Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Drainage Reports - 11/22/2016
I 10 I 17 I LiThis Drainage Report Is consciously provided as a PDF. Please consider the environment before printing this document In its entirety. ,ren a hard copy is absolutely necessary, we recommend double -sided printing. November 10, 2016 Ci Y o rlr< Collins Approved Plans Approved by: ci6fwt) Date: _/ 22 - I& FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT MAPLE MIXED USE Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: Alex Schuman Maple Group LLC. 605 S. College Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Prepared by: NORTHERN ENGINEERING 301 N. Howes Street Beige 100 Fort Caeiro, Cobrado 80521 Phone: 970.221.4158 www.rwrtherrwWwdn,mm Project Number: 574-007 NorthernEnnineerina.cam // 970.221.4159 I 1 r i 1 NORTHERN ENGINEERING November 10, 2016 City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Final Drainage Report for Maple Mixed Use Dear Staff: Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage Report for your review. This report accompanies the Final Plan submittal for the proposed Maple Mixed Use development. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed Maple Mixed Use housing project. We understand that review by the City of Fort Collins is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria contained in the FCSCM. If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us. ' Sincerely, NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. ama. Aaron Cvar, PhD, PE Senior Project Engineer 301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80521 1 00.221.4158 I www.northernengineering.com ■� I NORTHERN ENGINEERING 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION......................................................... 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS 4 ......................................:...................... III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA...:................................................................:.... 5 ' IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN........................................................................ 8 V. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................10 ' References....................................(:....................................................................... 11 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A — Hydrologic Computations ' APPENDIX B — Hydraulic Computations B.1 — Hydraulic Computations ' B.2 — Detention Facilities APPENDIX C — Water Quality Design Computations, LID Information APPENDIX D — Erosion Control Report 1 APPENDIX E — USDA Soils Report MAP POCKET: ' DR1 -Drainage Exhibit DR2 — Existing Drainage Exhibit t 0 ■V INORTHERN ENGINEERING Mixed I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location 1'. Vicinity Map LOCATION Figure 1 — Vicinity Map 2. The Maple Mixed Use project site is located in the southwest quarter of Section. 11, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 61 Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. 3. The project site (refer to Figure 1) is bordered to the north by a single family residence; to the south by Maple Street (100' ROW); to the east by an existing public alley (20' Right -of -Way); and to the west by Meldrum Street (100' ROW). 4. There are no major drainageways within or adjacent to the site. Page ll ■V � NORM HERN ' Maple Mixed Use ' B. Description of Property 1. Maple Mixed Use is comprised of ±0.65 acres. 2. The site is currently occupied by two commercial buildings, a single family residence and several small outbuildings. 1 [1 ' 3. The existing groundcover consists of grasses, asphalt and gravel. The existing on -site runoff generally drains from the southwest -to -northeast east across flat grades (e.g., <2.00%) into the existing alley. From there it is directed to Maple Street via the ' alley, and then to an existing inlet via curb and gutter on Maple. The existing inlet is located at the intersection of Maple and Howes, at the northwest comer. From there, the drainage continues through an existing storm system down Maple Street to a large ' regional drainage culvert near Mason Street, and on to the Cache La Poudre River. 4. Per the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, the site consists of Paoli fine sandy loam which is part of Hydrologic Soil Group A. http://websoi lsurvey. nres. usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx_ 5. There are no major drainageways within or adjacent to the project site. ' 6. The proposed Maple Mixed Use development will consist of a single mixed -use building. Other proposed improvements include: a new concrete parking area located under the building, new sidewalks and new landscaping. 7. The land proposed use is mixed -use. This is a permitted use in the Downtown District (D). 1 Pagel ■� NORTHERN ENGINEERING Mixed Use ' F000dplain k I 8. The subject property is not located in a FEMA regulatory floodplain. In particular, the project site is not located within a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain per Map Number 08069CO979H (Effective date: May 2, 2012). The project site is, however, located adjacent to a City of Fort Collins regulated Old Town floodplain. JOINS PANEL 0977 MAP SCALE 1".590' ppp � �— --� FEET r L C ZONE AE w KIETF V1 OY/RI (FIRM srnE �'1'1b,y, m FLOOD INSURUCE RATE YAP Ili Pro ecf Site ® JARYWR COUNW, w ° COLORADO AND INCOWO1G'1SU ARW 0 FAMMOF,N F � feu wa wm ran NxN nawu uran D>lQ�B: IDYYII tll�® lLtl4 1RLIC A LL0479 NfMN AVENUE X III I � r rimy F YNM01BBt ° Wry au< WY; 91S va.r LL0490 c..�rM.o�.se.sn a OLIVE KREE > vlml.. ul'. mart d.un<. n+..w.