HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH - FDP200020 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - DRAINAGE REPORTFINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
1501 ACADEMY CT. STE 203 | FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 | 970-530-4044 | www.unitedcivil.com
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
A Portion of Tract A
Seven Lakes Business Park P.U.D
Fort Collins, CO
Prepared for:
Mountain View Community Church
2330 East Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Date:
October 7, 2020
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
i U20004_Drainage Report.docx
October 7, 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
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
ii U20004_Drainage Report.docx
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 ........................................................................................................................................................8
A. Compliance with Standards ......................................................................................................... 8
B. Drainage Concept ......................................................................................................................... 8
C. Stormwater Quality ...................................................................................................................... 8
VII. References ......................................................................................................................................................9
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Hydrology Calculations
APPENDIX B – Hydraulic Calculations
B.1 – Low Impact Development Calculations
B.2 – Water Quality Calculations
B.3 – Inlet Sizing Calculations (Reserved for Final Submittal)
B.4 – Storm Pipe Calculations (Reserved for Final Submittal)
B.5 – Curb Channel Calculations (Reserved for Final Submittal)
B.6 – Weir Calculation (Reserved for Final Submittal)
APPENDIX C – Referenced Materials
APPENDIX D – Drainage Exhibits
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
1 U20004_Drainage Report.docx
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.
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.
E Prospect Rd
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
2 U20004_Drainage Report.docx
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 (ie., 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
Floodplain which is a FEMA designated 100-
year floodplain and floodway. In addition, the
existing site and building is located within the
limits of Poudre River 500-year floodplain. The
FEMA FIRM Panel # is 08069C0983H effective
5/2/2012. A Letter of Map Amendment
(LOMA) Determination Document #19-08-
0473A dated 3/27/2019 removed the building
from the 100-year floodplain. The current
FEMA FIRM Map along with the LOMA is
included in the appendix.
The proposed building will be used as a place of
Worship. This is not a critical facility, which are
not allowed within the Poudre River 500-year
floodplain.
FIGURE 2: FLOODPLAIN MAP
Existing Building
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
3 U20004_Drainage Report.docx
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.
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
4 U20004_Drainage Report.docx
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
The drainage design of the MVCC improvements does not vary from City of Fort Collins criteria.
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
Hydrology
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.
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
5 U20004_Drainage Report.docx
MVCC Site
Existing 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 A
Sub-basins A1-A3 (see Drainage Plan attached) are generally located around the north and northwest region of the site. These
basins consist of roofs, retaining walls and landscaping. Runoff within these Basins is conveyed to a proposed bioretention
pond via sheet flow and roof drains. Runoff conveyed to the bioretention pond system is ultimately discharged to an existing
on-site inlet on the north side of the existing building. This inlet currently conveys runoff off-site to the north, downstream
within the Spring Creek drainage basin.
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 B1 largely
consists of a parking lot, and Basin B2 consists solely of roof area. Runoff within sub-basin B1 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.
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.
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
6 U20004_Drainage Report.docx
WATER QUALITY REQUIRED:
TOTAL NEW OR MODIFIED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 18,850 SF
REQUIRED LID WQ TREATMENT = 9,425 SF (50% MIN)
WATER QUALITY PROVIDED:
BIORETENTION (LID) FOR BASINS A1, A2, & A3 = 9,780 SF (52%)
VEGETATIVE BUFFER (STANDARD WQ) FOR BASINS B1 & B2 = 29,332 SF
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA TREATED = 39,112 SF
I. Bioretention
Bioretention is designed to remove sediment and pollution from stormwater runoff via infiltration through an
engineered sand media. This slows the conveyance rate of storm water runoff, reduces runoff and provides a flow
path across a vegetated surface. A bioretention pond is proposed with the site improvements and is utilized to
convey and treat stormwater prior to release to an existing inlet that drains off-site to the north.
The proposed bioretention ponds are located immediately north of the existing building. Provided 12-inches of
depth, the ponds are hydraulically connected by a 6” pipe and they are designed to provide a water quality capture
volume of 351-cf – this volume exceeds the required WQCV for Basins A1-A3 (317-cf). Below is a summary of the
bioretention pond:
Bottom of
Bioretention
Pond Elevation
Bioretention
WSEL
Bioretention Volume
Required
(cf)
Bioretention Volume
Provided
(cf)
4907.20 4908.20 317 343
II. Vegetated Buffer
A vegetated buffer with an approximate area of 6,605-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.
