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 - 11/29/2016
. AThis Drainage Report Is consciously provided as a PDF. Please consider the environment before printing this document In Its entirety. When a hard copy Is absolutely necessary, We recommend doubl"Ided printing. City of Fort Coll'ns Approve7dPla ns Approved by:. Date: Il q lb FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR LYRIC CINEMA Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: Lyric Cinema Caf6 300 E. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Prepared by: NORTHERN ENGINEERING 301 N. Howes, Sub 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159 w .noNrcmmglneering.com Project Number: 1089-001 // 970.221A15g 4. NORTHERN ' ENGINEERING ' November 23, 2016 City of Fort Collins ' Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for LYRIC CINEMA ' Dear Staff: ' Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for your review. This report accompanies the Final Plan submittal for the proposed Lyric Cinema development. This report has been prepared in accordance to Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM), and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed project. We understand that review by the City 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. Aaron Cvar, PhD, PE Senior Project Engineer 301 N. Howes Street, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO80521 1 970,221.4158 I www.northernengineering.com ' (NORTHERN ENO THE NB n 1 L .1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 ................................................................... A. Location:.....................................................................................................................................:......I B. Description of Property .....................................................................................................................2 C. Floodplain......... :................................................................................................................................3 II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ....................................................................... 4 A. Major Basin Description ....................................................................................................................4 B. Sub -Basin Description....:..................................................................................................................4 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA.........................................:......................................... 4 A. Regulations........................................................................................................................................4 B. Four Step Process.............................................................................................................................. S C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints...........................................................................S D. Hydrological Criteria.........................................................................................................................6 E. Hydraulic Criteria................................................................:.............................................................6 F. Modifications of Criteria..................................................:................................................................ 6 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN................................::.................................................. 6 A. General Concept...............................................................................................................................6 B. Specific Details..................................................................................................................................7 V. CONCLUSIONS...:...........................................................................:........................8 A. Compliance with Standards..............................................................................................................8 B. Drainage Concept .................................. :.......................... .................................................................. 8 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G — Hydrologic Computations, Offsite Drainage Exhibit and Computations - USDA Soils Information - SWMM Modeling; Detention Computations - Inlet Computations - Storm Line Computations - LID Information — Erosion Control Report ' Fina/Drainage Report ■V I NORTHERN ENGINEERING LIST OF FIGURES: Figure1— Aerial Photograph................................................................................................ 2 Figure2— Proposed Site Plan................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 — Existing Floodplains.............................................................:............................... 4 MAP POCKET: Proposed Drainage Exhibit Final Drainage Report NORTHERN NORT ENGINEERING Cinema GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location 1. Vicinity Map I 1 U1 I 2. The project site is located in the southeast quarter of Section 2, Township 7 North, ' Range 69 West of the 6"' Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. 3. The project site is located at 1209 N. College Avenue, just south of the intersection of ' College Avenue and Conifer St. 4. The project site lies within the Dry Creek Basin. Onsite detention is required for the ' runoff volume difference between the 100-year developed inflow rate and the basin allowable discharge rate of 0.2 cis per acre. Additionally, the site must provide water quality treatment. Water quality treatment methods are proposed for the site, and are described in further detail below. 5. As this is an infill site, much of the area surrounding the site is fully developed. 6. Offsite flows enter the site from the west and south. Offsite runoff peak flow rates have been calculated, and an offsite drainage basin exhibit is provided in Appendix A. Final Drainage Report 1 NORTHERN ENGINEERING Cinema r I� 1 I 1 B. Description of Property 1. The development area is roughly 1.6 net acres. 