prepared for:
Mountain View Community Church
2330 East Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Date:
November 18, 2020
1501 ACADEMY CT.STE 203 1 FORT COLLINS,CO 80524 1 970-530-4044 1 www.unitedcivil.com
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT UNITED CIVIL
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CID N Design Group
November 18,2020
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins,Colorado 80521
RE: Mountain View Community Church Improvements
Fort Collins,Colorado
Project Number: U20004
Dear Staff:
United Civil Design Group,LLC.is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for the Mountain View Community Church site
in Fort Collins, Colorado. In general,this report serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed
improvements related to the existing site.
We understand that review by the City of Fort Collins is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in
the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual(FCSCM). This report was prepared in compliance with technical criteria set forth
in both the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual and the Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual.
If you should have any questions or comments as you review this report,please feel free to contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
United Civil Design Group
Colton Beck,PE Sam Eliason,PE
Project Engineer Principal
I U20004_Drainage Report.dou
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT UNITED CIVIL
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO Design Group
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. General Location and Description......................................................................................................................1
A. Location and Project Description................................................................................................. 1
B. Description of Property................................................................................................................ 2
C. Floodplains................................................................................................................................... 2
II. Drainage Basins and Sub-Basins.........................................................................................................................3
A. Major Basin Description............................................................................................................... 3
B. Sub-Basin Description .................................................................................................................. 3
III. Drainage Design Criteria....................................................................................................................................3
A. Regulations................................................................................................................................... 3
B. Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA)................................................................................ 3
C. Hydrological Criteria.....................................................................................................................4
D. Hydraulic Criteria..........................................................................................................................4
E. Modifications of Criteria ..............................................................................................................4
IV. Drainage Facility Design.....................................................................................................................................4
A. General Concept...........................................................................................................................4
B. Specific Details.............................................................................................................................4
V. Erosion Control...................................................................................................................................................7
VI. Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................7
A. Compliance with Standards ......................................................................................................... 7
B. Drainage Concept......................................................................................................................... 7
C. Stormwater Quality...................................................................................................................... 7
VII. References......................................................................................................................................................8
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A—Hydrology Calculations
APPENDIX B—Hydraulic Calculations
8.1—Low Impact Development Calculations
8.2— Water Quality Calculations
8.3—Inlet Sizing Calculations(Reserved for Final Submittal)
8.4—Storm Pipe Calculations (Reserved for Final Submittal)
8.5—Curb Channel Calculations(Reserved for Final Submittal)
B.6— Weir Calculation (Reserved for Final Submittal)
APPENDIX C—Referenced Materials
APPENDIX D—Drainage Exhibits
I U20004_Drainage Report.dou
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT UNITED CIVIL
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO N Design Group
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Mountain View Community Church site(referred herein as"the site")exists as a portion of Tract A,Seven Lakes Business
Park P.U.D, located in the southwest quarter of Section 17,T7N, R698W of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County,
Colorado. The property, consisting of approximately 2.90 acres, is located north of East Prospect Road and east of South
Timberline Road. The site currently exists as a commercial property with adjacent parking. The proposed Mountain View
Community Church modified site improvements are limited to 0.56 acres of disturbed area.
The property is bounded by the Spring Creek Trail to the north and west, and commercial properties to the south and east.
Stormwater on the site currently drains in several directions away from the existing building,however,all runoff is ultimately
collected by storm sewer infrastructure and conveyed to the Cattail Chorus Natural Area ponds to the north or a drainage
channel to the east of the site. Ultimately both areas drain to the Cache La Poudre River,which is approximately 2000 feet
east of the site.
The proposed improvements to the site consist of reconstructing a portion of the building along with associated landscaping,
walks, and parking around the perimeter of the building. Additionally, water quality measures are proposed with the
reconstruction to improve drainage function and water quality.
r
di
E Pros ect Rd
FIGURE 1:SITE VICINITY MAP
This drainage report presents the overall drainage plan for the development. In general, this report serves to provide an
analysis of the drainage impacts associated with the development of site as it relates to existing and proposed drainage
facilities on-site.
1 U20004_Drainage Report.dou
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT UNITED CIVIL
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO Design Group
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The project site currently exists as a fully developed commercial lot, including concrete and asphalt pavement, sidewalks,
rooftop,and landscaping,comprising of an existing imperviousness of 65.3%.In its existing condition,by means of sheet flow,
concrete pans,curb and gutter,inlets,and storm sewer,the site ultimately drains off-site to Cattail Chorus Natural Area ponds
north the site or to a drainage channel to the east.
Below are summaries of key components of the site in its existing conditions.
Land Use-The site's current land use is commercial.
Ground Cover-The site exists as a commercial development with concrete and asphalt pavement,sidewalk,rooftop,
and surrounding grass landscaping.The grass cover is good lie.,heavy or dense cover with nearly all ground surfaces
protected by vegetation).
Existing Topography—The site slopes in a multitude of directions away from the existing on-site building, however,
runoff ultimately drains north to an existing downstream pond associated with the Cattail Chorus Natural Area.
Grades—In general,the western portion of the site is sloped westerly and northerly at approximately 1.0%to 5.0%;
the southern and eastern portions of the site are sloped easterly and northerly at approximately 1.0%to 5.0%.The
northern portion of the side drains northerly off-site.
Soil Type-The USDA's Web Soil Survey shows that the site consists largely of a"Type C"soil, namely Loveland clay
loam (0 to 1%slopes). The Web Soil Survey also indicates the site is comprised of Table Mountain loam (0 to 1%
slopes), a "Type B"soil.The on-site soils provide moderate infiltration and are suitable for development.
Utilities—The following dry utility lines run along the south side of the site:gas,electric,cable TV,fiber optic.Water
mains are also present on the south side of the site within West Prospect Road. A recently constructed sanitary
sewer service exists at the northwest portion of the site.
Drainage Features and Storm Sewer—An off-site pond exists north of the site. On-site and off-site storm sewer
infrastructure conveys runoff to the mentioned downstream pond.
C. FLOODPLAINS
The existing site is within the Spring Creek V f
Floodplain which is a FEMA designated 100
year floodplain and floodway. In addition,the
existing site and building is located within the
o
Spring Creek moderate risk floodplain. The Z ZONE
AE
FEMA FIRM Panel # is 08069CO983H effective $ C
5/2/2012. A Letter of Map Amendment M
riu�
(LOMA) Determination Document #19-08- g .Sp (TerAEK ng ,,;; g
0473A dated 3/27/2019 removed the building R ZONEAE o w
from the 100-year floodplain. The current EAST PROSPECT
FEMA FIRM Map along with the LOMA is ZONEAE LL04e7
included in the appendix. sus�'N ;Sp.;ngCreek w 20
rn PROSpECT NAK wv
N ^ZONEAE
The proposed building will be used as a place of
u ZONEAE
Worship. F MIDPOINT Oq YF
/~ p
FIGURE 2:FLDDDPLAIN MAP
2 U20004_Drainage Report.dou
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT UNITED CIVIL
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO Design Group
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS
A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION
The existing site is located within both the Spring Creek and Cache La Poudre River master drainage basins. The northern
portion of the site drains downstream within the Spring Creek Basin, while the southern portion of the site drains east,
ultimately conveyed to the Cache La Poudre River. No known master planning improvements are associated with or adjacent
to the site.
B. SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION
The site, along with the rest of Tract A, is included within the Seven Lakes Business Park P.U.D completed by Parsons &
Associates in January 1982. A Site Drainage and Grading Plan associated with this P.U.D is included in the Appendix. A
drainage report could not be located. The approved P.U.D provides context for how the overall Tract A portion of the Seven
Lakes Business Park was designed to drain and is somewhat similar to existing drainage patterns.The site exists within Basins
A3 and B of the mentioned Site Drainage and Grading Plan. Basin A3 drains north within the Spring Creek drainage basin;
Basin B drains south and east within the Cache La Poudre drainage basin. More recent drainage reports and letters related to
the Seven Lakes Business Park are recorded with the City of Fort Collins,however,documents specifically related to this site
are not recorded.
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. REGULATIONS
The design criteria for this study are directly from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction
Standards Manual and the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals Volumes 2,and 3 (referred to herein as USDCM).
B. DIRECTLY CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS AREA(DCIA)
With the adoption of the USDCM,the City has also adopted the"Four Step Process"that is recommended in Volume 3 of
the USDCM in selecting structural BMPs for the redeveloping urban areas. The following portions of this summary describe
each step and how it has been utilized for this project:
Step 1—Employ Runoff Reduction Practices
The objective of this step is to reduce runoff peaks and volumes and to employ the technique of"minimizing directly
connected impervious areas" (MDCIA). This project accomplishes this by:
Routing the roof and pavement flows through bioretention facilities and vegetated buffers to increase the time of
concentration, promote infiltration and provide water quality.
Step 2—Provide Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)
The objective of providing WQCV is to reduce the sediment load and other pollutants that exit the site. For this project
WQCV is provided within the bioretention facilities.
Step 3—Stabilize Drainageways
The site is adjacent to Spring Creek and the use of LID will help slow runoff from the site and benefit the stabilization of the
Spring Creek drainageway. In addition,this project will pay stormwater development and stormwater utility fees which the
City uses, in part,to maintain the stability of the City drainageway systems.
Step 4—Consider Need for Site Specific and Source Control BMPs
Site specific and source control BMPs are generally considered for large industrial and commercial sites. The
redevelopment of the existing site will include multiple site specific and source controls,including:
• Dedicated maintenance personnel providing landscape maintenance and snow and ice management.
3 U20004_Drainage Report.dou
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT UNITED CIVIL
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO Design Group
C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA
City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, provided by Figure RA-16 of the Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual,are utilized for all hydrologic computations related to the site in its existing/historic and proposed conditions.
Since this site is relatively small and does not have complex drainage basins,the peak flow rates for design points have been
calculated based on the Rational Method as described in the USDCM and the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
(FCSCM)with storm duration set equal to the time of concentration for each sub-basin.This method was used to analyze the
developed runoff from the 10-year(minor) and the 100-year(major)storm events.The Rational Method is widely accepted
for drainage design involving small drainage areas(less than 160 acres)and short time of concentrations. Runoff coefficients
are assumed based on impervious area and are given in the Appendices.