�.e tier nrP. ' Figure 4 — FEMA Firmette (Map Number 08069CO979H) 9. While there is a City regulated floodplain adjacent to the project, the proposed building, as well as the majority of site improvements, will be located outside the boundary of the floodplain. Some small areas of site improvements will be constructed within the floodway and floodplain, primarily concrete flatwork and ' utility connections. Those improvements will be subject to Chapter 10 of the City Land Use Code. Page13 ■� NORTHERN I ENGINEERING Maple Mixed Use ' II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. Major Basin Description ' I. Maple Mixed. Use is located within the City of Fort Collins Old Town major drainage basin. Specifically, the project site is situated in the north -central portion of this major ' drainage basin. This basin is located in north -central Fort Collins and has a drainage area of approximately 2,120 acres, including approximately 400 acres of the Colorado State University campus. The Old Town major drainage basin generally drains from ' west to east. It receives some runoff from the Canal Importation Basin directly west of Old Town: Most of the runoff from the Old Town major drainage basin drains into the Poudre River. ' B. Sub -Basin Description 1. The outfall for the project site is the existing storm line in Maple Street. ' 2. The existing subject site can be defined with one (1) sub -basin. Refer to the Existing Drainage Exhibit for additional information. • Sub -basin EX1 delineates the proposed project site, which was used to . approximate the 2- and 100-year existing runoff. ' The existing site runoff generally drains from northwest -to -southeast into the existing alley along the eastern boundary of the site. ' 3. The project site does not receive notable runoff from contiguous off -site properties. [] Page14 NORTHERN ENGINEERING Maple Mixed Use DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ' A. There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with Maple Mixed Use. B. The overall stormwater management strategy employed with Maple Mixed Use utilizes the "Four Step Process" -to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters. The . following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each step. ' Step 1 — Employ Runoff Reduction Practices. The first consideration taken in trying to reduce the stormwater impacts of this development is the site selection itself. By choosing ' an already developed site with public storm sewer currently in place, .the burden is, significantly less than developing a vacant parcel absent of any infrastructure. Maple Mixed Use aims to reduce runoff peaks, volumes and pollutant loads from ' frequently occurring storm events (i.e., water quality (i.e., 80"' percentile) and 2-year storm events) by implementing Low Impact Development (LID) strategies. Wherever practical, runoff will be routed across landscaped areas or Bio-retention planters. These ' LID practices reduce the overall amount of impervious area, while at the same time Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious Areas (MDCIA). The combined LID/MDCIA techniques will be implemented, where practical, throughout the development, thereby ' slowing runoff and increasing opportunities for infiltration. Step 2 — Implement BMPs That Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with ' Slow Release. The efforts taken in Step 1 will help to minimize excess runoff from frequently occurring storm events; however, urban development of this intensity will still have stormwater runoff leaving the site. The primary water quality treatment will occur in the Bio-retention planters located in the second level courtyard. Step 3 — Stabilize Drainageways. As stated in Section I.B..5, above, there are no major drainageways in or near the subject site. While this step may not seem applicable to Maple Mixed Use, the proposed project indirectly helps achieve stabilized drainageways nonetheless. Once again, site selection has a positive effect on stream stabilization. By ' developing an infill site with existing stormwater infrastructure, combined with LID and MDCIA strategies, the likelihood of bed and bank erosion is reduced. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as well as ongoing monthly ' stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve Citywide drainageway stability. Step 4 — Implement Site Speck and Other Source Control BMPs. This step typically ' applies to industrial and commercial developments. C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ' 1. The subject property is not part of any Overall Development Plan (ODP) drainage study or. similar "development/project" drainage master plan. 2. The site plan is constrained on two sides by public streets, as well as by existing ' developments along the.remaining two sides. 1 Page15 ■ ■V NORTHERN I ENGINEERING . Maple Mixed Us1 ' D. Hydrological Criteria ' 1. The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity -Duration -Frequency Curves, as depicted in Figure RA-16 of the FCSCM, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations ' associated with the Maple'Mixed Use development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA77 has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations. 2. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing coefficients contained in Tables RO-11. and RO-12 of the FCSCM. ' 3. The Rational Formula -based Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedure has utilized for detention storage calculations. 4. Two separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage scenarios. ' The first event analyzed is the "Minor," or "Initial" Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence interval. The second event considered is the "Major Storm," which has a 100-year recurrence interval. E. Hydraulic Criteria ' I. The drainage facilities proposed with the Maple Mixed Use project are designed in accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria ' Manual. 2. As stated in Section I.C.1, above, the subject property is located in a City of Fort Collins designated floodplain but an update to the modeling is underway that will remove the lot from the floodplain. F. Floodplain Regulations Compliance 1. As previously mentioned, this project is adjacent to a City of Fort Collins regulated floodplain. While the majority of improvements, including the building, will be located outside of the floodplain, small areas of concrete paving and utility connections will be located within the floodplain. All work within the floodplain shall comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code. G. Modifications of Criteria I. No modifications are requested at this time. Page16 ■LS I NORTHERN ENGINEERING Mixed Use H. Conformance with Water Quality Treatment Criteria 1. City Code requires that 100% of runoff from a project site receive some sort of water quality treatment. This project proposes to provide water quality treatment through the use of raised bio-retention basins (aka - planter boxes) ' located in the upper level courtyard. These planter boxes are considered an LID treatment method. Additionally, the landscape planter beds between the building and the public sidewalks will be constructed as Landscape Buffers ' with an engineered soil section and subdrain. These are also considered an LID treatment technique. Due to the physical constraints associated with an infill project of this nature and the prohibition of providing ' water quality facilities within the public right-of-way, the majority of the project site will receive formal water treatment. The areas that will not be