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 lf 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. Bioretention
Basins A1-A3, with an impervious area of 9,780, are designed to be conveyed to the bioretention ponds associated
with the site improvements. The proposed impervious area treated through bioretention includes existing roof and
landscape areas. Refer to Appendix B for additional information.
The inclusion of bioretention 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.
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
7 U20004_Drainage Report.docx
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 may be 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.
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 sized to accommodate the flows from 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.
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
8 U20004_Drainage Report.docx
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
Multiple long-term stormwater quality measures have been selected for the site that will provide treatment of stormwater
prior it to being discharged from the site. For this site this includes a bioretention pond and vegetated buffers.
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
FORT COLLINS, CO
9 U20004_Drainage Report.docx
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.nrcs.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
APPENDIX A
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX B
HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C
REFERENCED MATERIALS
APPENDIX D
DRAINAGE EXHIBITS
APPENDIX A
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS AND % IMPERVIOUS
Mountain View Community Church, Fort Collins, CO
Basin Design Pt.
Total Total Roof
(1)
Asphalt Concrete
(1)
Gravel
(1)
Lawns
(10(3)
Composite Effective C2 C
100
%I = 90% %I = 100% %I = 100% %I =40% %I=2% Imperviousness Impervious
C=0.95 C=0.95 C=0.95 C=0.50 C=0.25 Areas
acres sf sf sf sf sf sf (%) sf
EX-MA Modified Area 0.56 24,441 8,010 3,369 7,112 5,950 72.9% 17,809 0.78 0.97
EX-Site Site 2.90 126,260 36,667 36,862 13,123 39,608 66.4% 83,777 0.73 0.91
Basin Design Pt.
Total Total Roof
(1)
Asphalt Concrete
(1)
Gravel
(1)
Lawns
(10(3)
Composite Effective C2 C
100
acres sf %I = 90% %I = 100% %I = 100% %I =40% %I=2% Imperviousness Impervious
C=0.95 C=0.95 C=0.95 C=0.50 C=0.25 Areas
sf sf sf sf sf (%) sf
PR-MA Modified Area 0.56 24,441 8,949 1,216 8,471 536 5,269 73.9% 18,061 0.79 0.99
PR-Site Site 2.90 126,260 37,606 34,709 14,482 536 38,927 66.6% 84,029 0.73 0.92
A1 A1 0.03 1,206 50 1,156 6.1% 0.28 0.35
A2 A2 0.06 2,592 2,592 - 90.0% 0.95 1.00
A3 A3 0.16 7,138 7,138 - 90.0% 0.95 1.00
B1 B1 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 C1 0.16 6,927 6,927 - 90.0% 0.95 1.00
939 (2,153) 1,359 536 (681) 1.0% 252
939 (2,153) 1,359 536 (681) 0.2% 252
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%
Difference between Proposed and Existing Modified Areas
Difference between Proposed and Existing Site
Composite Runoff Coefficients
Areas (2)
Existing Basins
Proposed Basins
Areas Composite Runoff Coefficients
(2)
Date: 10/6/2020 C:\United Civil Dropbox\Projects\U20004 - Mountain View Community Church\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\U20004-Drain Calcs.xlsm
RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF
Mountain View Community Church, Fort Collins, CO
Basin Design Pt. Area Final
acre tc
(6) C2 C5 C100 I2 I5 I100 Q2 Q5 Q100
min in/hr in/hr in/hr cfs cfs cfs
A1 A1 0.03 5.0 0.28 0.28 0.35 2.85 3.97 9.95 0.02 0.03 0.10
A2 A2 0.06 5.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 3.97 9.95 0.16 0.22 0.59
A3 A3 0.16 5.0 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 3.97 9.95 0.44 0.62 1.63
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.