D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA
The developed site will convey runoff to existing design points via swales,concrete pans,and pipes. The City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM) and USDCM are referenced for all hydraulic calculations. In addition, the following
computer programs are utilized:
• Storm Sewer Extension for AutoCAD Civil3D
• Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD Civil3D
• UD-Inlet by UDFCD
Drainage conveyance facility capacities proposed with the development project, including swales and bioretention ponds,
are designed in accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Urban
Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (UDFCD).
E. MODIFICATIONS OF CRITERIA
A variance was approved for storm water quality requirements. The site was unable to meet City of Fort Collins stormwater
requirements due to existing site constraints further documented in the approved variance included with Appendix C.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. GENERAL CONCEPT
Developed runoff is designed to largely maintain existing drainage patterns.Existing conveyance methods include sheet flow,
concrete pans, curb and gutter, inlets, and storm sewer that ultimately drain runoff off-site to Cattail Chorus Natural Area
ponds north the site. Runoff that drains off-site to the east is ultimately conveyed to the Cache La Poudre River by means of
existing storm sewer infrastructure and drainage swales related to Tract B and Tract C of the Seven Lakes Business Park. Per
City standards, stormwater detention is not being provided because the increase in impervious surfaces is less than 1,000
square-feet. Per City standards,water quality and low impact development(LID) is being proposed with project to mitigate
the impervious areas that are being modified with the development. This includes a proposed bioretention pond on the
north side of the building and a new storm drain system that conveys runoff to the vegetative buffer on the west side of the
property.
B. SPECIFIC DETAILS
Hydrolog
Site improvements include an increase of approximately 601-sf of additional impervious area relative to existing conditions.
Due to the minimal impacts related to the site's overall imperviousness(i.e. less than 1,000 sf),the proposed improvements
are not expected to negatively impact the existing nearby hydraulic features. The table on the following page summarizes
the hydrologic impact associated with the proposed site improvements relative to existing conditions. Refer to the drainage
exhibits and hydrology calculations attached for additional information.
4 U20004_Drainage Report.dou
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT UNITED CIVIL
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO Design Group
MVCC Site
Misting Proposed
Overall Area(acre) 2.90 2.90
*Roof(sf) 36,667 37,606
*Asphalt(sf) 36,862 34,709
*Concrete(sf) 13,123 14,482
*Gravel(sf) - 536
*Landscape(sf) 39,608 38,927
%Imperviousness 66.4% 66.6%
Composite C2 0.73 0.73
Composite C100 0.91 0.92
TABLE 1-HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY
For purposes of Low Impact Development(LID)calculations,hydrology calculations related to the"modified"site area(limited
to 0.56 acres of site modifications)are included in Appendix B.
On-site Basins
The following basins provide drainage delineations for the site in its improved condition.Note that basin designations are not
bound by property lines;the site receives additional off-site runoff in its existing condition. Refer to Appendix A for hydrology
computations and Appendix B for calculations related to Water Quality, Low Impact Development, and other hydraulic
features.
Basin B
Sub-basins B1-B2 represent on-site and off-site drainage basins where runoff is captured and conveyed to an on-site
vegetative buffer area. These basins consist of roofs, concrete and asphalt paving, and landscaping. Sub-basin 131 largely
consists of a parking lot,and Basin B2 consists solely of roof area. Runoff within sub-basin 61 is conveyed to the vegetative
buffer via pans, curb and storm sewer infrastructure,while runoff within sub-basin B2 is conveyed to the vegetative buffer
via roof drains/storm sewer. The storm sewer and inlets are designed to convey the 2-year storm to the vegetative buffer
area. In a major storm event larger than the 2-year storm event,stormwater will continue northeast along the asphalt path
toward the Spring Creek trail.
Basin C
Sub-basin C1 is an on-site basin that consists of modified roof area.Similar to existing conditions, runoff is conveyed to the
access drive immediately south of the existing building.This runoff drains east to an existing,off-site inlet,and ultimately to
the Cache La Poudre River.
Stormwater Quality
Stormwater quality is required to be provided for the total new or modified impervious area on the site. The scope of the
MVCC site improvements do not include extensive parking lot work. City staff determined that the permeable paver
requirement does not apply to this project. The project is required to provide a minimum of 50%LID treatment,for all new
or modified impervious areas, using any approved LID method. The remaining 50% can be treated with LID or 'standard'
water quality methods. A variance was approved to provide less than the required stormwater quality due to the existing
site constraints. See Appendix C for approved variance.
5 U20004_Drainage Report.dou
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT UNITED CIVIL
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO Design Group
WATER QUALITY REQUIRED:
TOTAL NEW OR MODIFIED IMPERVIOUS AREA=18,850 SF
REQUIRED LID WQTREATMENT=9,425 SF(50%MIN)
WATER QUALITY PROVIDED:
VEGETATIVE BUFFER(LID WQ) FOR BASINS 131&B2= 11,198 SF(limited to 1:1 run-on ratio)
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA TREATED=11,198 SF(Approved Variance)
1. Vegetated Buffer
A vegetated buffer with an approximate area of 11,198-sf is utilized for water quality purposes with the site
improvements.This buffer treats basins B1 and B2 (see drainage plan attached) which has a total impervious area
of 29,332 sf. However,the water quality approved for LID credit is limited to the size of the vegetative buffer per
City standards.
This buffer is designed to improve stormwater runoff quality by straining sediment and promoting infiltration. To
distribute the concentrated flows of this buffer, an 84 If level spreader is being provided downstream of the
concentrated flows. Refer to Appendix B for Grass Buffer calculations and minimum length of the level spreader.
Low Impact Development(LID)
In December of 2015, Fort Collins City Council adopted the revised Low Impact Development(LID) policy and criteria which
requires developments within City limits to meet certain enhanced stormwater treatment requirements in addition to more
standard treatment techniques. The scope of the MVCC site improvements do not include extensive parking lot disturbance
or construction. City of Fort Collins staff determined that the permeable paver requirement does not apply to this project.
The project is required to provide a minimum 50%LID treatment,for all new or modified impervious area,using any approved
LID method.The remaining 50%can be treated with LID or standard water quality methods.
The following measures are implemented with this proposed development:
I. Vegetative Buffer
A vegetated buffer with an approximate area of 11,198-sf is utilized for water quality purposes with the site
improvements. The inclusion of the vegetative buffer measures support that more than 50%of the modified site
area requiring the use of LID treatment is provided with the site improvements.Refer to Appendix B for calculations.
Detention
Detention is not being provided with the redevelopment of the site because the net increase in impervious surfaces is less
than 1,000 square-feet.
Standard Operating Procedures(SOPs)
In order for physical stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be effective, proper maintenance is essential.
Maintenance includes both routinely scheduled activities, as well as non-routine repairs that may be required after large
storms,or as a result of other unforeseen problems. Standard Operating Procedures should clearly identify BMP maintenance
responsibility. BMP maintenance is typically the responsibility of the entity owning the BMP.
Identifying who is responsible for maintenance of BMPs and ensuring that an adequate budget is allocated for maintenance
is critical to the long-term success of BMPs. Maintenance responsibility maybe assigned either publicly or privately. For this
project,the privately owned BMPs including grass swales and the bioretention pond, are to be maintained by the property
owner.
6 U20004_Drainage Report.dou
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT UNITED CIVIL
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO Design Group
Storm Sewer
There are multiple storm sewers, roof drains and underdrains for the bioretention ponds proposed with the site
improvements. All storm sewers will be private and are typically sized to accommodate the flows from the 100-year storm
event. Storm system B is only sized to accommodate the flows from the 2-year storm event although all pipe upstream of
the Type C inlet is also able to accommodate the 100-year storm event. Hydraulic computations of these systems are included
in Appendix B.
Inlets
There are multiple inlets proposed with the site improvements. Inlets are utilized to support the proposed site modifications
in addition to existing site drainage insufficiencies. A Type 13 inlet associated with Basin B1 is proposed with site
improvements. Due to existing site constraints and the desire to only capture minor flows for water quality purposes, this
inlet is limited to capturing 1.5-cfs—additional runoff related to Basin B1 will continue to drain downstream in accordance
with existing drainage patterns. Other proposed inlets are designed to convey the 100-year storm event. Hydraulic
computations of these systems are included in Appendix B.
V. EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control, both temporary and permanent, is a vital part of any development project. For this project, the site
disturbance is less than 1 acre; therefore, a CDPHE Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) is not required. However,
comprehensive erosion control measures are included with the site improvements. Refer to the Utility Plans for additional
information. At a minimum,the following temporary BMP's will be installed and maintained to control on-site erosion and
prevent sediment from traveling off-site during construction:
• Silt Fence—a woven synthetic fabric that filters runoff.The silt fence is a temporary barrier that is placed at the base
of a disturbed area.
• Vehicle Tracking Control—a stabilized stone pad located at points of ingress and egress on a construction site.The
stone pad is designed to reduce the amount of mud transported onto public roads by construction traffic.
• Inlet Protection—acts as a sediment filter. It is a temporary BMP and requires proper installation and maintenance
to ensure their performance.
• Straw Wattles — wattles act as a sediment filter in swales around inlets. They are a temporary BMP and require
proper installation and maintenance to ensure their performance.
The contractor shall store all construction materials and equipment and shall provide maintenance and fueling of equipment
in confined areas on-site from which runoff will be contained and filtered. Temporary Best Management Practices (BMP's)
will be inspected by the contractor at a minimum of once every two weeks and after each significant storm event.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
Storm drainage calculations have followed the guidelines provided by the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals Volumes
1,2 and 3 and the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual.
B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT
The drainage system has been designed to convey the runoff to the designated design points and the existing public
infrastructure in an effective, safe manner. No negative impacts are anticipated to the City of Fort Collins Master Drainage
Plan or to downstream properties or infrastructure due to the proposed improvements.