treated are small, narrow areas around the perimeter of the project that ' cannot be captured. These areas tend to be narrow strips of concrete flatwork that link the building entrances to the public sidewalks as well as small planter beds between the building and public sidewalks or property ' lines. While these small areas will not receive formal water quality treatment, most ' areas will still see some treatment as runoff is directed across through the landscaped planter beds or across the landscaped parkways before reaching the roadway curb and gutter. ' I. Conformance with Low Impact Development (LID) 1. The project site will conform with the requirement to treat a minimum of 75% ' of the project site using an LID technique. Please see Appendix C for LID design information, table, and exhibit(s). As shown in the LID table provided in the appendix, 80.5% of the proposed site impervious area will receive LID treatment. r- J .1 1 Pagel? ■� (NORTHERN ENGINEERING Mixed Use 1 1 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept I. The main objective of the Maple Mixed Use drainage design is to maintain existing drainage patterns, while not adversely impacting adjacent properties. 2. No notable off -site runoff passes directly through the project site. 3. A list of tables and figures used within this report can be found in the Table of Contents at the front of the document. The tables and figures are located within the sections to which the content best applies. 4. Drainage for the project site has been analyzed using two (2) drainage sub -basins, ' designated as sub -basins A & B. The drainage patterns anticipated for the basins are further described below. Sub -Basin A Sub -basin A encompasses approximately 85%the total site area. This sub -basin is comprised primarily of roof area and the on -site parking area. The majority of the parking area will be located below the building and will not be exposed to precipitation. Detention will be provided within an underground vault located under the parking area. Sub -Basin B Sub -basin B encompasses approximately 15%the total site area. This sub -basin is comprised primarily of landscaped area surrounding the building. Sub -basin B will leave the site undetained. This basin will release at 0.12 cfs in the 2-yr event and at 0.54 cfs in the 100-year event. A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of this report. B. Specific Details I. The existing impervious area on the site has been grandfathered due to the site condition and the historic stormwater fees paid by the property owner. This allows the runoff from existing impervious areas to be released undetained at the historic 100-yr release rate. 2. The release rate for the undeveloped land (pre -development) was established by calculating the 100-year peak runoff rate for the existing impervious areas and adding the 2-year peak runoff rate of the undeveloped portions of the project area. The total establishes the overall maximum allowable release rate, 3.73 cfs, from the project site. The allowable release rate of 3.19 cfs utilized in the FAA procedure detention storage computations (Refer to Appendix B for these calculations) and was established by subtracting the total undetained release from Basin B of 0.54 cfs from the overall maximum allowable release rate. 3. The FAA method was used to size the on -site detention volume for quantity Page18 ■� I NORTHERN ENGINEERING Mixed Use detention. Calculations for this area, based on•the characteristics of sub -basin A and adjusted release rate, indicate a required detention volume of 685 cu. ft. This does not include any volume for Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) as WQ treatment is being provided in the bio-retention planters. There is no -infiltration accounted for with this design. 4. The detention volume will be provided using surface ponding within the ' parking area. 698 cu. ft. of volume is currently provided with a 100-yr water surface elevation 4989.32. This of volume exceeds the required volume. ' 5. To the extent feasible, roof drain downspouts will discharge into the bio- retention planters section. The exception to this are the small awnings located over entrances, which will release into landscaped areas,.as well as the second level terrace located on the north side of the building, which will ' release into the detention vault. 6. The emergency spill path will be from the ' surface detention area into the existing alley, where flows will proceed along the historic path south along the alley and east to the existing curb inlet. 1 1 1 Page19 M ■�� I NORTHERN ENGINEERING Maple Mixed U., ' V. CONCLUSIONS ' A. Compliance with Standards ' 1. The design elements comply without variation, and meet all LID requirements. 2. The drainage design proposed with Maple Mixed Use complies with the City of Fort ' Collins Master Drainage Plan for the Old Town Basin. 3. There are no FEMA regulatory floodplains associated with the Maple Mixed Use ' development. However, the project is impacted by the adjacent Old Town Floodplain, which is a City Regulated floodplain. All provisions within Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code shall be adhered to for any improvements within the floodplain. 4. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the Maple Mixed Use project are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing stormwater discharge. B. Drainage Concept ' I. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit potential damage associated with its stormwater runoff. Maple Mixed Use will detain for the pervious area converted to impervious areas to release at the 2-year existing rate during the 100-year storm. 2. The proposed Maple Mixed Use development will not impact the Master Drainage Plan recommendations for the Old Town major. drainage basin. 11 1 Page 110 ■� INORTHERN ENGINEERING ' References 11 11 1 1 Mixed Use 1. City of Fort Collins Landscape Design Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities, November 5, 2009, BHA Design, Inc. with City of Fort Collins Utility Services. 2. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No. 174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 3. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 4. Urban Stomi Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Wright -McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. 3 0 Page11 APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS ,i mormerncnatneertnoxom it 970.221.4158 ag .. E as ~ ..\ a k$$� ƒ �2�k a ; § -a- � \ "a�2 \k2IM )_ Lai !!a «3 cn o 5 �s- o �! )){ !!# c - © c� }( )}�)�9 ° ■)) !|$�2! g ¥Ak3)J}e7 2 § ƒ , :1 f; �—As- . § - B®/) k ~ J 0 b . CL c k 2 0 g 2. : ® / O J , 2>/§ . 