2. Th slo Ge 3. Acl Coi htt the 4. Thi bui cor pro bel Final Drainage Report NORTHERN ENGINEERING , , I , I Final G Cinema ' ■� NORTHERN ENGINEERING Cinema [l 1 1 II Figure 3 —Area Floodplain Mapping (9 NORTH DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. Major Basin Description 1. The project site lies within the Dry Creek Basin. Detention requirement for this basin are to release at or below the allowable runoff rate of 0.20 cfs per acre, calculated at 0.33 cfs for this site. As discussed further in this report, there is a small amount of area that releases undetained from the site, and is compensated for in the overall site release rate. An existing storm line in N. College Avenue will serve as the outfall for the proposed detention pond. B. Sub -Basin Description 1. The subject property historically drains overland from northwest to southeast. Runoff from the majority of the site has historically been collected in N. College Avenue Avenue and directed into the storm system running along the eastern boundary of the site within N. College Avenue Right of Way. 2. A more detailed description of the project drainage patterns is provided below. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with the proposed project. Final Drainage Report 4 NORTHERN ENGINEERING Lyric Cinema B. Four Step Process The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the proposed project 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 Several techniques have been utilized with the proposed development to facilitate the ' reduction of runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads as the site is developed from the current use by implementing multiple Low Impact Development (LID) strategies including: m Conserving existing amenities in the site including the existing vegetated areas. ' w Providing vegetated open areas throughout the site•to reduce the overall impervious area and to minimize directly connected impervious areas (MDCIA). Routing flows, to the extent feasible, through vegetated swales to increase time of ' concentration, promote infiltration and provide initial water quality. Step.2 — Implement BMPs That Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with Slow Release ' The efforts taken in Step 1 will facilitate the reduction of runoff; however, urban development of this intensity will still generate stormwater'runoff that will require additional BMPs and water quality. The majority of stormwater runoff from the site will ultimately be intercepted and treated using detention and LID treatment methods prior to exiting the site. Step 3 — Stabilize Drainageways There are no major drainageways within the subject property. While this step may not seem applicable to proposed development, the project indirectly helps achieve stabilized ' drainageways nonetheless. By providing water quality treatment, where none previously existed, sediment with erosion potential is removed from downstream drainageway systems. Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as well as ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve City-wide drainageway stability. ' Step 4 — Implement Site Specific and. Other. Source Control BMPs. The proposed project will improve upon site specific source controls compared to historic conditions: The proposed development will provide LID and water quality treatment; thus, eliminating sources of potential pollution previously left exposed to weathering and runoff processes. ' C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The subject property is surrounded by currently developed properties. Thus, several ' constraints have been identified during the course of this analysis that will impact the proposed drainage system including: w Existing elevations along the property lines will generally be maintained. m As previously mentioned, overall drainage patterns of the existing site will be maintained. w Elevations.of existing downstream facilities that the subject property will release to ' will be maintained. Final Drainage Report 5 IJ .�INORTHERN ENGINEERING Cinema ' 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 proposed development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA-7 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. Three separate design storms have been utilized to,address distinct drainage scenarios. A fourth design storm has also been for computed comparison purposes. The first design storm considered is the 801' percentile rain event, which has been employed to design the project's water quality features. The second event analyzed is "Minor," ' the or "Initial" Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence interval. The third event considered is the "Major Storm," which has a 100-year recurrence interval. The fourth storm computed, for comparison purposes only, is the 10-year event. 4. No other assumptions or calculation methods have been used with this development that are not referenced by current City of Fort Collins criteria. ' E. Hydraulic Criteria 11 7 1. As previously noted, the subject property maintains historic drainage patterns. 2. All drainage facilities proposed with the project are designed in accordance with criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. 3. As stated above, the subject property is not located in a City designated floodplain. The proposed project does not propose to modify any natural drainageways. F. Modifications of Criteria 1. The proposed development is not requesting any modifications to criteria at this time. ' IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept t1. The main objectives of the project drainage design are to maintain existing drainage patterns, and to ensure no adverse impacts to any adjacent properties. 2. LID treatment will be provided in the bottom of the detention pond, as discussed further below. Water quality treatment conforming to porous landscape detention (PLD) criteria will be provided within the proposed pond. ' 3. Drainage patterns anticipated for drainage basins shown in the Drainage Exhibit are described below. l Final Drainage Report 6 ■� I NORTHERN ENGINEERING Cinema Basin 1 Basin 1 will generally drain via overland flow and parking lot curb and gutter into the proposed detention and LID feature located on the west side of the site. A porous landscape detention (PLD) basin will be incorporated in the bottom stage of the proposed detention pond and will satisfy the onsite LID treatment requirement. Please see further discussion of water quality and LID features in Section IV.B, below. Basin 2 Basin 2 will generally drain via sheet flow into a series of area drains as shown on the Drainage Exhibit. The drain system will daylight to the proposed PLD feature located on the west side of the site. ' Basins 3 through 5 Basins 3 and 4 will generally drain via sheet flow into the adjacent N. College Avenue. Basin 5 will be captured by the onsite storm drain system and be conveyed via storm ' sewer to the existing N. College Avenue storm system. This undetained runoff will be compensated for in the release rate of the detention pond as discussed below. ' Basin OSl Basin OS1 consists primarily of offsite areas to the south and west of the site that do