C. STORMWATER QUALITY
A vegetated buffer is being provided to meet some of the water quality needs of the site. An approved variance is included
in Appendix C due to an inability to meet all City of Fort Collins water quality requirements.
7 U20004_Drainage Report.dou
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT UNITED CIVIL
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO Design Group
VII. REFERENCES
1. City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual,City of Fort Collins,Colorado, November 2017.
2. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1 and 2, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver,Colorado,
June 2001, Revised April 2008.
3. Site Drainage and Grading Plan, Parsons&Associates, Fort Collins,Colorado,last revised 8/5/1985.
4. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey at:websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app
5. Flood Insurance Rate Map, FEMA,Panel 08069C0983H,https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/
6. Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity,Stormwater Management Plan Preparation Guides,State
of Colorado,www.colorado.com
IIIIIIL
U20004_Drainage Report.dou
APPENDix
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
APPENDix
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS AND%IMPERVIDUS ft UNITED CIVIL
Mountain View Community Church,Fort Collins,CO � Design Group
BasinsExisting
Basin Design Pt. Areas Composite Runoff Coefficients Uzi
Total Total Roof m Asphalt Concretely Gravelly Lawnsl10l3j Composite Effective C2 C100
°%1=90% %1=100% %1=100% %1=40% %1=2% Imperviousness Impervious
C=0.95 M.95 C=0.95 C=0.50 C=D.25 Areas
acres sf sf sf sf sf sf M sf
EX-Site Existing Site 2.90 126,260 36,667 36,862 13,123 39,608 66.4% 83,777 0.73 0.91
Proposed
Basin Design Pt. Areas Composite Runoff Coefficients t2i
Total Total Roof le Asphalt Concretely Gravelly Lawnstnyo Composite Effective C2 Coo
acres sf %I=90% °%1=100% %1=100% %1=40% %1=2% Imperviousness Impervious
C=0.95 C=0.95 C=0.95 C=0.50 C=0.25 Areas
Sir sf sf sf sf N sf
PR-MA Modified Area 0.56 24,441 8,949 1,216 8,471 536 5,269 73.9% 0.79 0.99
PR-Site Proposed Site 2.90 126,260 37,606 34,709 14,482 536 38,927 66.6% 84,029 0.73 0.92
B1 B3 0.60 26,000 20,750 2,150 3,100 88.3% 0.87 1.00
B2 B2 0.15 6,432 6,432 - 90.0% 0.95 1.00
C1 CS 0.16 6,927 6,927 - 90.0% 0.95 1.00
Difference between Proposed and Existing Site 939 (2,153) 1,359 536 (681)1 0.2% 252(Less than 1,000 sf(no detention req'd)
Notes:
(1) Recommended%Imperviousness Values per Table 4.1-3 Surface Type-Percent Impervious in Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
(2) Runoff C is based Table 3.2-2.Surface Type-Runoff Coefficients and Table 3.2-3.Frequency Adjustment Factors in Fort Collins Stormwater Manual
(3) Runoff C for Lawns based off of Lawns,Clayey Soil,Avg Slope 2-7%
Date:11/18/2020 E:l United Civil Dropboxl Projects)U20004-Mountain View Community Churchl Reports)DrainagelCalculationsl U20004-Drain Calcs.xlsm
RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF UNITED CIVIL
Mountain View Community Church,Fort Collins.CO Design Group
Piroposed Basins
Basin Design Pt. Area Final Runoff Coefficients Rainfall Intensity Peak Discharge
acre ktol C2 Cs Coro 12 Is 1100 82 Ds Roo
min in/hr in/hr in/hr cfs cfs cis;
B1 B1 0.60 5.0 0.87 0.87 1.00 2.85 3.97 9.95 1.47 2.05 5.94
B2 B2 0.15 5.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 3.97 9.95 0.40 0.56 1.47
C1 C1 0.16 5.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 3.97 9.95 0.43 0.60 1.58
Notes:2 year runoff rate Basins B1 and B2 used for calculating level spreader length.
Date:11/18/2020 E:I United Civil Dropboxl Projects)U20004-Mountain View Community Church)Reports)DrainagelCalculationsl U20004-Drain Calcs.xlsm
APPENDIX 8
HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
WATER GUALITY-LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT UNITED CIVIL
Mountain View Community Church,Fort Collins.CO Design Group
Water Duality r LID Requirements
Basin Area Area Roof Asphalt Concrete Gravel
(sf) (acres) (s8 (SO (SO (SO
PR-MA 24,441 0.561 8,949 1,216 8,471 536
Total New or Modified Impervious Area for Water Quality Treatment" 18850 sf
50%to be treated by LID WQ 9425 sf
`Impervious Areas calculated based on all of the new or modified asphalt,concrete,and roof areas and 40%of new or modified gravel areas
LID-Vegetative Buff or Water guality Provided
Basin Area Area Roof Asphalt Concrete Gravel
(sf) (acres) (SO (sf) (sf) (S0
B1 26,000 0.597 0 20,/SO 2,150 0
62 6,432 0.148 6,432 0 0 0
Impervious Area to Vegetative Buffer 29332 sf
LID Water Quality limited to Vegetative Buffer Area 11198 sf
TotalDuality Provided
Total Impervious Areas Treated 11198 sf (variance approved for not meeting requirements)
Date:11/18/2020 E:t United Civil Dropboxt Projectst U20004-Mountain View Community Church)Reports)DrainagelCalculationsl U20004-Drain Calcs.xlsm
Design Procedure Form: Grass Buffer(GB)
UD-BMP(Version 3.07,March 2018) Sheet 1 of 1
Designer: Sam Eliason
Company: United Civil Design Group
Date: August 19,2020
Project: Mountain View Community Church
Location: Fort Collins,CO
1. Design Discharge
A)2-Year Peak Flow Rate of the Area Draining to the Grass Buffer Qz= 2.0 cfs
2.Minimum Width of Grass Buffer WG= 40 ft
3.Length of Grass Buffer(14'or greater recommended) LG= 45 ft
4.Buffer Slope(in the direction of flow,not to exceed 0.1 It/ft) SG= 0.010 ft/ft
5.Flow Characteristics(sheet or concentrated)
Choose One
A) Does runoff flow into the grass buffer across the i v Yes Q No
entire width of the buffer?
B) Watershed Flow Length Orl
C) Interface Slope(normal to flow) Si=Oft/ft
D) Type of Flow CONCENTRATED FLOW
Sheet Flow:FL*Si<1
Concentrated Flow:FL*Si>1
r Choose One
6.Flow Distribution for Concentrated Flows I Q None(sheet flow)
O Slotted Curbing
Q Level Spreader
O Other(Explain):
7 Soil Preparation
(Describe soil amendment)
8 Vegetation(Check the type used or describe"Other") r Choose One
QQ Existing Xedc Turf Grass
C J Irrigated Turf Grass
O Other(Explain):
r Choose One
9.Irrigation I Q Temporary
(*Select None if existing buffer area has 80%vegetation
*Permanent
AND will not be disturbed during construction.)
None*
Choose One
r
10.Outflow Collection(Check the type used or describe"Other") I 0 Grass Swale
0 Street Gutter
Q Storm Sewer Inlet
*Other(Explain):
Continues to sheet flow to Spring Creek
Notes:
J
LID-BMP_v3.07(2).xlsm,GB 8/19/2020,5:47 PM
Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® Plan
STORM LINE B
1 2
3
4
163
5
6
7
8 9
Project File: West Drain-Phase 2.stm Number of lines: 14 Date: 11/13/2020
Storm Sewers v2020.00
Storm Sewer Inventory Report Pagel
Line Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Line ID
No.
Dnstr Line Defl Junc Known Drng Runoff Inlet Invert Line Invert Line Line N J-Loss Inlett
Line Length angle Type Q Area Coeff Time El Dn Slope El Up Size Shape Value Coeff Rim El
No. (ft) (deg) (cfs) (ac) (C) (min) (ft) M) (ft) (in) (n) (K) (ft)
1 End 11.215 55.846 Grate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4904.71 0.44 4904.76 10 Cir 0.012 1.33 4907.82 Pipe 1
2 1 48.264 -59.260 Comb 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.0 4904.76 0.39 4904.95 10 Cir 0.012 0.95 4906.45 Pipe 2
3 2 10.498 35.653 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.11 0.48 4905.16 8 Cir 0.012 0.29 4907.34 Pipe 3
4 3 51.860 14.160 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.16 0.50 4905.42 8 Cir 0.012 0.75 4908.07 Pipe 4
5 4 38.909 0.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.42 0.49 4905.61 8 Cir 0.012 0.15 4908.21 Pipe 5
6 5 20.838 0.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.61 0.53 4905.72 8 Cir 0.012 0.73 4908.33 Pipe 6
7 6 18.473 43.567 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.80 0.49 4905.89 6 Cir 0.012 1.00 4907.80 Pipe 7
8 7 4.119 -90.000 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.89 0.49 4905.91 6 Cir 0.012 0.15 4907.88 Pipe 8
9 8 5.992 0.000 None 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.91 0.50 4905.94 6 Cir 0.012 1.00 4908.25 Pipe 9
10 4 11.215 -45.121 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.50 0.54 4905.56 6 Cir 0.012 1.00 4908.35 Pipe 10
11 10 7.846 0.121 None 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.56 0.51 4905.60 6 Cir 0.012 1.00 4908.61 Pipe 11
12 11 4.019 -90.023 None 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.60 1.99 4905.68 6 Cir 0.012 1.00 -2.15 Pipe 12
13 10 5.703 -89.879 None 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.56 1.93 4905.67 6 Cir 0.012 1.00 -1.97 Pipe 13
14 11 4.621 0.000 None 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.60 0.43 4905.62 6 Cir 0.012 1.00 4908.66 Pipe 14
Project File: West Drain-Phase 2.stm Number of lines:14 Date: 11/13/2020
Storm Sewers v2020.00
Storm Sewer Summary Report Pagel
Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction
No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type
(cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) N (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No.