2 a A V� � - % ' 0 t�Eo �k V I 2 ] � j ■ 2 £ / � 2»k§ O W a§k - ) .. �_ § © A § � �/;22 � ■ - 4 CF 2 ¥ I®§/Lu O W m & § § '�$■ !m § @ S § o 11 . . %. I �■ > > ui ���/ - k co \ �2 ©kw \}$ _ ; ■ + d e ! . � 2 II f f » 3 / / \ \ m -' 2 CL 2 £ EXISTING RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE DESIGN BASIN TOTAL 2-yr T, 10-yr 100-yr Q2 4fs) POINT .ID AREA (acres) C2 CIO Cleo (min) Tr. Te O CfsQI. O 100 (min) (min) EX1 EX1 .0.65 0.61 0.61 0.76 8.4 8.4 8.0 0.96 1.63 4.28 N/A EX1 (Impervious) 0.36 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.00 0.00 3.54 N/A EX1 Undevelo ed 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.00 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.19 0.00 0.00 11 D:IProjects1574-0071DrainageWydmiogy1574007 Rational Caks Existing.xlsASummarfTable 1 i S E E cg � 1 4 v Z W \ 1 W O L O 1gL X d Cl. o 1O n ct CN Q 0 L a 7 tl E o n ao r U N LL 0 �1 e a o � "o V N Y a10i u pS C a obi./p c c a �3�A C s r Q i Q o eoo 0 Co d E �MCIJ �� E q a Z i O \ W LU m n m m OO LO M o LO o in M 0 p 0 !L) 00 OF li7 r E 9 • C a �p i _ 4 m m W i O 1 1 N21 N _ILru -_� o.c lu Zn c� 12 iPi 3 « CA L -- C m � 0 m LE�cP cm @ . �cr " J�£ /ƒ� ,E �I . 2 � ■ �'� . .. � �• 2 � �\ | £.2 § � � . 5 .tea NE | | 2 8030£ 9. . . � ��44£ �CS�* c§m ; b% 2 �s}a m ; 6}\ >> � ` � °00 k\ 00 ' cf cy 7 � O .. 1 x a y E ; cy a o & v .r m � Q Z m « m a. cc _ a LO g � � a. 7 qV C co k00 2 Q ' A e OI ' e coon a .antY �s' O I rJ � I v 1 O n S ci o c 0co c o A W gS3g 5 Y O c . e � d t-L6 u O U 1 O LL v m F T u C O C ui w U .g c m Y C O C E Iri ui 0 8 ur a g In O v C O rt: ! LL S U p O U m � X U Z C �d �u o tv IIw � E o q p Q m ' ., DEVELOPED RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE DESIGN BASIN TOTAL 2-yr T. 10-yr 100-yr Q2 Quo Q100 POINT ID AREA acres C2 CID Cloo (min) ( ) ( ) ( ) (min) (min) A A 0.55 0.95 0.95 1.00 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.49 2.55 B 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.53 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.12 0.21 M54B D.,Projectsl574-0071DrainageViydro/ogy1574-007 Rational-Calcs ProposedxlsxlSummatyTable APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS B.1 - Storm Sewers 8.2 - Detention Facilities AAt NortharnEnain"rinaxom It 970.221.4158 ' APPENDIX B.1 STORM SEWERS I 1 I (t 1 V'12a - Vrkmc�to "*Ad I f�w J I I 1 NarthernEnaineerina_ am // 970.221.4158 I I CD o 0 o c c c c y w rn m rn m rn m m rn co rn co a0 o v in 1 e :u NEW o N ul o in ' Z :u c o m t O U 1� l0 m O t0 ul in Z I. :ul J W W ! J ul Z�I Two ' IIeAnO I ! v c c c o c c rn rn rn O m �$ °' Go v c m v I I W u 3 m Nco E I 1 ` f C 0 _ O N O x c c c m Q Q u Y c o m m c N N O N Y In O O O c t0 \O L t0 � N V Cl) N ai Q o„ c O c is 0 Oct O M c w o N O N i I(1 � pmj J > c0 c0 cD . W 0 m m' W L N N aa r m a7 N cc cli CIL m C m GoO `y Q E t O Z a inc c c m � JU' 0 x'mx m m m v v v Ir) n m m m m Go C a) v v v m cn mcn C Of to N J V to N N l) h t h N ) e c c c m r` M to rn -J > m m m W m v v v A M N D O O O M (D a ao c W m c t7 O m n m o c < �+ c c i N to m n m o 0 r c c m m m J > m ^ 3: m m m 0) v'v api INn n . m c In L rn m rn _ m v w < o a N O O 7 Q CY U a) M of € O a rn 11 cam- to m y (i _N U) C LL U I C 1 N Cl)Q U J d ■ r APPENDIX B.2 I DETENTION FACILITIES i i ►1 rr, r} � Y r r♦ 1 North emEnain"rinaxom 11 970.221.41SS ■tom I NORTHERN ' ENGINEERING Detention Pond Calculation I FAA Method Proj/Ct: Maple Mixe: Project Location: Fort Collins, (,rlwezio Calculations By: 5. Reese Date: November 10, 2016 Pond No.: ' In ct Variables Results Design Point A Design Storm 100-yr Required Detention Volume Developed "C" = 1,00 WQCV 0 ft3 Area (A)= 0.55 acres Quantity Detention 685 ft3 Max Release Rate = 3.19 cfs Total Volume 685 W Total Volume 5.519 ac-ft Time100-yr IFt.Collins Qioo Inflow (Runoff) Volume Outflow(Release) Volume StorageTime Detentionntensity Volume(mins) (secs)(in/hr) (CIS) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5 300 9.95 5.5 1642 957 685 10 600 7.72 4.2 2548 1914 634 15 900 6.52 3.6 1 3227 2871 356 20 1200 5.60 3.1 3696 3828 132 25 1500 4.98 2.7 4109 4785 -676 30 1800 4.52 2.5 4475 5742 -1267 35 2100 4.08 2.2 4712 6699 1987 40 2400 3.74 2.1 1 4937 7656 1 -2719 45 1 2700 1 3.46 1.9 1 5138 8613 3475 50 3000 3.23 1.8 5330 9570 4241 55 3300 3.03 1.7 5499 10527 -5028 60 3600 2.86 1.6 5663 11484 -5821 65 3900 2.72 1.5 5834 12441 -6607 70 1 4200 1 2.59 1.4 5983 13398 -7415 75 4500 2.48 11 6138 14355 -8217 80 4800 1 2.38 1.3 6283 15312 -9029 85 5100 2.29 1.3 6423 16269 -9846 90 5400 2.21 1.2 6564 17226 10662 95 5700 2.13 1.2 6678 18183 -11505 100 6000 2.06 1.1 6798 19140 12342 105 6300 2.00 1.1 6930 20097 -13167 110 6600 1.94 1 1.1 1 7042 21054 1 -14012 115 6900 1.89 1.0 7173 22011 -14838 120 7200 1.84 1.0 7286 22968 -15682 125 1 7500 1 1.79 1.0 7384 1 23925 -16541 130 1 7800 1.75 1.0 7508 24882 17375 135 8100 1.71 0.9 7618 25839 -18221 140 1 8400 1 1.67 1 0.9 7715 26796 -19081 145 8700 1.63 0.9 7800 27753 -19953 150 1 9000 1.60 0.9 7920 28710 20790 155 9300 1.57 0.9 8031 29667 i -21636 160 1 9600 1 1.54 1 0.8 8131 1 30624 -22493 165 1 9900 1 1.51 0.8 8222 31581 -23359 170 10200 1.48 0.8 8303 32538 24235 175 10500 1.45 0.8 8374 33495 25121 180 10800 1.42 0.8 8435 34452 26017 185 11100 1.40 0.8 8547 35409 1 -26862 190 11400 1.38 0.8 8653 36366 -27713 195 11700 1.36 0.7 8752 37323 -28571 200 12000 1.34 0.7 8844 38280 -29436 205 12300 1 1.32 0.7 1 8930 39237 -30307 210 12600 1.30 0.7 9009 40194 1 -31185 215 12900 1.28 0.7 9082 41151 -32069 220 13200 1 1.26 0.7 9148 42108 -32960 225 13500 F 1.24 0.7 9207 43065 -33858 230 13800 1 1.22 0.7 9260 44022 -34762 235 --TT40-0-T 14100 1.21 0.7 9384 44979 -35595 240 1.20 0.7 T504 45936 -36432 D: (Projects 15 74-0071Drainage I Detention 15 74-007_Detention.xism I No Text ■� INORTHERN ENGINEERING Project: Maple Mixed Use Basin Description: Parking Area Detention lo&vr WSEIL nosed as . Stage Storage Table Contour Elevation Contour Area (sq.ft.) Depth (ft.) Incremental Volume (cu. ft.) Incremental Volume (cu. ft.) 4988.92 0.65 n/a n/a NO 4998.94 11.99 0.02 0.13 0.13 4988.95 .23.72 0.01 0.18 0.30 4989.00. 