drain onto the site. An offsite drainage basin exhibit is provided in Appendix A, along with offsite runoff calculations. A spill structure has been designed, which will allow ' for this flow to overtop the onsite control structure and enter the pond outfall pipe. The outfall pipe will discharge to the existing 30-inch storm line in N. College Avenue. A SWMM model of onsite plus offsite areas is provided in Appendix C, which shows that the attenuation which will occur with the proposed pond causes the peak offsite flow to be reduced to 9.1 cfs as it is released. through the spill structure. The outfall ' pipe has been designed to accommodate this flow. A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of t this report. B. Specific Details 1. A detention basin is proposed in the west portion of the site and will detain up to the 100-year storm event and release at or below the allowable (for Dry Creek Basin) runoff rate of 0:20 cfs per acre, calculated at 0.33 cfs. Compensation for undetained runoff from Basins 3 and 4 (100-year combined ' runoff = 0.29 cfs), results in an allowable release rate of 0.04 cfs. Offsite basin OS1 does drain into the pond; however, the pond is only required to detain the onsite 100-year runoff volume, which is 0.38 acre-feet in a 100- ' year event, per the onsite SWMM modeling provided in Appendix C. An offsite routing model has also been provided in Appendix C for the purpose of sizing ' the pond outfall pipe. 2. The detention pond will provide the required onsite detention storage of 0.38 acre-feet at water surface elevation 4974.6 per the Detention Pond Stage ' Storage Curve provided in Appendix C. 3. A porous landscape detention (PLD) holding cell is proposed as the primary LID treatment method for the site. The PLD will provide standard 12-hour landscape ' porous detention (PLD) treatment. The PLD basin will be incorporated in the bottom stage of the proposed detention pond and will Final Drainage Report 5 ' I NORTHERN NORENGINEERING Lyric Cinema ' satisfy the onsite LID treatment requirement of as close as possible to 100% of the site, specific to this project as agreed to in discussions with City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility staff. The PLD will provide 1616 cubic feet of storage, based on a 12-hour holding time. A small portion of the site (Basins 3 and 4, totaling 0.03 acre) does drain offsite into N. College Avenue. ' 4. With the PLD being located in the bottom stage of the detention pond, we are deviating from the typical requirement of elevating the treatment area above the normal operating level of the detention pond. This has been discussed ' with Stormwater Staff, and due to the unique nature and desired use of the pond area as an amphitheater, we have worked out this as a solution. The paved area draining into the PLD is relatively minimal (0.34 acre), and then: will be concentrated landscaping of the remaining areas draining into the PLD. The PLD is in a high visibility and high pedestrian traffic zone. Maintenance of the PLD area will naturally be very frequent and intensive, as this area will be the Lyric Cinemas' amphitheater. 5. Stormwater facility Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) will be provided by the City of Fort Collins in the Development Agreement. V. CONCLUSIONS ' A. Compliance with Standards 1. The drainage design proposed with the proposed project complies with the City of Fort ' Collins' Stormwater Criteria Manual. 2. The drainage design proposed with this project complies with requirements for the Old ' Town Basin. 3. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the proposed development are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations ' governing stormwater discharge. B. Drainage Concept 1. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit any potential damage associated with its stormwater runoff by providing detention and water quality mitigation features. 1 2. The drainage concept for the proposed development is consistent with requirements for the Old Town Basin. 1 Final Drainage Report 8 ■� INORTHERN ENGINEERING Lyric Cinema 1 References 1. 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. 2. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007. 3. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation ' Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 4. Old Town Master Drainage Plan, Baseline Hydraulics Volume II Anderson Consulting, July 15, 2003. 5. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control ' District, Wright -McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008. [1 I I I ' Final Drainage Report 9 APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS ui #dmdm !ƒ 2 iq cs �ageG2 - co ƒ -a � �■! ;§cs;;; co= q � j Kk {.u .2■ `� 2; 2 � & � !/�2|� � C.0 § £-K-® 1211 �!- � 19 � § ]§} }2A ) . o :!! ■a § aka OA � lu ° ww ■�::l:�::� - ■ © ,:::�:k;w■ ! #a3 l MOk f =�:;�| �t � \\RA,��__% } , )�§ )�2 • - � �&! $© �I J■■■J} g e . � &f��J&■)># » . ' § 0 0 0 0 o 0 2§'N* ■ :;;:| • - - - e 0 0 | I $ I�a2k§=E@ ° e$a_a;�Jcm H || ;■ k ° #{{�:;;;;; '| Uiuiui co 00 , ^ FZ ,ƒ� „ ��4.m � 3 1888m°©■a2 � a!gCiQ;w - °=}e, J SI�ggqqqq ! ■ ! ��,���� $ a¥c;0 §ela0000o m0 ; � | Q a �2 z £!!££ _ \ k\\ - k {_ - � _/\// I I q I I I I I I I I / I I I I I I �J §§)kk§.§ ��-3 SSA� ~ cn$aee¥ A ) lm�.—@m00 Go u§ ��£�dede� ~ o 0 co 2 0.' . §kkggmLn§ 2 �2 —cmadai06K� ) §}�§§§ § !� ( �23§§§ o 0 § ; cm | J ) oco/ o 6 ci d 6liz 0 & o U|| ! e � � ©,■! - | . �j:=§ q � 21�7l co00�a%«% m k !_¥R70000r,at22 _ k -- ) cn cm000 § § $ 2 ) - § ! E cm m lo c"/ 20 2 ten§ . f I No Text DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF 11 5C 30 i- 20 1 5 �MNNIIIII�AWAFA I110M I I �/��I/�I.�■III i�����0��� �►���//■►/ram—/����■■■�� .2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND Figure RO-1—Estimate of Average Overland Flow Velocity for Use With the Rational Formula 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District I RO-13 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF Table RG-3—Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Values Land Use or Surface Characteristics Percentage Imperviousness Business: Commercial areas 95 Neighborhood areas 85 Residential: Single-family Multi -unit (detached) 60 Multi -unit (attached) 75 Half -acre lot or larger Apartments 80 Industrial: Light areas 80 Heavy areas 90 Parks, cemeteries 5 Playgrounds 10 Schools 50 Railroad yard areas 15 Undeveloped Areas: Historic flow analysis 2 Greenbelts, agricultural 2 Off -site flow analysis. (when land use not defined) 45 Streets: Paved 100 Gravel (packed) 40 Drive and walks 90 Roofs 90 Lawns, sandy soil 0 Lawns, clayey soil 0 ' See Figures RO-3 through RO-5 for percentage imperviousness. C,, = KA + (1.31?