1 Pipe 1 2.08 10 Cir 11.215 4904.71 4904.76 0.444 4905.36 4905.52 0.33 4905.85 End Grate
2 Pipe 2 2.08 10 Cir 48.264 4904.76 4904.95 0.395 4905.85* 4906.22* 0.21 4906.44 1 Combination
3 Pipe 3 0.61 8 Cir 10.498 4905.11 4905.16 0.479 4906.44* 4906.46* 0.01 4906.47 2 None
4 Pipe 4 0.61 8 Cir 51.860 4905.16 4905.42 0.501 4906.47* 4906.58* 0.04 4906.62 3 None
5 Pipe 5 0.20 8 Cir 38.909 4905.42 4905.61 0.488 4906.62* 4906.63* 0.00 4906.63 4 None
6 Pipe 6 0.20 8 Cir 20.838 4905.61 4905.72 0.530 4906.63* 4906.64* 0.00 4906.64 5 None
7 Pipe 7 0.20 6 Cir 18.473 4905.80 4905.89 0.489 4906.64* 4906.66* 0.02 4906.68 6 None
8 Pipe 8 0.20 6 Cir 4.119 4905.89 4905.91 0.486 4906.68* 4906.68* 0.00 4906.68 7 None
9 Pipe 9 0.20 6 Cir 5.992 4905.91 4905.94 0.497 4906.68* 4906.69* 0.02 4906.71 8 None
10 Pipe 10 0.41 6 Cir 11.215 4905.50 4905.56 0.536 4906.62* 4906.67* 0.07 4906.74 4 None
11 Pipe 11 0.25 6 Cir 7.846 4905.56 4905.60 0.510 4906.74* 4906.75* 0.03 4906.78 10 None
12 Pipe 12 0.05 6 Cir 4.019 4905.60 4905.68 1.993 4906.78* 4906.78* 0.00 4906.78 11 None
13 Pipe 13 0.16 6 Cir 5.703 4905.56 4905.67 1.926 4906.74* 4906.74* 0.01 4906.75 10 None
14 Pipe 14 0.20 6 Cir 4.621 4905.60 4905.62 0.433 4906.78* 4906.78* 0.02 4906.80 11 None
Project File: West Drain-Phase 2.stm Number of lines:14 Run Date: 11/13/2020
NOTES: Return period=2 Yrs. :*Surcharged(HGL above crown).
Storm Sewers v2020.00
Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Pagel
Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor
coeff loss
Invert HGL Depth Area Val Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy
elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss
(in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (tUs) (ft) (ft) M (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M (%) (ft) (K) (ft)
1 10 2.08 4904.71 4905.36 0.65 0.45 4.58 0.33 4905.68 0.858 11.215 4904.76 4905.52 0.76 0.52 3.98 0.25 4905.77 0.669 0.764 0.086 1.33 0.33
2 10 2.08 4904.76 4905.85 0.83 0.55 3.81 0.23 4906.08 0.769 48.264 4904.95 4906.22 0.83 0.55 3.81 0.23 4906.45 0.769 0.769 0.371 0.95 0.21
3 8 0.61 4905.11 4906.44 0.67 0.35 1.75 0.05 4906.48 0.217 10.498 4905.16 4906.46 0.67 0.35 1.75 0.05 4906.51 0.217 0.217 0.023 0.29 0.01
4 8 0.61 4905.16 4906.47 0.67 0.35 1.75 0.05 4906.52 0.217 51.860 4905.42 4906.58 0.67 0.35 1.75 0.05 4906.63 0.217 0.217 0.113 0.75 0.04
5 8 0.20 4905.42 4906.62 0.67 0.35 0.57 0.01 4906.63 0.023 38.909 4905.61 4906.63 0.67 0.35 0.57 0.01 4906.63 0.023 0.023 0.009 0.15 0.00
6 8 0.20 4905.61 4906.63 0.67 0.35 0.57 0.01 4906.64 0.023 20.838 4905.72 4906.64 0.67 0.35 0.57 0.01 4906.64 0.023 0.023 0.005 0.73 0.00
7 6 0.20 4905.80 4906.64 0.50 0.20 1.02 0.02 4906.66 0.108 18.473 4905.89 4906.66 0.50 0.20 1.02 0.02 4906.68 0.108 0.108 0.020 1.00 0.02
8 6 0.20 4905.89 4906.68 0.50 0.20 1.02 0.02 4906.69 0.108 4.119 4905.91 4906.68 0.50 0.20 1.02 0.02 4906.70 0.108 0.108 0.004 0.15 0.00
9 6 0.20 4905.91 4906.68 0.50 0.20 1.02 0.02 4906.70 0.108 5.992 4905.94 4906.69 0.50 0.20 1.02 0.02 4906.71 0.108 0.108 0.006 1.00 0.02
10 6 0.41 4905.50 4906.62 0.50 0.20 2.09 0.07 4906.69 0.456 11.215 4905.56 4906.67 0.50 0.20 2.09 0.07 4906.74 0.456 0.456 0.051 1.00 0.07
11 6 0.25 4905.56 4906.74 0.50 0.20 1.27 0.03 4906.77 0.169 7.846 4905.60 4906.75 0.50 0.20 1.27 0.03 4906.78 0.169 0.169 0.013 1.00 0.03
12 6 0.05 4905.60 4906.78 0.50 0.20 0.25 0.00 4906.78 0.007 4.019 4905.68 4906.78 0.50 0.20 0.25 0.00 4906.78 0.007 0.007 0.000 1.00 0.00
13 6 0.16 4905.56 4906.74 0.50 0.20 0.82 0.01 4906.75 0.069 5.703 4905.67 4906.74 0.50 0.20 0.81 0.01 4906.75 0.069 0.069 0.004 1.00 0.01
14 6 0.20 4905.60 4906.78 0.50 0.20 1.02 0.02 4906.79 0.108 4.621 4905.62 4906.78 0.50 0.20 1.02 0.02 4906.80 0.108 0.108 0.005 1.00 0.02
Project File: West Drain-Phase 2.stm Number of lines:14 Run Date: 11/13/2020
c=cir e=ellip b=box
Storm Sewers v2020.00
Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: West Drain-Phase 2.stm
CO v U) Co I- Co
N .. S 5 .. > > .. 5 0)
-� O S E O S a VOE 00.2 NOS C MOB MO E C MO S NO
O C'4ww J 00� ow NN NO CA 0) J a
1� W n d:0 r W V et 00�p(O a0 1+COr 0 cO r-O m W O
o n Oo o^- CO oLOW n o CO oOV) m o OO o o
O O N ui
�00 7 -00 � �00 0000 0,00 n �00 t� �00 O �0CD �00 r �O
O OQI OfT _00 _OT _OW _ _OQI O)O _Om _T
Elev. (ft) O= v avv rn 'tvv rn 'vv 'vv o 'vv vv o 'vv v 'vv 'v
o W _ W ._ N W W OO W O W 0 W W
p-6W O WWW O WWW O -6WW -6WW � -dww � -6WW N -pWW N -601 N -pW
;9 E > a Ei> 9 » m E> i 2 Ei > $ E» E » 2 Ei > m e c
rn Ec c W of cc y Occ N Occ rn Oc c N Ucc rn Occ (n Occ to 0c
4917.00 4917.00
4914.00 4914.00
4911.00 1.00
4908.00 4908.00
4905.00 0 8.909Lf-8"@ .49% °
0.49%
4902.00 0 4902.00
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Storm Sewers
Hydraflow Storm Sewers Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® Plan
STORM LINE C
1
Outfall
Project File: S Entrance Drain.stm Number of lines: 1 Date. 10/6/2020
Stoop sewers v2020.00
Storm Sewer Inventory Report Pagel
Line Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Line ID
No.
Dnstr Line Defl Junc Known Drng Runoff Inlet Invert Line Invert Line Line N J-Loss Inlett
Line Length angle Type Q Area Coeff Time El Dn Slope El Up Size Shape Value Coeff Rim El
No. (ft) (deg) (cfs) (ac) (C) (min) (ft) M) (ft) (in) (n) (K) (ft)
1 End 26.864 -84.257 Grate 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.0 4905.87 0.48 4906.00 8 Cir 0.012 1.00 4907.37 Pipe 1
Project File: S Entrance Drain.stm Number of lines: 1 Date: 10/6/2020
Storm Sewers v2020.00
Storm Sewer Summary Report Pagel
Line Line ID Flow Line Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns Junction
No. rate Size shape length EL Dn EL Up Slope Down Up loss Junct Line Type
(cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) N (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No.
1 Pipe 1 1.58 8 Cir 26.864 4905.87 4906.00 0.483 4906.45" 4906.88` 0.32 4907.20 End Grate
Project File: S Entrance Drain.stm Number of lines: 1 Run Date:10/6/2020
NOTES: Return period=100 Yrs. ;"Surcharged(HGL above crown).