182.31 0.05 5.15 j SA6 4989.05 514A6 0.05 17A2 22.87 4989.10 1019.00 US 38.34 61.21 4989AS 1694.78 0.05 67.84 129.06 4989.20 2542.36 US 105.93 234.98 4999.25 3488.76 0'OS 150.78 385.76 4989.30 4463.65 0.05 198.81 584.57 4989.33 4952.30 0.025 117.70 702.27 U: o1w;r!.t,1,.hl\iirA,i:§fqe\i:�.tcnnCtW,':q is^> Sago 5t rop: I-d it3 rI X t I i I i i I 1 ■� NORTHERN ENGINEERING OUTLET RATING CURVE Detention Orifice Project: Date: By: Maple Mixed Use November 10, 2016 A. Reese 100-YR ORIFICE RATING Orifice Dia (in) Orifice Area (sf) Orifice invert (ft) Orifice Coefficient 8.50 0.3941 0.00 0.65 Orifice Area (SF) Stage (FT) Outlet release (CFS) 0.3941 0.00 0.00 0.3941 0.25 1.03 0.3941 0.50 1.45 0.3941 0.75 1.78 0.3941 1.00 2.06 0.3941 1.25 2.30 0.3941 1.50 2.52 0.3941 1.75 2.72 0.3941 2.00 2.91 0.3941 2.25 3.08 0.3941 2.50 3.25 APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY DESIGN COMPUTATIONS I I t I NORTHERN ENGINEERING ■ LID Conformance Report Date: November 10, 2016 Project: Maple Mixed Use Project No. 574-007 Fort Collins, Colorado Attn: Stormwater Staff ' City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 ' Stormwater Staff: ' This letter serves to document conformance of the above referenced project with City of Fort Collins Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. In particular, the project is meeting Section 3.1 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual, including Section3.1 (a)(1) requiring that no less than 50% of any newly added impervious area be treated using one or more LID techniques and Section 3.1(a)(2) and requiring that no less than 25% of all new paving use a permeable pavement technology that is considered an LID technique OR requiring that no ' less than 75% of any newly added impervious area be treated using one or more LID techniques with no minimum requirement for permeable pavement. Section 3.1(a)(1) \ The entire project site has, an impervious area of 25,814 sf. This results in a minimum required LID treatment area of 12,907 sf. The project is treating 20,423 sf of the project area using bio-retention planters that will be located in the second floor courtyard. The project is treating an additional 2,517 sf of ' additional area using Landscape Buffers that will have an engineered soil section to promote infiltration. The total project area treated by LID techniques is 22,940 sf, which is 80.50% of the total project area. ' Section 3.1(a)(2) The project is not proposing any areas of exposed impervious paving for parking, removing'the requirement for permeable pavement to be used on this project. ' An exhibit has been provided to illustrate the topics outlined. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. ' Sincerely, AA �� ■ Andrew Reese Nicholas W. Haws, PE LEED ' Project Engineer Project Manager. AP 301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80521 970.221.4158 www.northernengineerin .com I I g ■ No Text L Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Designer: Andy Reese Company. Nor4Nrn Englnaerfng Date: November 10, 2016 Project: Maple dined lire Location: Courtyard P1e filers - West 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I, (100% If all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = 1./100) C) Water QwktY Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time (WQCV= 0.8' (0.91' P- 1.19' j+ 0.78' i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) E) Water Quaily Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume Vol = (WQCV / 12)' Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of Average Runoff Producing Stonn G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume (Only it a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) I, = 100.0 i = 1.000 WOCV = 0.40 watershed inches Area = 8,000 aq It Vwwv = 267 ou It do = In Vwocv Or R = cu it Vwocv us = cu ft Sheet 1 of 2 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12 -inch maximum) Dwocv= 10 in B) Ram Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horn. dist per unit vertical) Z = 0.D0 ft / ft (Use -0' dram garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area Aµ, = 178 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area A�� = 340 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area - Ar,,r - 340 sq it F) Rain Garden Total Volume V,= 283 Cu h (Vr- ((AT. + Aw ) / 2) * Depth) 3. Growing Media oose One 18"Rain Garden Growing Media [(;U� Omer (Explain): 12- thick layer of Fort Collins Bioretenbon Sand Media over 6' thick layer of pea gravel over 8'thick layer of CDOT No 4 aggregate 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrams; provided? B) Underdram system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage Volume to the Center of the Orifice ti) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours lei) Orifice Diameter, 3/8' Minimum r Choose One 0YES p NO Y= 2.2 ft V0112= 267 oil ft Do = 0M In MINIMUM DUUIIMIll - 3W UD-BMP_v3.03_Planters-West.xism, RG 11/11/2016, 10:28AM 11 Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) A Designer. Andy Reese Company: Nor0ran Engineering Date: November 10, 2016 project: Maple Ybud Up Lonadon: Courtyard Platens - East 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effectrve Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I, (100% if all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (I = 1.11 DO) C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WOCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time (WQCV= 0.8' (0.91' i' - 1.19' � - 0.78 - i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume Vol = (WQCV 112)' Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of Average Runoff producing Stonn G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Water Quality Capture Volume (WOCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume (Only If a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 1.= 100.0 % i= 1.000 WQCV = 0.40 watershed inches Area = 8,740 sq ft Vwocv = 291 w ft ds = in VWocvoneR= wft Vwocv usm = w ft Sheet 1 of 2 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum) Dwocv= 11 in B) Ram Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., hom dirt per unit vertical) Z = 0.00 ft i ft (Use'0- M rein garden has vertical walls) C) Minimum Flat Surface Area Aw = 194 sq ft 0) Actual Flat Surface Area A� = 340 aq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) Arm= 340 s ft q F) Rain Garden Total Volume Vr= 312 Cu It (Vr= ((Arm' AAhe) f 2)' Depth) 3. Growing AAedia Choose One l� 18" Rain Garden Growing Media ( Other (Explain): 12" thick layer of Fort Collins Bioretention Sand Media over 6- thick layer of pea gravel over 8" Wcle layer of CDOT Mix 4 egg agate 4. Underdmin System A) Are underdrains provided? B) Underdmin system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage Volume to the Center of the Orifice n) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours III) Orifice Diameter, 3/8' Minimum Choose One Q YES Q NO Y= 2.2 it V0112= 291 cu ft Do = 0.39 In UD-BMP_v3.03_Planters-East.xdsm, RG 11/11/2016. 