-..1.44i 2 + 1.135i - 0.12) for CA Z 0, otherwise CA = 0 CcD = Kcz; + (0.858i 3 - 0.786i 2 + 0.774i + 0.04) CB = (CA + Ccv)12 (RO-6) (RO-7) 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RO-9 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF Table RO-5- Runoff Coefficients, C Percentage Imperviousness Type C and D NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups 2- r 5-yr 10- r 25- r 50- r 00-yr 0% 0.04 0.15 0.25 0.37 0.44 0.50 5% 0.08 0.18 0.28 0.39 0.46 0.52 10% 0.11 0.21 0.30 0.41 0.47 0.53 15% 0.14 0.24 0.32 0.43 0.49 0.54 20% 0.17 0.26 0.34 0.44 0.50 0.55 25% 0.20 0.28 0.36 0.46 0.51 0.56 30% 0.22 0.30 0.38 0.47 0.52 0.57 35% 0.25 0.33 0.40 0.48 0.53 0.57 40% 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.50 0.54 0.58 45% 0.31 0.37 0.44 0.51 0.55 0.59 50% 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.57 0.60 55% 0.37 0.43 0.48 0.55 0.58 0.62 60% 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.57 0.60 0.63 65% 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.59 0.62 0.65 70% 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.62 0.65 0.68 75% 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.68 0.71 80% 0.60 0.63 0.66 0.70 0.72 0.74. 85% 0.66 0.68 0-711 75 0.77 0.79 90% 0.73 0.75 0.77 1 0.80 0.82 0.83 95% 0.80 0.82 0.84 1 0.87 0.88 0.89 100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 1 0.94 0.95 0.96 TYPE 8 MRCS HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP 0% 0.02 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.30 0.35 5% 0.04 0.10 0.19 0.28 0.33 0.38 10% 0.06 0.14 0.22 0.31 0.36 0.40 15% 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.38 0.42 20% 0.12 0.20 0.27 0.35 0.40 0.44 25% 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.41 0.46 30% 0.18 0.25 0.32 0.39 0.43 0.47 35% 0.20 0.27 0.34 0.41 0.44 0.48 40% 0.23 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 45% 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.48 0.51 50% 0.29 0.35 0.40 0.46 0.49 0.52 55% 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.51 0.54 60% 0.37 0.41 0.46 0.51 0.54 0.56 65% 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.57 0.59 70% 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.58 0.60 0.62 75% 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.64 0.66 80% 0.57 0.59 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.70 85% 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.75 90% 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.81 95% 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RO-11 RUNOFF DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) TABLE RO-5 (Continued) --Runoff Coefficients, C Percentage Imperviousness Type A NRCS Hydrologic Soils Group 2- 5- r 10- r 25- 50-yr 00-yr 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.16 0.20 5% 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.24 10% 0.00 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.24 0.28 15% 0.02 0.10 0.17 0.23 0.27 0.30 20% 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.26 0.30 0.33 25% 0.09 0.16 0.23 0.29 0.32 0.35 30% 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.31 0.34 0.37 35% 0.16 0.22 0.28 0.33 0.36 0.39 40% 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.38 0.41 45% 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.37 0.40 0.43 50% 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.42 0.45 55% 0.29 0.33 0.38 0.42 0.45 0.47 60% 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.47 0.50 65% 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.51 0.53 70% 0.42 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.54 0.56 75% 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.57 0.59 0.61 80% 0.54 0.56 0.60 0.63 0.64 0.66 85% 0.61 0.63 1 0.66 0.69 0.70 0.72 90% 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.79 95% 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.86 100% 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 0 RO-12 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF T„ y 81 71 6( 0 5C E 4 40 F 30 20 10 0 0 5,000 sq. ft homes 10 ♦ 000 sq. ft..homes / 3,000 sq. R hones • • ♦ 2,000 sq. ft. homes " ". 00 " / ♦ 1.000 Sq. ft. homes " ♦ / /" ♦ • / 1 2 3 4 5 6 Single Family Dwelling Units per Acre Figure RO-3— Watershed Imperviousness, Single -Family Residential Ranch Style Houses 2007-01 RO-15 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RUNOFF IC to 70 E 50 40 o. 0 30 20 10 0 0 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) 5,000 sq. R homes • • 000 '14,000 sq. R homes • 0000 • 3.000 sq. it homes / w I • 'oe • / • .02,000 sq. ft homes / • 000 / ' 0000 / / 0 op ' 0000, / / 1,000 sq. n. homes. 101 // / �/ / / 1 i 1 2 3 4 $ 6 Single Family Dwelling Units per Acre Figure RO-4—Watershed Imperviousness, Single -Family Residential Split -Level Houses RO-16 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) RUNOFF 1 1 1 1 ii< A 60 0 50 40 og. 5 ~ 30 20 10 5,000 sq. ft homes r • 4,000 sq. f . homes • 3.00D sq: ft. homes i • 2,000 sq. ft. Itorrxs 0 00 ♦ • 00,. • • • ' .r ... • i 1.000 sq. fl homes 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Single Family Dwelling Units per Acre Figure RO-S—Watershed Imperviousness, Single -Family Residential Two -Story Houses 090 0.80 0,70 u g� 060 g 0.50 V 0.40 030 020 010 000 -e- t00-yr --50.yr I. j-a-25.yr '-r Wyr 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 80% 70% 80% 90% 100% Watershed Percentage tmpemio xnsas Figure R04—Runoff Coefficient, C, vs. Watershed Percentage Imperviousness NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group A 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District RO-17 RUNOFF DRAINAGE, CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) 1 1 1 1 1.0f` 0.9c 0.8a 0 70 v � 080 0.50 c1 0.40 030 0.20 0.10 0.00 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Watomhed Percentage impervteusness +lao-yr r-28•yr �x-10 yr j w 5-yr -�-2-yr Figure RO-7-Runoff Coefficient, C, vs. Watershed Percentage Imperviousness NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group B +104yr j F50-yr y 25•yr I x_10-Y, l -s-Syr M 2-yr 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Watershed Percentage Imperviousness Figure RO-8—Runoff Coefficient, C, vs. Watershed Percentage Imperviousness NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D I.1 0,90 0.80 0.70 U 0.60 0.50 0.40 rc 0.30 0,20 0.10 0,00 RO-18 2007-01 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District APPENDIX B USDA SOILS INFORMATION USDA United States Department of Agriculture NRCS 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 4 F k March 14, 2016 I 1 Preface Soil information surveys contain 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 focal 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. 