Storm Sewers v2020.00
Hydraulic Grade Line Computations Pagel
Line Size Q Downstream Len Upstream Check JL Minor
coeff loss
Invert HGL Depth Area Val Vel EGL Sf Invert HGL Depth Area Vel Vel EGL Sf Ave Enrgy
elev elev head elev elev elev head elev Sf loss
(in) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (tUs) (ft) (ft) M (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sqft) (ft/s) (ft) (ft) M) (%) (ft) (K) (ft)
1 8 1.58 4905.87 4906.45 0.58 0.32 4.88 0.37 4906.82 1.320 26.864 4906.00 4906.88 0.67 0.35 4.53 0.32 4907.20 1.458 1.389 0.373 1.00 0.32
Project File: S Entrance Drain.stm Number of lines:1 Run Date: 10/6/2020
c=cir e=ellip b=box
Storm Sewers v2020.00
Storm Sewer Profile Proj. file: S Entrance Drain.stm
STORM LINE C
moo= o
Oc°Dom moo
c ri to o co
o . eo 0 0
Elev. (ft) o uW v N v�
o-6W o wW
C w >4919.00 4919.00
4916.00 4916.00
4913.00 4913.00
4910.00 4910.00
4907.00 4907.00
4 °
4904.00 1 4904.00
0 10 20 30
HGL EGL Reach (ft)
Storm Sewers
IINLET CAPACITY fZ„ UNITED CIVIL
Mountain View Community Church.Fort Collins,CO 7`� Desien Groun
Governing Equations:
Inlet capacity equation at low flows(weir calculation): Q _ 3 O P H I'S
Where:
P=2(1+W)
H=depth of water above the flowline
Inlet capacity equation at higher flows(orifice calculation): Q = O.67 A(2 gH )"
Where:
A=open area of the inlet grate
H=depth of water above the centroid of the cross-sectional area(A)
Input Parameters:
Grate: Type C
Wier Perimeter: 12.0
Open Area of Grate(ft'): 4.5
Grate Centroid Elevation(ft(: 4906.45
Allowable Capacity: 50%
Depth vs.Flow:
Depth Elevation Shallow Orifice Actual
Above Inlet Weir Flow Flow Flow
(ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 4906.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.05 4906.50 0.20 2.70 0.20
0.10 4906.55 0.57 3.82 0.57
0.15 4906.60 1.05 4.68 1.05
0.20 4906.65 1.61 5.41 1.61
0.25 4906.70 2.25 6.05 2.25 <---- Maximum Depth
0.30 4906.75 2.96 6.62 2.96
0.35 4906.80 3.73 7.15 3.73
0.40 4906.85 4.55 7.65 4.55
0.45 4906.90 5.43 8.11 5.43
0.50 4906.95 6.36 8.55 6.36
Date:1111812020 E:I United Civil Dropboxl Projects)U20004-Mountain View Community Church)Reports)DrainagelCalculationsl U20004-Drain Colcs.xlsm
APPENDIX
REFERENCED MATERIALS
Stormwater
Alternative ComplianceNariance Application
City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Engineering
Engineer/OwnerSection A:
Engineer Name United Civil Design Group, LLC Phone 970-530-4044
Street Address 19 Old Town Square #238
City Fort Collins State CO Zip 80524
Owner Name Mountain View Community Church Phone 970-490-2262
Street Address 328 Remington Street
City Fort Collins State CO Zip 80524
ProposedSection B:
Project Name Mountain View Community Church
Project/Application Number from Development Review (i.e. FDP123456) FDP200020
Legal description and/or address of property A Portion of Tract A, Seven Lake Business Park PUD
2330 E. Prospect Rd, Fort Collins, Co 80525
Description of Project Redevelopment of a portion of the existing commercial building and site to a
church facility.
Existing Use (check one): F residential 5_ non-residential F mixed-use F vacant ground
Proposed Use (check one): F- residential F non-residential F mixed-use 5_ other Place of Worship
If non-residential or mixed use, describe in detail
Section C: Alternative ComplianceNariance Information
State the requirement from which alternative compliance/variance is sought. (Please include
applicable Drainage Criteria Manual volume, chapter and section.)
Alternative Compliance to Chapter 8, Section 6 Low Impact Development, 6.1 Vegetative Buffer
What hardship prevents this site from meeting the requirement?
-See attached sheet
Attach separate sheet if necessary
What alternative is proposed for the site?
-See attached sheet
Attach separate sheet if necessary
Mountain View Community Church
Alternative Compliance/Variance Application Supplemental Sheet
What hardship prevents this site from meeting the requirement?
This is an existing developed site that has many constraints that make development of more typical LID
types such as permeable pavement, bioretention, sand filters, and underground filtration very difficult
to include with this development. These constraints include the following:
• Existing large trees with large root zones that restrict construction area of LID.
• No storm sewer or shallow storm sewer that restrict the locations of LID with an underdrain.
• Adjacent Spring Creek trail, Natural Area pond and buffer,wetlands, and floodway that all limit
the location of construction in proximity to those natural features.
• Constructing a new storm outlet pipe into a City of Fort Collins Natural Area is an arduous
process that requires that all other alternatives be exhausted. This alternative was looked at
early in the process.
• There is limited space north of the building in the only location with an existing viable storm
sewer outlet. This location has steep side slopes that would require a large wall to construct a
bioretention facility and the outlet pipe is still near existing large trees.
What alternative is proposed for the site?
A vegetative buffer to meet standard water quality and LID requirements is being proposed. This is an
existing well-established native grass area on the northwest portion of the site that we are proposing to
utilize as a vegetative buffer. We are redirecting the runoff from almost 30,000 square feet of
pavement and roof areas to drain across this vegetative buffer. We believe this truly meets the intent of
Low Impact Development and the Key LID techniques listed in Ch. 7, Section 2 because it"Conserves
Existing Amenities", "Minimizes Impacts', and "Minimizes Directly Connected Impervious Areas".
A vegetative buffer is allowed within Section 6.7 to meet the water quality and LID requirements.
However, we cannot meet all the Standard Design Criteria for Vegetative Buffers shown in Figure 6.7-1
including minimum cross slope of 2%,soil amendments, 1:1 run-on ratio, and soil types. We are
proposing using Urban Drainage methodology to calculate the effectiveness of the Vegetated Buffer and
it meets those requirements. By City of Fort Collins requirements,the site is required to provide
stormwater quality treatment for 18,850 square feet of impervious area. The 1:1 ratio requirement
limits the amount of treated area to the area of the vegetative buffer which is approximately 11,200
square feet as measured in the direction of the stormwater flow from the level spreader.
page 2
The owner agrees to comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance, building code and all other
applicable sections of the City Code, Land Use Code, City Plan and all other laws and ordinances
affecting the construction and occupancy of the proposed building that are not directly approved by
this variance. The owner understands that if this variance is approved, the structure and its occupants
may be more susceptible to flood or runoff damage as well as other adverse drainage issues.
Signature of owner:-OLD Date: i I 10 710710
The engineer hereby certifies that the above information, along with the reference plans and project
descriptions is correct.
Signature of engineer: / �"� `/~-- Date: 11/10/2020
o�Pp0 REG/
F
VO:eJ11/10/20
z'
3 `� .
Q
�FssroHa►.F�'G�a
PE STAMP
Date complete application submitted:
Date of approval/denial: Variance: ❑ approved ❑ denied
Staffj ustification/notes/conditions:
• Approved by:
Entered in UtilityFile Database? ❑yes ❑no
If you have questions or need assistance filling out forms, contact Fort Collins Utilities at:
-• ••v.comlstorm - - •@ •• • • Collins
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette .e = FEMA Legend
40°34'20.14"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
(( Zone Without Base Flood Elevation(BFE)
v Znc A.V.A99
Witoh BFE or Depth zone AE,AO,AH,VE,AR
Zone AE SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARDAREAS Regulatory Floodway
o F
r
Zor)e Ali a FLO - VSIAY 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard,Areas
(ELr4904 Feet) Z�oneAE of 1%annual chance flood with average
LU ZOnE AE depth less than one foot or with drainage
uJ A LOMR 09-0&0466P areas of less than one square mile zone x
c0 QftT2 i2'4 2.010 Future Conditions 1%Annual
to
y Chance Flood Hazard Zone
•f ��, Frm Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
OTHER AREAS OF Levee.See Notes.zone x
F�,T�90h FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Levee zone D
Zone AE NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x
•� Zor)e A 0 Effective LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Zotr.n E FLOOD WAY tr
WINR68W S17 m Zone E GENERAL --- Channel,Culvert,or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Levee,Dike,or Floodwall
a zo'2 Cross Sections with 1%Annual Chance
I J �f 1z s Water Surface Elevation
(=ITY OF FORT GOLLINS �T W eo- — — Coastal Transect
pp ,.....su-- Base Flood Elevation Line(BFE)
080102 Q f Limit of Study
O
AE m �,� Zone AE Jurisdiction Boundary
��' ----- Coastal Transect Baseline
I ' I r ' •I ' ' I l l r ' I ' I OTHER - Profile Baseline
FEATURES Hydrographic Feature
4910 'F C 490g-9 FEt 4904 FEET Digital Data Available N
FF No Digital Data Available
r toop
A a _ MAP PANELS Unmapped
.. oAn
FL•OO�WAY 4901 FEET
N �„�?T,4901,FF The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
ZOf)e A m _ point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
m ARE.;OF M IN IMAL FLOOD HAZARD
a
Zone
.. . i This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
FLOOD accuracy standards
+ Zone AE Zone AE The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
T'7N R�i$'IN S2!' authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA.This map
Al . was exported on 2/5/2020 at 10:10:59 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time.The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
r
x A
A
t '�.• • v 9F ? This map image is void if the one or more the following map
� Aug can elements do not appear:basemap imagery,
flood zone labels,
' US,GS The 1N'a►t a a ' t Image a fF FI legend,scale bar,map creation date,community identifiers,
` FIRM panel number,and FIRM effective date.Map images for
Feet 1:6 000 40°33'52.81"N unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 regulatory purposes.
•• __ ___—, s 11 '9+ u.'�XM x%�t Ct,t„,, t�R�n ;.?� t• [�� 44 °4f '�y +�/C sfr-y °J// P v t ,/�, +G . .f. e' .pyS 1
•' t F".gi.`�£e k '�� w I'A£T`°-fi'� 4- '1 ".wty'"tf'�re�y,v'Jf•�� P"L,P�t '%i' t ..'a/tNIN
4.
,• • / p °( 1g � �� S t�'Y . VtyFsf 4'Y�y/��f' St.'A�''',5°„���tp �S" s v 4�• �'��i 31 /�Q.d i r
lsf p'7-N7�
.• ... • .i. � "�� � 'SSs c.f' `J4z-r k'� i '�•��au�r n s� f. y'
�•ti3.
•.. . ._� �� ��" � 1���� ����� "^ '/6° ar�4)� rafs��$�+�� �"nw.���'g'�..�`�4�=�'�y�} e-�`vS'�°.+•��. '�� � y
,• ` �� ���. 'aI `.. dy r ex rtr�J 5�'1'} 'a,<d 'cx'r. ". f /•xrl '
` �� �• ��- ,,,�o.�^Nnk 2< �l.f.'2�1' 'Kx�, �f'a,("*xu q,.�., � -1u A h &.���.'� .�.s.