Proposed Basins
Runoff Coefficients Rainfall Intensity Peak Discharge
Date: 10/6/2020 C:\United Civil Dropbox\Projects\U20004 - Mountain View Community Church\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\U20004-Drain Calcs.xlsm
APPENDIX B
HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
WATER QUALITY - LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Mountain View CommunityChurch, Fort Collins, CO
Water Quality & LID Requirements
Basin Area Area Roof Asphalt Concrete Gravel
(sf) (acres) (sf) (sf) (sf) (sf)
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 -Bioretention Water Quality Provided
Basin Area Area Imperviousness Watershed WQCV*
(sf) (acres) (%) (inches) (cf)
A1 1,206 0.028 6% 0.03 4
A2 2,592 0.060 90% 0.32 83
A3 7,138 0.164 90% 0.32 229
Total WQCV Required for Bioretention 317
Total WQCV Provided In Bioretention Pond 343
* Water quality provided by bioretention and based on 12-hour drain time
Impervious Area Treated by LID (Basins A1, A2, & A3) 9780 sf (meets requirements, more than 9425 sf)
*Impervious Areas calculated based on asphalt, concrete, and roof areas and 40% of gravel areas draining to LID feature
Non LID - Vegetative Buffer Water Quality Provided
Basin Area Area Roof Asphalt Concrete Gravel
(sf) (acres) (sf) (sf) (sf) (sf)
B1 26,000 0.597 0 20,750 2,150 0
B2 6,432 0.148 6,432 0 0 0
Impervious Area to Vegetative Buffer 29332 sf 9070
Total Water Quality Provided
Total Impervious Areas Treated 39112 sf (meets requirements, more than 18,850 sf)
Date: 8/21/2020 E:\United Civil Dropbox\Projects\U20004 - Mountain View Community Church\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\U20004-Drain Calcs.xlsm
Bioretention Stage Storage Volumes
Mountain View CommunityChurch, Fort Collins, CO
Stage Storage Volumes
Delta Volume = (d/3)(A1+A2+(A1*A2)
0.5
)
Elevation delta
West Pond
Elev. Area
East Pond
Elev. Area
Total Pond
Elev. Area
Delta Volume Cumulative Volume
ft ft ft
2
ft
2
ft
2
ft
3
ft
3
4907.20 100 146 246 0 0
4907.40 0.20 121 164 285 53 53
4907.60 0.20 142 182 324 61 114
4907.80 0.20 164 200 364 69 183
4908.00 0.20 186 219 405 77 260
4908.20 0.20 208 238 446 84 343
Total 343
Date: 8/19/2020 P:\U20004 - Mountain View Community Church\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\U20004-Drain Calcs.xlsm
Sheet 1 of 1
Designer:
Company:
Date:
Project:
Location:
1. Design Discharge
A) 2-Year Peak Flow Rate of the Area Draining to the Grass Buffer Q2 = 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 ft / ft) SG = 0.010 ft / ft
5. Flow Characteristics (sheet or concentrated)
A) Does runoff flow into the grass buffer across the
entire width of the buffer?
B) Watershed Flow Length FL= ft
C) Interface Slope (normal to flow) SI= ft / ft
D) Type of Flow CONCENTRATED FLOW
Sheet Flow: FL * S
I < 1
Concentrated Flow: FL * S
I > 1
6. Flow Distribution for Concentrated Flows
7 Soil Preparation
(Describe soil amendment)
8 Vegetation (Check the type used or describe "Other")
9. Irrigation
(*Select None if existing buffer area has 80% vegetation
AND will not be disturbed during construction.)