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 (hftp://www.nres.us6a.gov/wps/portal/ 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.govAocator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (hftp://www.nres.usda.govtwps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). . Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States:Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require aitemative means E for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.. 3 Contents Preface................................................................................:...................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap..................................................................................................................7 SoilMap................................................................................................................8 Legend...................................:..............................................................................9 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................10 MapUnit Descriptions ... :........................................................... I ......................... 10 Larimer County Area, Colorado.......................................................................12 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.................................................12 References............................................................................................................14 4 I i 1 1 i 1, J 1 1 How Soil Survevs 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. 1 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 1 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 1 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 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 scientisteclassfied and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the IJ 5 Soil Custom Resource Report ' 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 t 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 ' identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. t Soil M 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 Y z ' .494600 4494610 4494620 4494630 4494640 444494650 110 IW 4'3SW 44946M 4494610 44946M 4494630 4494640 4494650 4491660 44946M 4494690 449VM 4 Y z 4 I I 1 I LI L 1 2. d 9 j N N m w m m 3 m £ G) G> n w 0 m° to N N m m n 0 m m l a n < < m — — — m cn m m$ F m= p m E N o o v v o o O 0 0 � a£ m fD N 3 N m f�l 11 9 w O O D m N r m Rx m m ; o _ _; -_ 7J z 0 m v j ds r44di 2N m m s vm 0 aeo o o co N ncn m n m O £ m N m N moo m �go mo0C�00) 8D mvy _my��m0 CD mrn 3.(waCD 53 vcn CD oao m m`� n� ornFg tncm 00 c-I fi� o mao m D� dm 0) CD ymo ins amgo CD 3C m m3 5 3 _ 0 �d mFw aNs v^mw D.N U) r Sr 0 na Om 3yamam o.0 a. w m m (� a S>mocr > c m m m m 3 m o a 3 o M. m�3 ° o m a o 0 3 " z00 CDInyao m m m��o^m >Qqm co m m o 0 (m �m 01 o w C OOn w3w 'a 0) D t° go omm D ®° a y Nm D w 3 o n m 'Wvim= wm o G(wl mm D ;mma 3 m mo 6) m m G lD ° pS m m m 0 (n 0, 33Oom m m O(�H(�0 z N a a c m O m a. =Dv m a30w@ n m d 8 7 C y y n m @? Er K z m >q O 0�f N n m I ^ 0 Y�i w� O< � CyI w II N N 0 w d {p to — 00 L] O A m O I Custom Soil Resource Report I 1 I I Map Unit Legend 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. 1 F U L [I [1 I F LI 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. I 10 Custom Soil Resource Report I 7 l� I 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. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Larimer County Area, Colorado ' 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting ' National map unit symbol- 2ting Elevation: 4,100 to 5,700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 14 to 15 inches ' Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 135 to 152 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated ' Map Unit Composition Nunn and similar soils. 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent ' Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit. Description of Nunn Setting ' Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread ' Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parentmaterial: Pleistocene aged alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock and/or eolian deposits ' Typical profile Ap -.0 to 6 inches: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10 inches: clay loam ' Bt2 - 10 to 26 inches. clay loam Btk - 26 to 31 inches: Gay loam Bk1- 31 to 47 inches: loam ' Bk2 - 47 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches ' Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium ' Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None ' Frequency of ponding. None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 7 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline (0.1 to 1.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 6.5 ' Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e ' Land capability classification (nonimigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: C ' Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO) ' 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Heldt Percent of map unit 10 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Clayey Plains (R067BY042CO) Wages Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) 13 I 1 11 1 1 1 1 i 1 FIB J i 1 1 1 1 i 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. hftp://www.nres.usda.govtwps/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, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. hftp://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 Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. hftp://www.nres.usda.govtwps/ portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?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. 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. hftp://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres 142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. hftp:/twww.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/land use/rangepasture/?cid=stet prdb 1043084 1 14 Custom Soil Resource Report ' United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 43041. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ ' nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the ' Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www. nres. usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_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/lntemet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf 1 15 APPENDIX C SWMM MODELING; DETENTION COMPUTATIONS I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i EPA SWMM MODEL Onsite Basin Routing 1 ' EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.0 (Build 5.0.015) NOTE: The summary statisticsdisplayedin this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. Analysis Options Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ Flow Routing ........... NO - YES ' Water Quality . NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE ' Starting Date ............ Ending Date . NOV-21-2012 00:00:00 NOV-21-2012 06:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days . 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 ' Dry Time Step............. Routing Time Step ........ 01:00:06 30.00 sec +*+*++#++*+++*#+*++4****++ Runoff Quantity Continuity Volume Depth acre-feet inches ' **+*++***4*#t*****++****+* - Total Precipitation . - 0.486 3.669 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 0.098 0.743 ' Surface Runoff 0.386 2.911 Final Surface Storage . - 0.006 0.044 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.785 Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal -____ --------- Dry Weather Inflow ........ 0.000 0.000 ' Wet Weather Inflow ....... Groundwater Inflow 0.386 0.000 0.126 0.000 RDII Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 6.018 0.006 ' Internal Outflow ......... Evaporation Loss 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.368 0.120 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000 - Highest Flow Instability Indexes ' All links are stable. Routing Time Step Summary Minimum Time Step 30.00 sec Average Time Step 30.00 sec Maximum Time Step 30.00 sec Percent in Steady State 0.00 ' SWMM5 Page 1 1 1 1 1 i Average Iterations per Step Subcatchment Runoff Summary Subcatchment ------------------ Onsitel ------------------ System Node Depth Summary ++++++++++++++++++ ------------------- 1.00 Total -------------------------------------------------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff PreciP Runon Eva P Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff -------in-_-____ ininin in 10^6 gal 3.669 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______ 0.000 ------- 0.000 ----------------- 0.743 2.911 ---- ------CFS 0.126 ---------- 15.345 0.793 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.743 .2.911 0.126 15.345 0.793 Node Type JCT1 JUNCTION Exist -Storm OUTFALL P1 STORAGE Node InFlow Summary Node Type JCT1 JUNCTION Exist -Storm OUTFALL P1 STORAGE Node Surcharge Summary No nodes were surcharged.- Node Flooding Summary No nodes were flooded. ++++++++++++++++++++++ Storage Volume Summary ------------------------------ -------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max 'Depth Depth HGL Occurrence ----Feet Feet Feetdays hr:min ------ 0.04 0.35 ------------- 98.35 0 00:40 0.00 0.00 96.00 0 00:00 2.94 3.32 100.32 0 02:17 Maximum ------------------------------------------- Maximum Lateral Total Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume CFS ----------------------------------------------------- CPS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal 15.35 15.35 0 00:40 0.126 0.126 0.00 0.04 0 (02:17 0.000 0.006 0.00 15.34 0 00:40 0.000 0.126 Average Avg Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000ft3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Full 1000 ft3 Full days hr:minCFS P1 14.087 10 16.555 12 -------- 0 02:17 0.04 SWMM5 Page 2 N Outfall Loading Summary Flow Avg. Max. Total Freq. Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt. CFS CFS 10^6 gal Exist Storm 96.95 1 0.04 0.04 0.006 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 96.95 0.04 0.04 .0.006 ++++++++++++++++++++ Link Flow Summary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ IFlowl Occurrence Velocity Full Full Link _ Type . CFS ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth CONV1 CONDUIT 15.34 .0 00:40 17.67 0.00 0.04 OUT1 DUMMY 0.04 0 02:17 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Conduit Surcharge Summary No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Fri Nov 04 11:32:25 2016 Analysis ended on: Fri Nov 04 11:32:25 2016 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec r SWMM5 Page 3 Lln! tl1T� CMr j l I III III I. i III SWUM S Page 1 SWUM 5 Page 1 EPA SWMM MODEL Onsite plus Mite Basin Routing 1 1 1 1 1 ' EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.0 (Build 5.0.015) --- ------ ------ ----------- ------ '--------- ------ --------- +#444+ttr#rrrr++++#4t*tt*xrrr+t++++r+*t++r4+++r4r++rt*+++ NOTE: The summary statistics based on'results found at displayed in this report are every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. Analysis Options Flow Units ............... CFS ' Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff .... YES Snowmelt ................ NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES ' Water Quality . NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... RINWAVE Ending Date . Starting Date :::::....::* NOV-21-2012 00:00:00 NOV-21-2012 06:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days . 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 ' Dry Time Step ..........:.. Routing Time Step . 01:00:00 30.00 sec r+++##4++t*#+#rr44+*#rrr++ - Runoff Quantity Continuity Volume acre- feet Depth inches ' *t4+****r++#4x*#+**r+x**** - Total Precipitation 1.562 3.669 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 0.358 0.840 Surface Runoff ........... 1.202 2.822 Final Surface Storage 0.016 0.038 Continuity Error (%) .. -0.892 Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal +tt*++rr+st+***++r4++*+**r --- --- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... Groundwater Inflow 1.202 0.000 0.392 0.000 RDII Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 0.662 0.216 ' Internal Outflow ..._. Evaporation Loss . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume ... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.540 0.176 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.010 Highest Flow Instability Indexes ' All links are stable. Routing Time Step Summary ' Minimum Time Step 30.00 sec Average Time Step 30.00 sec Maximum Time Step 30.00 sec Percent in Steady State 0.00 ' SWMM 5 Page 1 Average Iterations per Step 1.01 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subcatchment Runoff Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment------in-------in-------in-------in-------in 1V6---- galCFS -------------------- -=------- ---------- Onsitel 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.743 2.911 0.126 15.345 0.793 1 3.669 0.000, 0.000 0.884 2.782 0.266 31.011 0.758 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- System 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.840 2.822 0.392 46.357 0.769 Node Depth Summary ++++++++++++++++++ --------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min -------------------------------------------------------------------- JCT1 JUNCTION 0.08 0.59 98.59. 