_ ✓ .�.�A °jj<''^,k� �La M'y N�h�r/��.(� �tR-i.>7�H � ��r,,,�i o a�1.b''Y.'A' ,`�". �� a'��' 4%d1� V_'
co
.T GGJ r� Z a� /•`_ I N�+'' y`�C
• - s'`� - /� �] ���`,..-' of z ��,!" ! `y ON N�I 4� k
`s*I, ag��p , •�:.
Y •,OM .,I '• _ .�` / T; - L1J ✓ nWr•.
�� �� •� ` �V �d4` /Unn Nt1y' ";i �'
`` V 1Z e''"^rt �� /.,, R� .,I4 �ln+t`/�'P�fp� � ��i�SiFI �i5'�'� "rNJ`y 'C • >,,.-•. ,'`
�� VQ r,.:. "`�!/- it ID i y �a, G •� t If, Y V/ f'
Uw
WM
• �`J�'O /1 � (,''J!!\\66�yrryy���.��c— - _'..-� _ y 4t�/,�i�������/..�T C4T'�'It9 A� i�i]' l i �.} f tt I A � "•"',
r:
10�1
r�
�.
it X00
ALM
Mill,
Ak
Ilk
t
4 TIP,
7-1
Legend:
Revised Floodplain Spring Creek Cross Sections Flood Zones
Ground Contours C-3 Parcels
Spring Creek Profile — Fort Collins •s
ASSOCIATES Flooding Extents - -nt Ground AE,FLOODWAY • J 1
P •••HAZARD
FloodBase Elevations
Page 1 of 5 Date: March 27,2019 Case No.: 19-08-0473A LOMA
�f 4A�1FM
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
LgND SEA'
LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER A portion of Tract A, Seven Lakes Business Park P.U.D, as described in
COUNTY, COLORADO the Special Warranty Deed recorded as Document No. 20060013344, in
COMMUNITY the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, Larimer County, Colorado
COMMUNITY NO: 080102
AFFECTED NUMBER: 08069CO983H
MAP PANEL DATE: 5/2/2012
FLOODING SOURCE: SPRING CREEK PPROXIMATE LATITUDE&LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY:40.568580,-105.034568
OURCE OF LAT&LONG:GOOGLE EARTH DATUM: NAD 83
DETERMINATION
OUTCOME 1%ANNUAL LOWEST LOWEST
WHAT IS CHANCE ADJACENT LOT
LOT BLOCK/ SUBDIVISION STREET FLOOD FLOOD GRADE ELEVATION
SECTION REMOVED FROM ZONE
THE SFHA THE ELEVATION (NAND 88)
(NAVD 88) (NAVD 88)
Tract A -- Seven Lakes 2330 East Prospect Structure X 4908.7 feet
Business Park Road (unshaded)
P.U.D.
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - The SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of
being equaled or exceeded in any given year(base flood).
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS(Please refer to the appropriate section on Attachment 1 for the additional considerations listed below.)
PORTIONS REMAIN IN THE SFHA/FLOODWAY
el-OMA DETERMINATION
This document provides the Federal Emergency Management Agency's determination regarding a request for a Letter of Map Amendment for the property
described above. Using the information submitted and the effective National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we have determined that the structure(s) on
the property(ies) is/are not located in the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year
(base flood). This document amends the effective NFIP map to remove the subject property from the SFHA located on the effective NFIP map; therefore, the
Federal mandatory flood insurance requirement does not apply. However, the lender has the option to continue the flood insurance requirement to protect its
financial risk on the loan. A Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) is available for buildings located outside the SFHA. Information about the PRP and how one can apply is
enclosed.
This determination is based on the flood data presently available. If there are any errors on this el-OMA Determination Letter that cause FEMA to rescind and/or
nullify the determination the property owner should consult the Licensed Professional that submitted this eLOMA. The enclosed documents provide additional
information regarding this determination. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877)
336-2627(877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Attn: North Wind Resource Partners (NWRP) el-OMA
Coordinator,3601 Eisenhower Avenue,Alexandria,VA 22304-4605,Fax:703-751-7415.
Luis V. Rodriguez,P.E.,Director
Engineering and Modeling Division el-OMA
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
Page 2 of 5 Date: 3/27/2019 Case No : 19-08-0473A LOMA
��4A��Fti
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
o��1gND 50�'�4
LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS)
Structure Removal:
The following considerations may or may not apply to the determination for your Structure:
PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE SFHA and/or FLOODWAY - Portions of this property,
but not the subject of the Determination document, may remain in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
and/or the regulatory floodway for the flooding source indicated on the Determination Document. The NFIP
regulatory floodway is the area that must remain unobstructed in order to prevent unacceptable increases in
base flood elevations. Therefore, no construction may take place in an NFIP regulatory floodway that may
cause an increase in the base flood elevation. Therefore, any future construction or substantial improvement
on the property remains subject to Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for floodplain
management. The NFIP regulatory floodway is provided to the community as a tool to regulate floodplain
development. Modifications to the NFIP regulatory floodway must be accepted by both the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the community involved. Appropriate community actions are defined in
Paragraph 60.3(d) of the NFIP regulations. Any proposed revision to the NFIP regulatory floodway must be
submitted to FEMA by community officials. The community should contact either the Regional Director (for
those communities in Regions I-IV, and VI-X), or the Regional Engineer (for those communities in Region V) for
guidance on the data which must be submitted for a revision to the NFIP regulatory floodway. Contact
information for each regional office can be obtained by calling the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at
(877) 336-2627 (877-FEMA MAP) or from our web site at https://www.fema.gov/regional-contact-information
STUDY UNDERWAY - This determination is based on the flood data presently available. However, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency may be currently revising the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) map for the community. New flood data could be generated that may affect this property. If a new NFIP
map is issued it will supersede this determination. The Federal requirement for the purchase of flood insurance
will then be based on the newly revised NFIP map.
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - The subject of the determination is shown on the National Flood
Insurance Program map and may be located in an Extraterritorial Jurisdiction area for the community indicated
on the Determination Document.
This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the
FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627(877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Attn: North Wind Resource Partners (NWRP) eLOMA Coordinator, NWRP eLOMA Coordinator, 3601 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA
22304-6439,Fax:703-751-7415
Luis V. Rodriguez,P.E.,Director
Engineering and Modeling Division eLOMA
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
Page 3 of 5 Date: 3/27/2019 Case No : 19-08-0473A LOMA
��4A��Fti
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
o��1gND 50�'�4
LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS)
GREAT LAKES - The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has based this determination on
elevation data which is published in the current Flood Insurance Study for the community. However, the
elevations established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reports on the Great Lakes are the best
available data known to us. If in the future there are any subsequent map revisions to the National Flood
Insurance Program map and the USACE reports remain the best available data known, FEMA will use those
elevations for any such revisions. Further, be advised that the elevations on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) may only reflect the Stillwater elevation for the lake and may not account for the effects of wind driven
waves or wave run-up. On-site conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, fetch distance, water depth and
the slope of the beach or bluff may result in significant increases to the base flood elevation. Therefore, it is
strongly recommended that the requestor be aware of these circumstances and, if warranted, evaluate the
effects of wind driven waves along the shoreline of the property.
STATE AND LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS - Please note that this document does not override or supersede
any State or local procedural or substantive provisions which may apply to floodplain management
requirements associated with amendments to State or local floodplain zoning ordinances, maps, or State or
local procedures adopted under the National Flood Insurance Program.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM - Based upon information provided to FEMA by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the subject property may be within a System Unit or an Otherwise Protected
Area (OPA) of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS). Federal flood insurance is
generally not available within the CBRS for new construction or substantial improvements occurring after the
flood insurance prohibition date (which is generally tied to the date that the area was first established as either
a System Unit or OPA, but may differ in some cases). Other federal expenditures and financial assistance
(including certain types of disaster assistance) are also restricted within System Units of the CBRS. The
USFWS is the authoritative source for information regarding the CBRS. Additional information, including the
CBRS Mapper, can be found on the USFWS website at: https://www.fws.gov/cbra.
This attachment provides additional information regarding this request. If you have any questions about this attachment, please contact the
FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627(877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Attn: North Wind Resource Partners (NWRP) eLOMA Coordinator, NWRP eLOMA Coordinator, 3601 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA
22304-6439,Fax:703-751-7415
Luis V. Rodriguez,P.E.,Director
Engineering and Modeling Division eLOMA
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource
Department of Cooperative Soil Survey,
Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for
n I ��� States Department of
\v� Agriculture and other L a r i m e r County
Federal agencies, State
Natural agencies including the
Resources Agricultural Experiment Area, Colorado
Conservation Stations, and local
Service participants
Mountain View Community
Church
- i
}
t
i
Will
�-A P
0 1200 ft — t
March 23, 2020
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nres/main/soils/health/)and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800)795-3272 (voice)or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8
SoilMap................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11
MapUnit Descriptions.........................................................................................11
Larimer County Area, Colorado...................................................................... 13
42—Gravel pits............................................................................................13
64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...........................................13
105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes...................................... 15
References............................................................................................................17
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5
Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
6
Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
7
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
Custom Soil Resource Report
s Soil Map
O O
49M 496M 49699D 497010 497030 497050 497070 49M 497110 49713D 497150 497170 497190
40°34'9"N 40°34'9"N
o_ o_
ME
L
t It, f I
111 11�'111
{F
"1914iIlIl�
•Soilap may not Be li at"Yhisa
f
40°34'4"N •::,� ' 40°34'4"N
49MM 496M 496<390 497010 49703D 497050 497070 497090 497110 497130 497150 497170 497190
b
N Map Sole:1:1,140 if pdnted on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet
N Meters
0 15 30 60 90
A 0 50 100 200 3
Map projection:Web Mercator Comer coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:Lr M Zone 13N WGS84
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(A01) 8 Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
Area of Interest(AOI) Q 1:24,000.