10:27 AM ' u Design Procedure Fonn: Rain Garden (RG) Sheet, 1 of 2 Designer: Andy Reese ' company: Data: Northern Engineering Novembl r 10, 2016 Project: Maple Mired Use Location: Courtyard Planters - North 1 1 1, Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I, I, = 100.0 % (1DO% 8 all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i = 1,11 DO) i = 1 000 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.40 watershed inches (WQCV= O.8' (0.91' P- 1.19' j�a 0.78 - i) D) Corrtribueng Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 3,326 sq it E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VwocV = 111 cu it Vol = (WQCV 112)' Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of ds = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Vwocvomsn = cu fI Well Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume Vwow wea = W ft (Only if a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum) Dwccv= 9 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horn. dirt per unit vertical) Z = O.DO It/ft (Use'0- if rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Fiat Surface Area AN„ = 74 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area Anmr = 153 sq ft E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) Ar = 153 x s ft q F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT= 115 CU h (VT((Arm+A. )12)'Depth) 3. Growing Media hoose One 18" Rain Garden Crowing Media 1(69 Other (Explain): 12'thick layer of Fort Collins Bioretention Sand Media over 6' thick laver of pea gravel over 8'tNck layer of COOT No 4 aggregate 4. Underdrain System r Choose One A) Are underdrairs provided? I (9 YES Q NO B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of me Storage y= 2.2 ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol,, = 111 cu 0 ili) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum Do = 024 in 1 UD-BMP_v3.03_Planters-Nonh.xlsm, RG 11/1112016, 10:27 AM APPENDIX D EROSION CONTROL REPORT 1 1 1 1 1 L NorthamEnain"rinaxam 11 970.221.4158 t■� NORTHERN ENGINEERING Maple Mixed Use EROSION CONTROL REPORT ' A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) has been included with the final construction drawings. It should be noted, however, that any ' such Erosion and Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of the BMPs depicted, and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during construction, or as required by the authorities having ' jurisdiction. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly maintained and followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living document, constantly adapting to site conditions and needs. The Contractor ' shall update the location of BMPs as they are installed, removed or modified in conjunction with construction activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times. ' The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented during construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best ' Management Practices from the Volume 3, Chapter 7 — Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are not limited to, silt fencing and/or wattles along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways and inlet protection at existing and ' proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor. ' Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on Sheet C001 of the Utility Plans. The Final Utility Plans will also contain a full-size Erosion Control Plan as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere to, the applicable requirements ' outlined in any existing Development Agreement(s) of record, as well as the Development Agreement, to be recorded prior to issuance of the Development Construction Permit. Also, the Site Contractor for this project may be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality Control Division — Stormwater Program, before commencing any earth disturbing activities. Prior to securing said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a ' comprehensive StormWater Management Plan (SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance of construction BMPs. J APPENDIX E USDA SOILS REPORT m I NorthernEnnineerina.com // 970-221.4158 USDA United States Department of Agriculture FRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 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 July 22, 2016 I 1 1 Preface 1 Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight 1 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 Merent 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 1 the environment. Various land use regulations Federal, of 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 1 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. 1 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/ 1 nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http:// offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (hftp:/Avww.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? 1 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 1 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 ofA Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 1 applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or apart of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 1 bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 1 ■ 7 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 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 Contents Preface...................................................................................:................................2 HowSoil Surveys Are Made..; ............................................................................... 5 SoilMap..................................................................................................................7 SoilMap ............... :......................................................................... ..........8 ............. Legend..................................................................................................................9 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................10 MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................10 Larimer County Area, Colorado......................................................................12 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.......................................12 References............................................................................................................14 4 3 F� 1 1 How Soil Surveys Are Made i 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 1 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. 1 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, 1 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 1 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. 