10. Outflow Collection (Check the type used or describe "Other")
Notes:
Continues to sheet flow to Spring Creek
Fort Collins, CO
Design Procedure Form: Grass Buffer (GB)
Sam Eliason
United Civil Design Group
Mountain View Community Church
August 19, 2020
UD-BMP (Version 3.07, March 2018)
Existing Xeric Turf Grass
Irrigated Turf Grass
Other (Explain):
Choose One
Choose One
Grass Swale
Street Gutter
Storm Sewer Inlet
Other (Explain):
None (sheet flow)
Slotted Curbing
Level Spreader
Choose One
Other (Explain):
Choose One
Yes No
Choose One
Permanent
None*
Temporary
UD-BMP_v3.07 (2).xlsm, GB 8/19/2020, 5:47 PM
IINLET CAPACITY
Mountain View Community Church, Fort Collins, CO
INLET ID: Type 13
Governing Equations:
Inlet capacity equation at low flows (weir calculation):
Where:
P = 2(L + W)
H = depth of water above the flowline
Inlet capacity equation at higher flows (orifice calculation):
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 13
Wier Perimeter: 8.0
Open Area of Grate (ft2): 3.8
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 0.13 2.28 0.13
0.10 4906.55 0.38 3.23 0.38
0.15 4906.60 0.70 3.95 0.70
0.20 4906.65 1.07 4.57 1.07
0.25 4906.70 1.50 5.11 1.50 <---- Maximum Depth
0.30 4906.75 1.97 5.59 1.97
0.35 4906.80 2.48 6.04 2.48
0.40 4906.85 3.04 6.46 3.04
0.45 4906.90 3.62 6.85 3.62
0.50 4906.95 4.24 7.22 4.24
Q 3 . 0 P H 1 . 5
Q 0 .67A ( 2 gH ) 0 . 5
Date: 10/6/2020 C:\United Civil Dropbox\Projects\U20004 - Mountain View Community Church\Reports\Drainage\Calculations\U20004-Drain Calcs.xlsm
APPENDIX C
REFERENCED MATERIALS
USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed April, 2019.
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet
Ü
105°2'22.10"W
40°34'20.14"N
105°1'44.65"W
40°33'52.81"N
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
HAZARDFLOOD SPECIAL AREAS
Without Zone A, V, Base A99 Flood Elevation (BFE)
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.ofAreas 2% 1% Annual annual Chance chance Flood flood with Hazard, average
depth areasdrainage of less less than than one one foot square or with mile
Zone X
Future ChanceAnnual Conditions Flood Hazard 1%
Zone X
Area Levee. with See Reduced Notes. Flood Risk due to
Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This digital map flood complies maps if with it is FEMA's not void standards as described for the below. use of
The accuracy basemap standards shown complies with FEMA's basemap
The authoritativethe flood hazard NFHL information web services is derived provided directly by FEMA. from This map
was reflect exported changes on or 2/amendments 5/2020 at 10:subsequent 10:59 PM to and this does date not and
time. becomeor The superseded NFHL and effective by new data information over time. may change
This elementsmap map image do not is appear: void if basemap the one or imagery, more of flood the following zone labels,
legend, FIRM panel scale number, bar, map and creation FIRM effective date, community date. Map identifiers,images for
unmapped regulatoryfor purposes. and unmodernized areas cannot be used
Legend
OTHER FLOODOF AREAS HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
STRGUECNTUERRAESL
FEATURES OTHER
MAP PANELS
8
1:6,000
B 20.2
The point pin selected displayed by the on the user map and is does an approximate not represent
an authoritative property location.
LAG 4908.7'
4909
4904
4906
4907
4908
4910
4907
4913
4907
4911
4907
4906
4907
4909
4910
4903
4904
4904
4906
4910
4913
4906
4904
4910
4910
4906
4909
4905
4907
4909
4905
4912
4905
4907
4911
4905
4903
4907
4905
4905
4904
4904
4911
4904
4913
4905
4910
4904
4909
4903
4904
4904
4910
4906
4903
4908
4905
4908
4906
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
Page 1 of 5 Date: March 27, 2019 Case No.: 19-08-0473A LOMA
COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEL INFORMATION LEGAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
DETERMINATION
APPROXIMATE LATITUDE & LONGITUDE OF PROPERTY: 40.568580, -105.034568
SOURCE OF LAT & LONG: GOOGLE EARTH DATUM: NAD 83
FLOODING SOURCE: SPRING CREEK
AFFECTED
MAP PANEL
COMMUNITY
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER
COUNTY, COLORADO
NUMBER: 08069C0983H
DATE: 5/2/2012
COMMUNITY NO: 080102
A portion of Tract A, Seven Lakes Business Park P.U.D, as described in
the Special Warranty Deed recorded as Document No. 20060013344, in
the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, Larimer County, Colorado
LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
LOT SUBDIVISION STREET
BLOCK/
SECTION
FLOOD
ZONE
OUTCOME
WHAT IS
REMOVED FROM
THE SFHA
LOWEST
LOT
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
LOWEST
ADJACENT
GRADE
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
1% ANNUAL
CHANCE
FLOOD
ELEVATION
(NAVD 88)
X -- 4908.7 feet --
(unshaded)
2330 East Prospect Structure
Road
Seven Lakes
Business Park
P.U.D.