0 00:40 Exist -Storm OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 96.00 0 00:00 P1 - STORAGE 3.72 4.48 101..48 0 00:51 +++++++++++++++++++ Node InFlow Summary +++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------ Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Node Type ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CPS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10"6 gal JCT1 JUNCTION 46.36 46.36 0 00:40 0.392 0.392 Exist -Storm OUTFALL 0.00 12.08 0 00:51 0.000 0.216 P1 STORAGE 0.00 46.34 0 .00:40 0.000 0.392 Node Surcharge Summary ++++++++++++++++++++++ No nodes were surcharged. Node Flooding Summary No nodes were flooded: ++++++++++++++++++++++ Storage Volume Summary ++++++++++++++++++++++ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Full 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS P1 22.422 16 30.959 22 0 00:51 12.08 SWMM5 Page 2 +++++++++++++++++++++++ Outfall Loading Summary ------------------------------------------ Flow Avg. Max. Total Freq. Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt. CFS, CFS 10^6 gal Exist Storm 97.09_-----1_37-----12.08----_--0_216 ------------------------- --- System 97.09 1.37 12.08 0.216 Link Flow Summary ------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum lFlowl Occurrence Velocity Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec ------------------------------------------------------------- CONV1 CONDUIT 46.34 0 00:40 24.77 OUT1 DUMMY 12.08 0 00:51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Conduit Surcharge Summary +++++++++++++++++++++++++ No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Fri Nov 09 11:34:39 2016 Analysis ended on: Fri Nov 09 11:34:39 2016 Totalelapsedtime: < 1 sec Max/ Max/ Full Full Flow Depth ------------ 0.01 0.06 SWMM5 Page 3 om 1 Si VIA 5 Page 1 rire.�e I 1 J F 1 Project Number: Project Location: Calculations By: Pond No.: betenti�ftiP.atdF5#age Story rve r 089-001 (Fort Collins, Colorado IF. Wegert, A.Cvar. L Date: FDetention Pond, Contour Contour Surface Area (ft) Depth Incremental - Volume Cummalitive Volume Mapmum Elevation Minimum Elevation cu. it. acre ft cu. ft. Tacre ft 4971.25 N/A 1 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 4971.5 4971.251 360.4 0.25 45.1 0.00 45.1 0.00 4972.0 4971.51 2,906.7 0.5 816.8 0.02 861.8 0.02 4972.22 4972.0 3,42&0 0.22 754.2 0.02 1,616.0 0.04 ' 4972.5 4972.01 4,087.4 0.5 1,748.5 0.04 2,610.4 0.06 4973.0 4972.5 4,659.1 0.5 2,186.6 0.05 4,797.0 0.11 4973.5 4973.0 5,967.4 0.5 2,656.6 0.061 7,453.6 0.17 4974.0 4973.5 8,169.0 0.5 3,534.1 0.08 10,987.7 0.25 4974.5 4974.0 9,838.9 0.5 4,502.0 0.10 15,489.7 0.36 4975.0 4974.5 11,392.2 0.5 5,307.8 0.12 20,797.5 0.48 4975.73 4975.0 12,730.8 0.73 8,804.9 0.20 29,602.4 0.681 4975.81 4975.01 12,820.0 0.8 9,079.6 0.21 29,877.1 0.69 N otes: 1) Elevation of water quality control volume. 2) Elevation of maximum attenuation with offsite flow ,*1) see note *2) see note 1 I I 1 1 0 7 I u ORIFICE RATING CURVE PLD / Detention Pond 1 00-yr Orifice PROJECT:1089-001 ' DATE: 10/1116 BY: ATC ORIFICE RATING Orifice Dia (in) Orifice Area (sf) Orifice invert (ft) Orifice Coefficient 1.00 0.01 4972.22 0.65 Stage Outlet release ' CFS 4972.22 0.00 4972.50 0.00 4972.75 0.00 4973.00 0.02 , 4973.25 0.03 4973.60 0.03 4973.75 0.03 4974.00 0.04 4974.25 0.04 4974.50 0.04 4974.75 0.04 4975.00 0.05 4975.26 0.05 4975.50 0.05 4975.80 0.05 t1i J APPENDIX D INLET COMPUTATIONS I I I I 11 I I I I �1 I I I J I I I Area Inlet Performance Curve: CDOT Type C Area Inlet Des. Pt. OS 1 Governing Eauations: At low flow depths, the inlet will act like a weir governed by the following equation: n = 3 . O P H I 5 • where P = 2(L + � `G • where H corresponds to the depth of water above the llowline At higher flow depths, the inlet will act like an orifice governed by the following equation: Q - 0. 67 A l 2 gH 0.5 where A equals the open area of the inlet grate where H corresponds to the depth of water above the centroid of the cross -sectional area (A) The exact depth at which the inlet ceases to act like a weir, and begins to act like an orifice is unknown. However, what is known, is that the stage -discharge curves of the weir equation and the office equation will cross at a certain flow depth. The two curves can be found below: Stage - Discharge Curves 35.00 30.00 Weir Flow - -•--Or'fiice Flow --- _25.00 :60.00 f15.00 r u .l10.00 o 5.00 - 0.00-- 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 sta" (1t) If H > 1.792 (A/P), then the grate operates like an orifice, otherwise it operates like a weir. Input Parameters: Type of Grate: CDOT Close Mesh Length of Grate (ft): 3.354 Width of Grate (ft): 2.625 Open Area of Grate (ft): 7.48 Flowline Elevation (ft): 100.000 Allowable Capacity: 50% Depth vs. Flow: Shallow Orifice Actual Elevation Weir Flow Flow Flow Depth Above Inlet (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 100.25 2.24 10.06 2.24 0.50 100.50 6.34 14.22 6.34 0.75 100.75 11.65 17.42 11.65 1.00 101.00 17.94 20.11 17.94 1.25 101.25 25.07 22.48 22.48 1.50 101.50 32.95 24.63 24.63 ' "Inlet capacity with 18-inch ponding exceeds offsite flow from Basin OS1. I INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Projects 108a-001 Inlet ID s Dee.Pl. tb-SNgia Combo Inlet - Sump Condition ?'Lo (C)-,r H-Curb H-Van Wo WP W Le (G) Warning Warning on ladtnn4bn (Inputl a I iet mid Typo I Deprevalon (additimal to r nwom gums, depression'e from 'Q.AIIow') 0. lea of Unit InleJa (Grele o, Cum Opening) No a NO st Flo aw (oumlde of Ioml depression) Flew Depol a YRametlon th of a Unit Grate to (G)' + of a U W Greta W. Opening Ratio fa a G. (typicel values 0.15-0. W) A. ping FeGa fa a Single Cwete (Iypicel value 0.50 - 0.70) Cr (G)' f Weir Coeffioad (typwal value 2,15 - 3.60) C. (G)' r Q1fim Caelfioerm (typd value 0.60 - 0.60) C. (G)' Opening MmmWon th of a Unit Cum Opening La (C)' et of Vertiml Cub Opening in Incites H. , I of Curb Orifice TN in Imam H., f & Tlroat (wee USDCM Figure ST-5) TMb' W idlh f w Drpreaeian Pan (Typically 0te guoa width & 2 feet) W., ling Facto for a Single Cub Opening (typiml val. 0.10) Cf (C) Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.33.6) C. (C) Opening Oraim CoaRciant (typical value 0.60 - 070) Ca (C)' 11 Inlet Intarceptlon Capac* (assumes clopped condlilon) Q. -O PF�_ Oressarneem , onfor!, MRIOR MAJOR D.N. Nu to CleflbYrtlm 2Ao 200 inches 1 1 6A 1t0 motes MINOR MAJOR 3A0 3,00 feel 2.00 2.00 feet 041 oat Ila om SAD 360 OAD 0.60 3.00 300 6AD 6.50 625 526 0.00 0.00 2.00 2 00 0.10 &to &70 3.70 om 066 UD Inlet 3.1-combomlet-sump-smgle.)dsm, Inlet In Sump IW10/2016, 11-52 AM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION project. 