Stony Spot
Soils Very Stony Spot
0 Soil Map unit Polygons Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Wet Spot
.w Soil Map Unit Lines Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
p Other misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
� Soil Map Unit Points 9 PP� 9 Y
Special Line Features line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of
Special Point Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
V Blowout Water Features scale.
Streams and Canals
® Borrow Pit
Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Clay Spot 1-14 Rails measurements.
Closed Depression
0%/ Interstate Highways
Gravel Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
N US Routes Web Soil Survey URL:
Gravelly Spot - _ Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
® Landfill Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Lava Flow Background projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
g distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the
Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more
Mine or Quarry accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
O Miscellaneous Water This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Q Perennial Water of the version date(s)listed below.
y Rock Outcrop Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area,Colorado
+ Saline Spot Survey Area Data: Version 14,Sep 13,2019
Sandy Spot Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales
40 Severely Eroded Spot 1:50,000 or larger.
0 Sinkhole Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Aug 11,2018—Aug
Slide or Slip 12,2018
,o Sodic Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
10
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
42 Gravel pits 0.5 9.2%
64 Loveland clay loam,0 to 1 3.9 72.8%
percent slopes
105 Table Mountain loam,0 to 1 1.0 18.0%
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 5.3 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into Iandforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform.An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
12
Custom Soil Resource Report
Larimer County Area, Colorado
42—Gravel pits
Map Unit Composition
Gravel pits: 95 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit.
Description of Gravel Pits
Setting
Parent material: Gravel pits
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 6 inches: extremely gravelly sand
H2- 6 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand, extremely gravelly coarse sand, very
gravelly coarse sand
H2- 6 to 60 inches:
H2- 6 to 60 inches:
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Aquents
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Marshes
Hydric soil rating: Yes
64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpx9
Elevation: 4,800 to 5,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Loveland and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit.
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Loveland
Setting
Landform: Flood plains, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 15 inches: clay loam
H2- 15 to 32 inches: clay loam, silty clay loam, loam
H2- 15 to 32 inches: very gravelly sand, gravelly sand, gravelly coarse sand
H2- 15 to 32 inches:
H3-32 to 60 inches:
H3-32 to 60 inches:
H3-32 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20
to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Very slightly saline to slightly saline (2.0 to 4.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 16.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Aquolls
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Swales
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Poudre
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: jpty
Elevation: 4,800 to 5,600 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period: 135 to 150 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Table mountain and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Table Mountain
Setting
Landform: Flood plains, stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 36 inches: loam
H2-36 to 60 inches: loam, clay loam, silt loam
H2-36 to 60 inches:
H2-36 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 5.0
Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 18.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
Ecological site: Overflow(R049XY036CO)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Caruso
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Fluvaquentic haplustolls
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Terraces
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Paoli
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
16
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
n res/detai I/national/soi Is/?cid=n res 142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nresl42p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nres142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
17
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres 142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf
18
00
q.,•6.0 en EXISTING A&W
GHAtJAIlL SECTION B-6 -_f�90� (�-
'. EX/ST/.VG FONL? 90 l
e9 C B \� <
CNAMVE'L/ZAYiON PROJECT FOR "` //\ m
5 7 A \
Apo/T/ONA4
/N TN/5 A.eEA.
\ r NOTE:pREFER TO THE ccON17/TIONAL CE7T
/ F'JR AMENO1V1r.PEA!/ °a >>... .. \�. It17tFUIll7a(�91lZanimnn rr v `—
\ / l TO f"E,yA FOR/NfU.f'/{l9' 1 ._
/ CO.UCE.PN/.UCgH-IV14 . lyg T�rR - .-�
N � !/ SURFACE 6LENAT/ ANO L/A4/TS �'--'--
y ��.� � W/ � AlM'61 Aeovl I'h" D , g . \ `/ 0 W ,.... _— •^ -- ��___-..- ¢r 6.115RINW.-U.-
der RE6K re
taRA J.1 S � �
/' 1 (�i /' 9owu•Nltc.•rM1W •.�� _ _-�--� ��o'�' oRiuui.a�wJW
/ // GVRID OVTI-R1�' Q _ 1.61tCR 41 J.JMrT(Y.R
/
/ OI
Q@ rQe FF ECEV 4'9��i1� ` ff r�(rf.X fr�Pr�t�r 1 ra/ o� " ununu uu r n ar mar r a m r uar u.....
` \ E
/ I y
p3 t
e Qe •IT.T u•
5r4U •J A 3 4
r B of b 4
TQMVOR4R4 ORPI W.i! lo'
CHANN@L SECTION A-A
4904 - / / - ..ou.aa.R T•airvi ve O4i'�' _ —
—rd,RU40f>TO WIY(t=RpV51N
rI ..r PGJ� •C6rLK.
J n'rtnaln
/ � S '�rann �nnnaunuuuuuuuunuunnuunutn rnnnvauw un nuaurrtunrla Qnanunuau
M NO?'G•vfovl 1'h°�e 4•9"
/ / _� 4T 441Ca,TO tvrt0. -
/ f' °y OR.I-.0�05.GH44rJU_IWN
tvwct••e. Area length E '010 10100
\• e oa e \ asln Sub-8asin Acres Feet Feetlev. v. CFS IIFS
13
A Al 0.76 2 85 2.9 5,L
// o ' /• ? ` �'"""""""" 1 A2 1.93 670' S.S. 6.7 14.5
Q '
60 124
// p•� FF ELEIU 4906.0 ; FF 6C iC 4903.3 (/ - ' _ 5.2_ I0_2 _
1,
.__...._ - -... 6.68 340 7
Total 5.68
// / / __ .. aurrrar•rmmrrmrrrarr _ 0 7 320'• ••5'- 3 0 6,0
7 FF ELE .rrYr,1"r�nauunr _ - \ 8 9 3.8 7 5
9 2. ' - ---
_...
�� � 1�••• -�"J F<H % E / E 1.16 940' 6.2' 3.5 _ 8.7_
\ F E —
r90� F
I rA• \ 9 1 j6�I 1cvae 4a4TLR
\\� \... .. _... y _ _ _ _ _ _-_.._._ _ — RLva nu0 OC4,usi�.v1.1t6Ru4. -..__ _
rneu
p C
- T
�'�� I p.i u W u n).ur a mmvu r.auWauuuuwn.I... RMananWmm�ann mmumuaumnruturnumnmmm
1pp
4910 -'
1 __ —_ �nunnuuuuununna ua uunaa..... uaurru anunnanauunaannuur mr 11ffl6iJrrFNi865narauaun unannuuunnunuunuuuuuuunuunrur nnnnuuwumnnuuur,a,rr.naun,un..rr.unrrr...r _ _���
Ttmmrrnnm 1 r r1Tm iihltl
— -----------
4906\ i I \ 1 NOTE%,7L"ga 4"EA9U ANL-AC6�58' '
T7PE U CESAll
FC OU d CL
r OYNERVY/SE
POINT ROAD V
NO D
TE:
1. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS AS SHOWN ARE A MIN. OF 1.5 FEET ABOVE THE
K• 5
Q
• 100 YR. WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FOR SPRING CREEK AND/OR THE CACHE LA
POUDRE RIVER, WHICHEVER IS GREATER,
�• 2. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL THE CONDITIONAL LETTER - 1Q Q v I/
L. j 14• L, OF MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
/ rig
-- ---.-.-._._ r-�:` a IS APPROVED. r
3, REFER TO HEC-2 DATA MAP IN CON)IT10N11.TETHER OF MAP AMPC ENT REQI£ST FOR EXISTING /
NFLOW CURB 8 GUTTER L_ AND PROPOSED FLOODPUUN LIMITS FOR BOTH THE CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER AND SPRING CREEK,
OLTPLOW CURB &GUTTER
PARSONS & ASSOCIATES Scale a"I_RoLHE HEENAN Check dMByNLL R SEVEN LAKES- TRACT INAESS PARK P.U.D. A
1lnvrann ev Date Project:
' ."
T-1 laos sp. College Ave. • Ft. Collins, Colorado 90524 (303)221-2400 Draftsman:AS Prepared:31 JAN.'82 10 SITE DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN 00
woRcial Copy was downloaded on DenOf3019 tmm IFe Ciry o(Fmt Collins Public Records Websile:hnp;//cirydecs.tegov.com •/ —¢��
orseddlfiO.ulin(onnenon Oran oNual co y,laaro conticl Psgioeen Olfice281 NoM Cella eFoel Collios.0080521 USA
APPENDIX
DRAINAGE EXHIBITS
• •. �_ � � �C�C�C�C�C�C�C�C�C�C�C�� � i�G'�r1 Z$'�'� �' '�
����i ' �CCCCCCCCCCCC�►���CCCCCCCCCC�►CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC��CCCCCCCCCCCCC���� ��
'�k j �►� �CCCCCCC�CCCCC'►CCCCCj,CCCCCCCC�CCCCCC�' f ���
I �CCCCCCCCIC♦ ♦CCC� ♦CCCCC♦ �/ /�
t1Dj%�;.- /'�, �' �CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC •. CCCCCCC��CCCCCCCCCCCCC� -+
��� O Oi i� �!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i�' • PHASE 2 ADDITIO !�i•!!!'!s!!!!!i!i!i!i�
��/���,�/���/°/,,,,.•� ,"�.�,�I�%/�����//�-��C1�.CCC�C♦CC♦�C!CCCC�CC�CCC��CCCCC�CC�CCC�CCGCCCCCCCCC�♦CiCiCCCC�CI�C�C�CCCC�CCC���� CCCCCCCCCCCCCC�C CCCCCCt►CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC�� �CCCC C � r:��/���
/,� °° = == '� / � 7��-�CCCCCCOC��CCCCCCCCCC�CCCCCCC♦ %+'�1�'�/
.. �� _ ,��./�'�/ •:CCCCCCCC�CC��CCCCCCCCCC�►CCCCCCCt / � • � J, ,
��,. =_., +,/�j� ►CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC�►CCCC���CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC�►CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ,%�i �•+ �.���
��/ - ��/� �I��� ��CCCCCCCCCCCCCC�►CCCCCC���CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC�►CCCCCCCCCCCCCC� 0, Y�
// /�,'/�I! �/ ,I Q \►CCCCCCCC�►CCCCCCICCCCC�C��CCCCCCCC\/ all,
�/ � / ���►CCCCCCCCCCCCCC�►CCCCCCCCCC��CCCCCCCC� !�CCCCCCCCCCCCCC�`
,��I,// / `\ _ ♦CCCCCC�CCCC�C��C�C�C�C�C� i�CCCCCC♦ \��` � �
�i/ / / � ►CCCCCCCCCCCCCC�►CCCCC� �����`�`�: . ►CjCjCjCjCjCjCj�� ._�. /� �/ /�,��i.