Tract A -- --
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
eLOMA 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
LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS)
Page 2 of 5 Date: 3/27/2019 Case No : 19-08-0473A LOMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
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
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
eLOMA
LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)
ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS)
Page 3 of 5 Date: 3/27/2019 Case No : 19-08-0473A LOMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
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
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
eLOMA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Larimer County
Area, Colorado
Mountain View Community
Church
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8
Soil Map................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11
Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11
Larimer County Area, Colorado...................................................................... 13
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
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
Custom Soil Resource Report
6
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4490790 4490810 4490830 4490850 4490870 4490890 4490910 4490930
4490790 4490810 4490830 4490850 4490870 4490890 4490910 4490930
496950 496970 496990 497010 497030 497050 497070 497090 497110 497130 497150 497170 497190
496950 496970 496990 497010 497030 497050 497070 497090 497110 497130 497150 497170 497190
40° 34' 9'' N
105° 2' 10'' W
40° 34' 9'' N
105° 1' 59'' W
40° 34' 4'' N
105° 2' 10'' W
40° 34' 4'' N
105° 1' 59'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 15 30 60 90
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,140 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
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
percent slopes
3.9 72.8%
105 Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1
percent slopes
1.0 18.0%
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 landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
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.
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
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 transects 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 transects of the mapunit.
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
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
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
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
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
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
Custom Soil Resource Report
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.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
17
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
18
This unofficial copy was downloaded on Dec-04-2019 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com
For additional information or an official copy, please contact Engineering Office 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80521 USA
APPENDIX D
DRAINAGE EXHIBITS
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY
CHURCH BUILDING
LEGEND
BUILDING/ROOF AREA
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (TYP)
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (TYP)
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (TYP)
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (BASED
ON PHASE 2 ADDITION)
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (TYP)
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (TYP)
PATH:
0' 50' 100'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
25'
P:\U20004 - MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH\CADD\ET\EXISTING IMPERVIOUS EXHIBIT.DWG DRAWING NAME: EXISTING IMPERVIOUS EXHIBIT SHEET SIZE: 11 x 17
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREAS EXHIBIT
DATE: July 28, 2020 PREPARED FOR: MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCHJOB NUMBER: U20004 NOTE: THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THEM.
1501 ACADEMY COURT, SUITE 203 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
(970) 530-4044 WWW.UNITEDCIVIL.COM
SHEET 1 OF 2
UNITED CIVIL
Design Group LLC
NORTH
BASIN
AREAS COMPOSITE EFFECTIVE COMPOSITE FRUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
TOTAL TOTAL ROOF ASPHALT CONCRETE GRAVEL LAWNS IMPERVIOUSNESS IMPERVIOUS
%I = 0% %I = 100% %I = 0% %I =0% %I=2% (%I) AREAS C2
C100
(ACRES) sf sf sf sf sf sf
EX-SITE 2.90 126,260 36,667 36,862 13,123 39,608 66.4% 83,777 0.73 0.91
UD
W
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY
CHURCH BUILDING
LEGEND
BUILDING/ROOF AREA
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
GRAVEL
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (TYP)
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (TYP)
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (TYP)
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (BASED
ON PHASE 2 ADDITION)
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (TYP)
LIMITS OF MODIFIED
IMPERVIOUS AREA (TYP)
PATH:
0' 50' 100'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
25'
P:\U20004 - MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH\CADD\ET\PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS EXHIBIT.DWG DRAWING NAME: PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS EXHIBIT SHEET SIZE: 11 x 17
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREAS EXHIBIT
DATE: July 28, 2020 PREPARED FOR:MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH JOB NUMBER: U20004 NOTE: THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THEM.