1 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 1 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 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 1 0 Custom Soil Resource Report t 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, day, 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 I 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 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. ■ Soil Ma 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. 7 ws r57 W n C f0. O 3 0 o. _M X m 0 Y z z I I� 1 1 1(D 1 r� 1 �i C) 0 m V m e f0 W o N O D o' o o m o p1 m m o E r m m 5 7 m m' D of ,O o o = c a a O v m $ o o H f v O v o v - c C c S. v H o o m o D m r m/'') C a Now wx N m m m v a m fCA m NA v m m s v m o 0 px 0 C �1 N P D N (n S O m W 2 m m N 2 m r � m j D m N a m p n mmT pN O N m N dam �m °o co ID �aH3.m omo mm .o y ro 3 m v, my 0 ID _2" acn c m 3 N o ' FC:3D(CrDL w 7 J M. m J C � y m j? 3 N— O 3� in C. ono 3 0 m w cai om a a�E I ry N m > > N CLa.° com ""'• 3io y N ,�m c OM w v 5-0 a Q m m n m; mm a s O L a. z= c ; 1 N �w6D m O m m m D fop m y N D y 3 O m a W t� N C C N O CD 0 E �m of 2o �w �a � or �Om Z MI o m S m m Dmo m•n�7 C mmO w '� ow 3 �a n0^ _ � f�a O m,Q n CD 0 DF O3 C 3 m (02 v�m '0 a 3 43 m D _° o o ? o c 0-07 m m CD d m ® _O �m w m m 3 u, o n �' , y m m w a .o w O cm 33mC v _ mCD Z j oy nm H CL w CD a O d m R <oa 0 oG m O C m d C m N m N m O O w m O m m O O O I 1 I Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend r y Larlmer county Area, Colorado (C0844) ti �•s�.,fYktltr2�."3i�� °: Map Unit Symtiol " ; Map Unk Nat et x v '�''Aaes InA01 ' ` "'" SP "� ,. eree --..�. 81 Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 0.8 100.0% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 0.8 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of.soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. ' Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties ' and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified ' by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been ' observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. ' The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. ' r 10 ■ 1 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 t 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. 1 L 1 t ' 11 I Custom Soil Resource Report Latimer County Area, Colorado ' 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ' Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol. jpxx 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 Paoli and similar soils: 85 percent ' Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit. ' Description of Paoli Setting Landform: Stream terraces ' Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material. Alluvium ' Typical profile H1- 0 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 30 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loamy sand ' H2 - 30 to 60 inches. H2 - 30 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: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 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) Available water storage in profile: Very high (about 16.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 1 Land capability classification (nohirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Overflow (R067BY036CO) ' Minor Components Caruso ' Percent of map unit: 6 percent 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Table mountain Percent of map unit: 6 percent Fluvaquentic haplustolls Percent of map unit 3 percent Landform: Terraces 13 I 1 References 1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. 1 Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of 1 soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRue. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. 1 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. 1 National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. 1 Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 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, 1 U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nres.usda.govtwps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of 1 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/detail/national/soi Is/?cid=nres 142p2_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. 1 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. 1 National forestry manual. http:/Nirww.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ h ome/?cid=n res 142p2_053374 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook, http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/land use/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb 1043084 1 1 0 14 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. ' National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrGs.usda.govtwps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres 142p2_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. govtwps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_053624 ' United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// 1 www.nrcs.usda.gov/lntemet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2'052290.pdf 1 1 1 1 15 % MAP POCKET DR1 - OVERALL DRAINAGE EXHIBIT North#.rnEnaineerinaxam It 970-221.41 S9 0 DEVELOPED RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE a TOTAL LFTO1a.5.re lwmn anAPE mN AREA IF^51 c5 fo 1 (AM) two NM MI IW labl ON ON ON IN SD SA SA To iun EM 0 0 0.0 Die SAO 0!I 30 SA 50 0.1E BUD a" E)OSTING VS. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA IIECOIDRICNI IM'ERVIWSN E6 1"0I Two IRON JEW L b DICK L. GRIES 312 N. MELDRUM STREET FILMS a TON FeatmAd Ann 0 Iyy ------------ - —— -- '- 'G t \ 1 \x \ s 1'Dm0 ` -D_ D04 WASHINGTON PARK, LLC i` I 301 N. HOWES STREET 11 f _G m -J 3 0.I0 M PRDNND IM0.MT I A JAMES E. B CAROL S. SURRILL 305 MAPLE STREET I - -_ II I WASHINGTONWE PARK LLC It � I I 1 301 N. HOWES STREET 1 _ _ ABrA,wEr I gamg$ I 1 ✓raBsvRUTe NNPoB®BTOw"Y!1 I Lam' 1 A I I fh____—______ Y WASHINGTON PARK LLC J'I pD DMNRDWR N rCITY FLOV.ATEDIXDttIWN I 1` 1wm HWOPInm eGONoa+r B DFyI _ --, 301 N. HOWES STREET 1 ;APR I'DOOD FLARN N �' mrRROW FLMHI eouraABr ----AM mOt -- — --- — -�f—0, NOT ALL sup mism Woo RAN mai am@ Am, Som min ti Dow m any ED CEO E �s ELECTRIFYrAU TO, IT 'IF;T�--Nr—.,. z n ET NI lao-rn FioowvAanroml.!T MAPLE: t' IF 3 t;. ,,., �' �, t a .r E GH Z J rI Hy am`• NOW WOO SON, — — •� will ® , 1mrRB�AiamTwwmM wn ' I CITY OF FIX3T COLLINS r ` I 300 LAPORTE AVENUE 1 I � I � 4MAIN ---SAW --_-- moo 1 ® NORTH m a m e M ("Burr) t x".ABHr LEGEND BEDNEET Ed PRpgSWCUrtpF 91 —WS PROWSE➢SWNE BE"Ox am Q w MqA" ~ �LLLILL "mN BEL E.XA END ENf O, ii O, yi.rnQ ORr�aAGEBvwx9gEUEa M — NOW — WE 0 ..