�� ''/ / / ►CCCCCCCt►CC� �� �� CCCCCCC�\Uf,:4��
// I �/ ♦CCCCCCCCCC�\/ �� • �CCCCC��E i
w, WAY
,7w �\
LIMITS OF •.
IMPERVIOUS
COMPOSITE
TITAI
IMPERVIOUSNESS IMPERVIOUS
arrI
• . • . •11�111 �11��llqllllpll ill pill!l NOTE: THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THEM.
- A
, , . .
c
\\\\\\\\\\\O\\\\\��I�
MEMNON
.__ ���. ........... ............ /, o
Aw
�/ice/�,f :� ,� ,- . w .�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�� ��i�i�i��i�i•��i°.��e! ., .;. �i � ///,
FA'IVA
/ /fit �%/ �� "6ii ��� �����������w����������►�������1 r Y
Mft
vio
�'"��'•`'a` I� ����������������������®���' Fla
�fit► � ���������/ �h� i � � ��
Arm
WIN
IN
�i i�� isa• s-ss ii BSE r�Pm_,_ ak6 a��a-.�. wa ..�a�.�w.�v�r 4 ,2<�m;v'
■ LIMITS OF •■ ■
.�_ ■ IMPERVIOUS
iT" T� 3F�
COMPOSITE EFFECTIV
TITAI IMPERVIOUSNESSIMPERVIOUS
• . • . • - A
LEGEND
/ SPRING CREEK`
AiY D1 DE61GN POINT
EXISTING CREEK BANK r\ \\\ �/ \\\ -/-/x FLOW DIRECTION
UNITED CIVIL
/T \ x BASIN DESIGNATION Design
EXISTING LIMITS OF WETLANDS) DeSI9 n Gf'OU
/ I )()(x %.XX 5-YRRUNOFFCOEFR CIVIL ExGIrvEEaING&CONSULTING
1 W RUNOFF COEFF. 19 OLD FORT COLLLN SOLARE LIN',DO S.
B
BASININ A AREA(ACRE) (9
VEGETATIVE BUFFER ]0)530J04I
(APPROX.6,786 SF) EXISTING POND www.uniteBvvlLcom
c� I
QNATUaRAL LCHORU AREAS
$-
i_
/ \ _
Y� - // i
O
ji-
\ % // _ -490<- T?9� I \\\ _ _ IMPERVIOUS AREA IS LESS THAN IOW SQUARE FEET
__ O -r-1 \ y NOTES =m
y
\ / � O> _____ `__ Z� \ j% /;? \��� 1.ONSRE DETENTION NOT REQUIREDSINCEINCREASE IN mF
/ `\\�� EXISTING EDGE OF POND 2.ONSITE WATER QUALITY AND LID PROVIDED BASED ON B.
�O
LII/ MODIFIED IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR PHASE I AND PHASE 2 .f!
-=--- s ---- - INCLUDING THE NEW SANCTUARY IMPROVEMENTS.
WON'GRE M11 0 /
_ ------
XS
1502 S TIMBERLINE RD t ' ------ ISTI
OWNER:POUDRE SCHOOL >" -----___ EXNGir.CM---PP
DISTRICT R-1 n / NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER
VEGETATNE BUFFER µ+ _� 49wr", / �`- _ __ 95
(APPR0X.4,412 SF))
\ `I / / ___
/ 'w- ___ _____i
i _
---- 7• ,�= -
y-----
= a
- - WATER QUALITY SUMMARY m`
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENT: NOIIDYJ
TOTAL NEW OR MODIFIED IMPERVIOUS AREA=18,850 SF
82 LF-LEVEL SPREADER TO DISTRIBUTE p
.\ STORMWATER FLOW TO VEGETATIVE BUFFER a REQUIRED LID WQ TREATMENT=9,4253F(50%MIN.)
NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE \ TYPE C INLET // WATER QUALITY PROVIDED:
BPAVED UFFERAREAS IN BASINS B1882 DRAINING TO VEGETATIVE N
E%ISF DRAJI A09 BUFFER=29,332 SF
ROOF DRAIN W
�(�y[' OUTLET B /\ Py VEGETATIVE BUFFER(LID CREDIT)IS LIMITED TO THE SIZE OF
/ LIMITS OF FLOODWAY �]° m \\ 1 I m 11 THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER=11,19S EF
\
9' A9 g0 �.$33. �►r � I � DOES NOT MEET CITY OF FORT COLLINS REQUIREMENTS.
VARIANCE APPROVED FOR WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS. r , Q
J S `J
x 2330 E PROSPECT RD LU
\\\DRAIN BASIN ' /' / + OWNER:MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH I� LJ_
\o10RM LINE // `'A �\ \ \\ D
LU
. -109-YEARFLOODRLAIN FLOODPLAIN NOTES }
(BUILDING REMOVED FROM FLOODPLAIN PER I
\ LOMA CASE NO.140E-04]3A DATED 3l2]/2019) y 4 1.PORTIONS OF THIS PROJECT PRELOCATEDWITIANTHE r
FEMA REGULATED 100-YE AR SPRING CREEK FLOODPIAIN
AND FLOODWAY,THIS PROPERTYIEALSOLOCATED 7
EXISTING BUILDING WITHIN THE SPRING GREEK MODERATE RI6KFLOODPLAIN L z
AN DISSUBJECTTOTHEREQUIREMENTS OF CHA-10
OFTHECITYCODE. D Q
2.ALL DEVELOPMENT(CURB SGUTTER,PAVEMENT,GRADING, 5 (J
FILL.PARKING LOTS.UTILITIES.PI-AINCAPI.USTB ETC.)WITHIN LL
'p9 / ` \ BZ ` U.18 U.BS THE FEMA REGULATORY FLWDPLAIN MUST BE PRECEDED
�� \\ 7.00 I ANDS
EYE
APPROVED FLOOD PLAIN USE PERMIT AND
APPLICABLE FEES.'\ 1.00 a pg01/ 3.A NO RISE CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO O
- PERFORMING ANY WORK WITHIN THE FLOODWAY(I.E.CURB _
B 1 _ CUT,CURB 8 GUTTER,UTILITY WORK,LANDSCAPING,ETC.) U
/ ` _
4.ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS AND BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AS
&151N5 LINES SHOWN BASED /
�/ / / - / 1.00 11 ON PHA6E2ROOFDE6IGN , - \ DDAATUMNONO 88 DRAWING ARE PER VERTICAL CONTROL QN U
(NOT SIGNIFICANTLY = N 4 1\ STORM CULVERT CANOPY DRAIN 11I L.1_
,Y DIFFERENT THAN PHASE 11 STORM INLET _ 1 5.NO STORAGE OF MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT MAY OCCUR AT W 0 F
/ \ (PHASE I ONLY) .• ANY TIME IN THE FLOOD-BEFORE,DURING OR AFTER Z
CONSTRUCTION. \
STORM UN�EB 1 . 1/ //Ua
fi.ANY ITEMS TABLE,
EDIKE RACKS.ETC.)
CAN FLOAT 0
LIMR80F 1W-YEAR FLOOOPIAIN ' I I� ,- � � (E.G.PICNIC TABLE.BIKE RACKS.ETC.)MUST BE 7 O
// ANCHORED. L U
'/" ` ��� b I / A9�� ] PROIORT AM MUST BE SURNEYEDAND RKAKED IN THE FIELD w
2290 E PROSPECT ROAD \
OWNER:DDNH COMMERCIAL INC _ _ 49 - r- STORM LINE .1 B.ALL FENCING HERED THE CLUDIN ANY SHALL BE BREAK-AWAY Z
S\i - -- ' �(PHASEI ONLY) a � \ _ AND TETHERED INCLUDING ANY CONSTRUCTION FENCING.
r
I � F
Z
AZT-m
/
$ 1 _
,e
°
I.
°
MODERATE RISK
O
u / FLOODPLAIN u9 - ---- --- O CI
6906
y D5 OWNER:SEVEN LAKES _► .4905------------ - - - Z W
I
of
_ .
\ BUSINESS PARK ASSN
/ 11 o ILI 20• 40' d
---- LU
--
SCALE 1" 20 a"
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL J�Qi
APPROVED:
City Engineer at
y ' `� I I R: E PROSPECT RD \._J I CHECKED BY:
' OWNER:C AND C HOLDINGS LLC LOT LINE(TTP) Q O
I I - lfater k Eastewater Utility Date O
ff OWNER:GATEWAY MEDICAL SERVICES LLC CHECKED BY: ?O��
< 'o Stormwater Utility Date
DRAINAGE BASIN SUMMARY TABLE sHEEcTNUMeER
o B.M. D111pPolm area%I cz c- a, 4\00 CHECKED BY: C5.00
Q Parka k Recreation Date
ivvef (eJ) l�l F
OF 1S SHEEi3
8 EX-Sloe Ex-,Ste 2eD 66% D.73 0- - CHECKED BY: SCALE
�+ PR-SUP vrvp-d Site 2.AD 11% 1,11 1,12 Traffic Engineer Date
F U t VERTICAL' 1'=WA
1
1 BS 0.60 86% 0.8] 1.00 1.4] 5.99
B2 B2 0.13 90% 0.95 1.00 0.41 1,11 HORED-1' I-,
CHECKED BY:
S e a Cl Cl 0.16 90% 0.95 1.00 0.43 1.5E Date JOB NUMBER
U20D04