1501 ACADEMY COURT, SUITE 203 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
(970) 530-4044 WWW.UNITEDCIVIL.COM
SHEET 2 OF 2
UNITED CIVIL
Design Group LLC
NORTH
BASIN
AREAS COMPOSITE EFFECTIVE COMPOSITE FRUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
TOTAL TOTAL ROOF ASPHALT CONCRETE GRAVEL LAWNS IMPERVIOUSNESS IMPERVIOUS
%I = 0% %I = 100% %I = 0% %I =0% %I=2% (%I) AREAS C2
C100
(ACRES) sf sf sf sf sf sf
PR-SITE 2.90 126,260 37,606 34,709 14,482 536 38,927 66.6% 84,029 0.73 0.92
2
4
3
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
4
3
2
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
3
2 2
3
2
UD UD UD
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
4908
4907
4906
4904
SPRING CREEK
CROSS SECTION 1335
GM
2290 E PROSPECT ROAD
OWNER: DDNH COMMERCIAL INC
2310 E PROSPECT RD
OWNER: C AND C HOLDINGS LLC
OWNER: GATEWAY MEDICAL SERVICES LLC
EXISTING BUILDING
LOT LINE (TYP)
LIMITS OF 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
(BUILDING REMOVED FROM FLOODPLAIN PER
LOMA CASE NO. 19-08-0473A DATED 3/27/2019)
EXISTING EDGE OF POND
EXISTING LIMITS OF WETLANDS
LIMITS OF FLOODWAY
EXISTING 12" CMP
EXISTING 8" ADS
ROOF DRAIN
B2
0.12 0.95
1.00
A2
0.06 0.95
1.00
A3
0.16 0.95
1.00
A1
0.03 0.28
0.35
B1
0.60 0.87
1.00
C1
0.02 0.31
0.38
2330 E PROSPECT RD
OWNER: MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
BASINS LINES SHOWN BASED
ON PHASE 2 ROOF DESIGN
(NOT SIGNIFICANTLY
DIFFERENT THAN PHASE 1)
82 LF - LEVEL SPREADER TO DISTRIBUTE
STORMWATER FLOW TO VEGETATIVE BUFFER
STORM LINE B
STORM LINE A2
STORM LINE A3
STORM LINE C
SPRING CREEK TRAIL
PROPOSED INLET
BIORETENTION
UNDERDRAIN
OUTFALL
EXISTING POND
CATTAIL CHORUS
NATURAL AREA
STORM LINE B
BIORETENTION POND WITHIN DRAINAGE
EASEMENT BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT
MINIMUM FLAT AREA FOR BIOTENTION:
100 SF WEST POND & 146 SF EAST POND
OWNER: SEVEN LAKES
BUSINESS PARK ASSN
SPRING CREEK
VEGETATIVE BUFFER
(APPROX. 6,605 SF)
44'
EXISTING CREEK BANK
1502 S TIMBERLINE RD
OWNER: POUDRE SCHOOL
DISTRICT R-1
86'
OUTLET B
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH 10/7/2020
U20004
1" = 20'
1" = N/A
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH
NORTH
10/7/2020 11:10:56 AM
E:\UNITED CIVIL DROPBOX\PROJECTS\U20004 - MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH\CADD\CP\C5.00 - DRAINAGE PLAN.DWG
C5.00 - DRAINAGE PLAN
SME JRS
C5.00
15
DRAINAGE PLAN
0 20' 40'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
10'
PREPARED FOR:
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF SHEETS
DATE SUBMITTED:
VERTICAL:
HORIZONTAL:
SCALE
PRELIMINARY
PLANS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJ. MGR:
DRAWING NAME:
PATH:
DATE: TIME: DESIGNER:
CIVIL ENGINEERING & CONSULTING
UNITED CIVIL
Design Group
19 OLD TOWN SQUARE #238
FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
(970) 530-4044
www.unitedcivil.com
The engineer preparing these plans will not be responsible for, or liable for, unauthorized
changes to or uses of these plans. All changes to the plans must be in writing and must
be approved by the preparer of these plans.
NO. BY DATE
CAUTION
REVISIONS:
12
X.XX
XX.X X.XX
X BASIN DESIGNATION
BASIN AREA (ACRE)
5 - YR RUNOFF COEFF.
100 - YR RUNOFF COEFF.
DESIGN POINT
FLOW DIRECTION
DP
D1
LEGEND
NOTES
1. ONSITE DETENTION NOT REQUIRED SINCE INCREASE IN
IMPERVIOUS AREA IS LESS THAN 1000 SQUARE FEET.
2. ONSITE WATER QUALITY AND LID PROVIDED BASED ON
MODIFIED IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2
INCLUDING THE NEW SANCTUARY IMPROVEMENTS.