}3.10.1I u PROPo9Eo9WNE 9El'IYJFL NOTES: I. MURTTOTHE OMRMARCEREPORT FOR MAPLE MIXED USE MMxO\£IBR 10. INFORMATIONMIS FDA ZU S E w1,11E T mEmax Z EK sFE`A'OLE ROOF s ONSSSTI eWRAWTTairwR' D LIJm x USE PERMIT AND NO RISE CERTIFICATron WILL BE REWIRED PRI OLE RING WITTIN THE My WORK OMIN RADDITIONAL L SEE TEO V I I SHEET CAN) FOR IFORM71ON Z RECARDINHE c AORKWIIMNIMEFLOW%A MDROODWAY. O Z w BENCHMARK PRO MTULIM.w. nSCTE �I THEEACKCFwLMATTHEHANDFv uoRrH woof EHFxWGDD y MEENTNNCETOMMTNE2PMK APPROYMATELr180R. HMROFME Fg 0.0. TPACR ELEVA NUDE W18E9WTN T Se SENCRMN Q CITY OF FORT BENCHMARK SEA ON THE WEST END OFSTHE SOVM HEADVIALL OF TM tlOUiE OVER THE NEW AS MERCERCI VAL o NE, JUST EAST OF MERCER DAVIS ELEVATIONNAT PLEASENOTE THIS REAL ME I S USING NAKItl FOR A VERNCSL DATUM. SURROOUNNDAG DDEEVELCPMEMS NA HAVE USED NI UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR F r' VERTICAL IF PROVIDES UNADJUSTED EATON IS REWIRED FEW MY NH80SE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD SE BASE'. 2 NGvDQO UNADJUSTED -MMH. 8, IV NM 10.Po1 � Y NGVCV UHNVU9TED-HNV➢0-3.P'AM RED) TIE WES fLWEO LOT I AS BEARING MAIN m' 1541'EAST ASNUMMD REINING) m t dm — Sam SON H W m X w W CALL Unry NOTIFICATION cCENTEDOF V W — , J Z IL ��Cal�eeNTB�a � City of Fart Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROLm: qtE BHElowe OSM DESCRIBE) BY. \Aim Y RulaNsiae GUIDE 0.Y CHECKED Br'. by Y CHELKFD BY: v & & u� 0.b CHECKED BY, Sheet Tyftw""- C600 aEavn Br: 0.Y I [Of 15 Sheets ® NORTH 0 Be HIS IT) =7tmmmmmmd GO I IN FEET) I WCH-Wren LEGEND: PROPOSED w[ a FRAMOMEEDUCONTOUR BT M —__ySy____ .4 RROPOCEDeSWALE — .. — ... — 'i DESIGN FOM Q HOWARFROP, w 4*Mm JESS L S DICK L. GRIES owxAu wML� "- - 312 N. MELDRUM STREET 0 tT MIN— c a.1i111[�FHy _— wwxAGE wrvBGLRIeuWAN u I I\ _ �� PRCwSEoswraESECTIw L� '3x.xo x[6 I I \ �M,, ��� T�� M,, MIN, I � r _--__—__-- NOTES: WeFOOMEDRMLINFORPoRTFORMNEMIXEG VSEnmFDM'NEMERt4 IFOR roDToxx mwmATrcW. ZU' a -J Z g3g / � � S WASHINGTON PARK LLC } _ _.__1 __.. _...- 1 I I 301 N. HOWES STREET W I I BENCHMARK = W I --- O 1-----------1_-...._ D � :L � ' PROTECT DATUM xnvDSS BENCHM I CRT OF FORT OWNS BENCHMARK ILL AR. AT THEENTRANCETOMARTENHE E?Pwac APPROIPMMATELYVISIT NGPSTRERASKIND OFFTHE OZ ` CENTEI THE SOUTH n.R. TRACK Z W Ir E' BENCHMMRN ® ( I I ORTHEWESTE�DOFTH"SODL� ORIA.OFTHE EROGEGNARL THE NEW � / I I )Usr MERCERn3 VINE DRIVE. EAST OF MERCER DRIVE JAMES E. B CAROL S. BURRILL ERCSR i w I \\ / I I I Evnnw• WSA.S� 305 MAPLE STREET WASHINGTON PARK LLC I RGSE ROTE THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVpS FOR A VERTC40.ATH. y \ \ I M1 N. HOWES STREET DEVELOPMENTS VELOPMENTS HAVE UBED BURSITIS IM U$nD FOR THEM F s I I I �8 I \ I EFNGVOW SHOULD ED WNMISREouREOFORFxv RRMroD.rHE FaLowwc 8 o1wTMp11w�US"srEo: NAVION.3.Is IBM ICADI NIUNADNRED. NAVDM.311IBM Men Ws s THE WEST LINE OF LOT I AS SFIAING NORTH MIT IS 41- EAST P%W4D BF MA F I I" /• II M1 F f�MIN!! I1 i ak ' �•• • 1 WASHINGTON PARK, LLC 'v'�01D1OWN Jam' I 301 N. HOWES STREET �imvnnaaDRwxwuuwr F I � m /me.,11�§ a Sa AG ?_i �,.. "Bee MOP rP r. — — BBB) , Rise � Bull � m _ 3 y ` l-'-- g t b zCLITY REGULATED OD AY m �DIr gyp¢ —3T n 5._ Y At EP. i 4{ CITY OLD WIH , R J _l, IW. 1 �.... A xui mom. .. MAPLE STREET '�I `sue - W (1bD'RCW) A.1Ye : x Z Y yS IT Bell Me, UNNUIEIIM Fillepripip / I Bell FORT Ym1Ar.1.wTEnmY F— Memo Bee, Mp FL� ' I CITY OF FORT COUJNS x LAPIX3TE AVENUE 1 ' iSIMON MIN!! � I MIN!! EXISTING RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE TMTAS ICCyr pNIpM BMW lryFh III Ot we DIM POIM 0 m CPC C1W (min) (MIN)(PING (INS))GS) 1 () MIN USA gel SUIT RA Be IN) 0—w Im 45 I Nlk DfB : DW The SD 00 54 34 PEAURLya•) CSmntnO) Sheet C601 I I I I I I It 1 r I I rc I f I JAMES E. & CARD[ S. BURRILL o $ IT 305 MAPLE STREETIM I \ I � I r'� R�rux I BDLNCMYIgOIOMII , rrrrrr��d l ■fir■■���������r�■ FFE91.90 irrrr rrrrrrr urr�rrrrrru Mur�r• ��rMrMj�r■DOWNY- II IL II II I II I ) II I I j jl JESS L & DICK L. GRIES 312 N. MELDRUM STREET FFE-91 GU U/ :LOLOwr BWMpWv -_- BNOre1SNYEMvtODWLVI Boulrwr wTUEsxTwAwAI _ MAPLE STREET (1UB Row) ■�INrI ■r��itYr�rfs���M���rrEjs� IN 1 I N B \I CITY OF FORT COLLINS A 300 LAPORTE AVENUE tl A 1 /I II \\ I II \\ NA ® NORTH xTo (IN.Ec,) t NCH-mFEET LEGEND: EXISTING SFGMJ BFWFA aF PROMEMEDSOCRUMSEWER PNg9aEDSTORMNLEF PROPOSED CONTOUR EXmlxO QVINI —SD1J WASHINGTON PARK, LLC PRposEomnE — I 301 N. HOWES STREET PRposeocp36GDTTER I I PRaFEHrrvnxONSr jPEDssTPNNnccEss RAws i CRDwsEM cROsa P.xLTYPi 1 I CTv3sEciMN DIN) I I WASHINGTON PARK, LLC 1 MI N. HOWES STREET ELEVAmx RAwm 5003(NAVD88) I CONNECTED EFFECTIVE LSE FLOOD Z FIELD SURVEY BY: � Z F z E BENCHMARKS: �— WECTDANM.NAW M C7 WASHINGTON PARK. LLC PRZ 301 N. HOWES STREET cmca FOnEORTCOLurvs mxpMMM IDm Z LNJ OR THE BACK OF WALK AT THE _ SHERaocD OF AT THE t(OMCIIY CEMEPL NERAOFTHE SMUTNMCC TO TP U.N. TRncKKwreLV IN Fr )WORTH OF THE PEDuwrEn ELEVATIp-Nee1EIMINCHMAREQ B B0.MFRt IGO*OMII CITY OF FORT COLLINS NX Sir CON ANAL AT END OF THE CAST OFMERCER OOF RTNEBRUCE WEBTIENEW MERCER ■�� �r�r r .r r r O JUST F/Si OF MERCEROPNE ELEVATION- 505131 ' -EJ EASENOR PL:MEPVN9Eil9 VBNG wYD6lfgiAVFANLKwNMSVNWNgNG awMHAVEE USED NOVELS UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATws. >!8 Ri E NGY9m M0O WTIN IBREDUiRED FOR MY RINPRTH E EFIXLDNMG EpMENOYDO UILIO Ul➢ASmUED- WO HAVEN - MOV W L UNADJUSTED • RAYONS.I.IB' (w f oml Sti'(BM EesF) _ THE WESTLINEw" OFa ' Y LOT I I9 MINING NORTH WIa Ar MUST (ASSUMED SHARING) . �Y —.. NOTES: 3R L v REFER EEAMEMENTS OTHEREMFLFN•1 ABImH R SEMENTS.LOT RNATIOaEIE, m �< OITEP9URhYIHFORwrgNam g z THIS PRJIECCT IS LOCATED MTTMIN A CITYAEGULATEO OLD TOWN IL6VVA 8 # 6WITH WWW j WOERIMDEONDxusrcDMRV WTxpK^IEP IOC£THEpTY^ F 3¢R m ALL CODE < S 3& > NIL ELEVAIIOHB DEPICTED IN PLAN VIEW UNDBppNM%SIJSTFD MP£p /AE MR THE CITY OF FORT COwxa VERTICAL GOHT W1 DATA (RAND Sa FMIEE_Fr� 4 D ITEMS LOCATED IT FLOOGWAV ONLY CAN 0.Mr(EG., MNF TABLES ARACKS I MUST BE ANCHORED. LI NUSEFERMIT SAL HE REQUITE) FOR EACH air CONSTRVCTI A FLO AW ELEMr HC NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS CH EOUIPMEJNT MALL BE ALLO W EO IN THE — r — — —FLODOWAY. WHETHER TEMPORARY (DURING CONSTRUCTION) OR PFRwNxrt LANDSCAPING ML ALSO MEE r THE REDUIRELENTS FDA W RISE x THE �UL MAY 10HYRCm F PREFERTOTHEnMALAPI NAGE REPORT FOR MF MIXEDEn xJrEMER £o USE DAT10, PELTED RNR.W 1 I9O N. pEFOm I I e I i iXREUTrorvEHEOUwEw�"xwrwxE ROODWAY(TE.TINSEL CUT REMOVAL . urusuNVE B. EOIM➢NEHi 13iO PE LOCATED ONTHE ROOFTOP CFTHE 3TMICNNE. .LLLHJPC ICI HORRwTAL caM Cm OF Farr CONLIN mmLra MASTER cONDEN, FOR STORMWATER REVIEW NLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVE: my mBm... ax oeaE BY: Wom, N MF Mvr UWltr 0.M "LIKED BY: ttP M CHECKED BY, xAN 0.x M D BY: CMFCKE �61.ese Beta Sheet C800 Of 15 Sheets