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED:
FLOODPLAIN NOTES
1. PORTIONS OF THIS PROJECT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE
FEMA REGULATED 100-YEAR SPRING CREEK FLOODPLAIN
AND FLOODWAY. THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO WITHIN THE
POUDRE RIVER 500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND IS SUBJECT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 10 OF THE CITY CODE.
2. ALL DEVELOPMENT (CURB & GUTTER, PAVEMENT, GRADING,
FILL, PARKING LOTS, UTILITIES, LANDSCAPING, ETC.) WITHIN
THE FEMA REGULATORY FLOODPLAIN MUST BE PRECEDED
BY AN APPROVED FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT AND
APPLICABLE FEES.
3. A NO RISE CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO
PERFORMING ANY WORK WITHIN THE FLOODWAY (I.E. CURB
CUT, CURB & GUTTER, UTILITY WORK, LANDSCAPING, ETC.)
4. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS AND BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AS
SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING ARE PER VERTICAL CONTROL
DATUM NAVD 88.
5. NO STORAGE OF MATERIAL OR EQUIPMENT MAY OCCUR AT
ANY TIME IN THE FLOODWAY BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER
CONSTRUCTION.
6. ANY ITEMS LOCATED IN THE FLOODWAY THAT CAN FLOAT
(E.G. PICNIC TABLE, BIKE RACKS, ETC.) MUST BE
ANCHORED.
7. CRITICAL FACILITIES ARE PROHIBITED IN THE POUDRE
RIVER 500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENT:
TOTAL NEW OR MODIFIED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 18,850 SF
REQUIRED LID WQ TREATMENT = 9,425 SF (50% MIN)
WATER QUALITY PROVIDED:
BIORETENTION (LID) FOR BASINS A1, A2, & A3 = 9,780 SF (52%)
VEGETATIVE BUFFER (NON LID) FOR BASINS B1 & B2 = 29,332 SF
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA TREATED = 39,112 SF
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Larimer County Area, Colorado
Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 13, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 11, 2018—Aug
12, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
(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 eLOMA 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) eLOMA
Coordinator, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304-4605, Fax: 703-751-7415.
Luis V. Rodriguez, P.E., Director
Engineering and Modeling Division
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration
eLOMA
4906
4903
4907
4905
4906
4907
4904
4905
4911
4909
4908
4905
4907
4910
4908
4905
4906
4905
4906
4907
4904
4908
4904
4901
4904
4906
4904
4905
4905
4905
4903
4905
4906
4904
4905
4909
4906
4909
4911
4906
4913
4912
4906
4906
4903
4904
4906
4905
4911
4906
4911
4907
4903
4910
4913
4906
4910
4904
4909
4911
4905
4907
4908
4909
4908
4912
4912
4904
4903
4906
4904
4905
4910
4909
4907
4907
4911
4902
4906
4907
4904
4903
4909
4910
4910
4906
4906
4905
4904
4903
4905
4904
4906
4906
4904
4908
4910
4903
4904
4905
4903
4908
4913
4909
4903
4907
4905
4904
4910
4910
4904
4904
4907
4910
4908
4903
4908
4912
4904
4903
4909
4909
4910
4907
4908
4906
4906
4909
4909
4904
4910
4905
4904
4903
4908
4908
4910
4908
4900
4911
4906
4910
4904
4904
4909
4909
4905
4908
4909
4908
4903
4901
4909
4907
4905
4909
4905
4902
4911
4910
4903
4910
4903
4904
4908
4910
4909
4903
4909
4909
4908
4909
4907
4904
4905
4903
4906
4906
4907
4906
4905
4904
4905
4905
4907
4908
4907
4905
4906
4901
4904
4902
4904
4903
¯
0 62.5 125 250 375 500
Feet
Revised Floodplain
Ground Contours
Spring Creek Profile
Flooding Extents
Base Flood Elevations
Spring Creek Cross Sections
Parcels
Fort Collins Buildings
Lowest Adjacent Ground
Flood Zones
.
AE,
AE,FLOODWAY
X,0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD
Legend: LOMA for 2330 E Prospect Rd
LAG 4908.7'
4908
4909
4910
4907
4909
4909
4908
4908
SPRING CREEK
CROSS SECTION 1335