10e0-001 Hot ID Dee.PL 1cSingle Combo Inlet- Sump Condition Lo (C) 'I H-Curb H-Van We Wp W Lo (G) Weminc Warning an Information flnmrtl of IMet Inlet Type I Depivoew (amiaona to m r uoue Butler tlepreeaw'efmm'O- II.') 4me ber d Unit Iniets (Grate ar Cub Opening) No v Depth et Floaftne (outaido of lanai depresaw) Fier Depth a Mormatlon th of is Unit Grele fi d e Unit Grate W. Openng Rini. fn a Grate (typia values 0.15-0.90) A. girg Fetter far a Single fines (typical vane 0.50 - 0.70) G(Q)' 1 War Coeffidat Itypi®I value 2,15 - 3,60) Ce (a), r O.ifim Goefitien t (typical vaue 0.60 - 0.80) Ca M. , Opening trrformeoon tin Of a Unit Cub Opening La (C)' 1t of Veracal Cub Opening in Indnea Nee' 1t Of Cub OriM1re TMpa in Intros H ea, I W of Thoat pee USDCM Fig. ST-5) Tres' Wet, for Depression Pen (typrWty bro putt IVIf of 2 fea) We. ling Factor for a Sire& Cub Opening (typ" value 0,10) Ce(C)' Opanep War Coeffiaera (typical vane 2.3�3.6) C.(C)' Opening Once Coeffidem (typiml value 0.60 - 0.70) Ca (C)' II Inlet Interception Capacity (assumes dogged condition) Q.1 _.SKI Ceuanadaap' Inlet type spoci led. MINOR UA= Darner Ne. 16 Can bliall 2.00 2.00 idlN 1 1 e.0 120 Inches kem MA" am 300 Ifiest 200 2.00 0-M 0.31 0.60 ON 300 3.60 0A0 0.60 3.00 3,00 6d0 6.60 Us 5.25 000 0.00 200 2.00 0.10 6.10 3.70 370 0.66 066 MINOR MNOR Nt Wham Whas w— ad UD trdd 3.1-con$oiniataump-anglo-1c-4sm, IMet In Sump 10/10/2016, 11:54 AM APPENDIX E STORM LINE COMPUTATIONS i 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 oW -Jj 0 OD 0 0 Y o m N p s m N O Cl) f0 O N O Y C W—" N O o 0 0 u W t V • w '� m 0 0 0 0 _ c o 0 6 J N cn W W W Oni Orf 9 c: p o 0 0 0 E a > N rn cmi, m W IV N O C mm 7 Wr vi of c E t � Z fV fV 0 J OI a M (7 m „'� S • fh c7 M rn m rn w < R t r N (i W T C — 00) 0) •t V a J S m co m 0) m m v ec- O G O O J LO � M Ci w m� W o '-' r r r 0) m 0> R V 9 O C O ^N (7 O m 0) 01 N Wl fV fV C _ c a 7 m cl f7 m O O t�+ p W O O 1- O O m. O N C4 ci J cm0. N gn c .S r r r v qq V m m m f9 N ON co c m 0 c — O a IT F N Of O 0) � O Q 0) ci ci N 00 m W C W Q J kl I� i7 L r� v� C 1. O N V N O m w t C _I O Z t N m s LYY V! T N m d C O m E U m Tn c E Y N m �I m lL m �g i I 11 1 1 L 1 L C W ^ p Lm � . CD 00 O O N d_ c p m V < rn a� `ci o rAi _ CD Cl) A N N O tp C C J LO tcG�� c7 cCCpp f7 M m ^ w m T " pAf pAi OA) N cowe N mC O O C C a o f9 W M N MCL C m n r O m 7 m n CD o C � L TL Z O O O O G J r N cc" (p.mn v (D C) v t ro CR q �. mt^. cV N .N N c a N J to� lNrf " a% aE N N c9 N A O a c0 O C O O cp 1t 7 N P1 O N w r n r O R 0) qT M a (M 9 _ L Ci O a O N O O O C W N e M c W O A r n O CD O .O G .L.. m C COD O G O - O Ci q Sm p 9 ;! P O W W W t LO m m. m ^ C m — 0) 0) R 0A) C)) a CND N ml a c A y — CD N N N m — lL ti m c m Q J N c9 Itd r4l i 1 t I I I fa O O O _C Y C C C o G C w Q O f0 N O M M O N C C !� O O O O O Y Y W— o C o o 0 o C d • V C m Qf m N cn o ' 0 o o � o a o o o 0 0 0 0 r _ M W O m o m c O a^. M O C C C C C C o 0 W 0 W T LO M Orf 9 O O O O O .CC O O O O O O O r E 0 � > N O m N r m O rn O N fn bi N N N N m c O my A n A r w f09 c09 O i .�i O C C O C o 0 aL 7 Z _ m cma00- f00 fro m J It m r n CR T O 0.2 S m m rn rn M m m • � � ' C Ori Orf Or! Orf Ori Orf m fn v, v, r m r ry J GOD N r N 0 0 N N r n m O O M O 0 0 o 0 O o 0 N m m a00 a0D W O r Lu CD 0)9 � n n n rd N O O aL O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > ccl ��6 O R N Lo EE t N cV cV f0 Lq�n�AM0 f 0 0 o O o C c9 0 G a �oo�CDmm o o 0 0 0 c" - � = m C v n n v v v v v . v V) Qvpp f� CNO ON! r. N 0 C) C) T 0) Orf Orf - It v v v v v E E _ CY N f00. N GOD V N C O N C m y — N N N N fD O IL 0 C O j N M. v 0 w r d i t 1 1 1 1 1 N 0 r C7 r N m m C J O Z 0 ci c N E N ci �I m lL m �O a I 1 1 0 V r m LM IMA Y u j 0 p Or t V mom" O OR 6 0 0 m m J > CD 0) 0.2 ^ W m P) W m C co C W 7 � m � m C a m � � L z 0 v J > m �7 S m ^ m C Pi W v C m °D > m� n c m„qw m c J 9 Oi w c CR O J > O cD co W m C) Y L 0 m a > � m W . m Ct 0 � N o J > o a C > r c o rn co rn N OI o � fA M C m N LL m m C f J � d APPENDIX F LID INFORMATION I 1 �II FI On -Site Treatment by LID Project No.: 1089-001 By: ATC. Date: 8/22/16 Project Area Total Site Area 71,438 sf Total Impervious Area 34,412 sf Paver Area N/A sf Landscape Area 37,026 sf Required Minimum Area to be Treated by LID measures 25,809 sf PLD tw/Underdrains and Drvwells) PLD Area r 3,759 sf Run-on area for PLD 65,501.40 sf Area Treated by PLD 69,260 sf Total Area Treated 69,260 sf Percent of Impervious Area Treated by LID measures 96.95 % r i, ATC & OUTLET LA BASIN AREA (ac) = 1.590 <— INPUT from impervious calls BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS PERCENT = 44.40 <— INPUT from impervious calls BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS RATIO = 0.4440 <— CALCULATED WQCV (watershed inches) = 0.280 <— CALCULATED from Figure EDB-2 WQCV (cu-ft) = 1616 <— CALCULATED from UDFCD DCM V.3 Section 6.5 I II APPENDIX G EROSION CONTROL REPORT 1 1 1 1 ■N I NORTHERN ENGINEERING Lyric Cinema ' EROSION CONTROL REPORT A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) HAS BEEN ' PROVIDED BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT. 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 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 the Utility Plans. The Final Plans contain a full-size Erosion Control sheet 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 the Development Agreement for the development. Also, the Site Contractor for this project will 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, prior to any earth disturbance 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. [1 1 Final Erosion Control Repott MAP POCKET DRAINAGE EXHIBITS / LM a EDT BOULDER _ / 1mox PoM �IARE/ PROPOSED ANGR TP. rtEcO f NAIROBI INLET Z C Z FR 1rE p THERM N I ROMOW9I gj I FI�JJ� � I h I —0 '// \ om: woscwEMw TEcn ROVE L�LISEE DETMI' FEET MIME PROmF cnHOUSING pEvwv:PrEMGHrtnx (\ M E G aEa ER 1a LLI�E�aTwy -� �=wrsoEEOmuLELaxare o—b 1 1 _ \\ 'ice BRNL pELBI / 1 / I/ rrnPoaorlaL L PDRNnwE 0.29 I PIT :. : -------Is r 4 M I llFROWEE x ✓^ IwooTesums. r4 PROPOSED BUILDING I \\ welx�A I \ ccI<EcrrovwPC ITXEr � Roawax. aEl r / x Y .' wEEcrrovmEOEv woFORAIrx. ONEx� i maw / iRaaFDBOEOR9 1 IEv+EvcvExm _ - i - \ I Nee'zlse•E ms.as• = 5 \ 0.02 w / I 1 \ I C i130 1- ,3 / x /� APRCTEG I ed; N Rd see 4 I f 6 x11ncH`'_ u r 1 / LEGEND: mOP,war I I I 1 I / AmRaAUATE Owns Or mxsmurmw lj 1 - _ - EXISTING FIGHT-a-wAY/FIawTY LINE —-- / al j1i I I4 & ""NO Ruworo m<ws / I EAsnxc aim a WTTw FROPOSLD LExncu CURB R GOTTEN pgCppgD WxF/L. CURB k WITTER----`-- 1� \\ r�. 3BDr LTI / II III 1 R /! I I J •II I / • ♦ 'I PROPOSED — ----SAGDVT LINE MHITECT I xc CONCRETE \ 0.1 ull tleagn: nc. CONCRETE PAVEMENT 252linden street font ollins, cobNtlo 9060PROPOSED REAW OUTY CONCRETE PAYHRT 78 audoITlm rNamh.W \ 1 PROPOSED HE/.W WrY ASPHALT PAVEMENT metllifurbanruralanch.com / PROPOSED UD TREATeENT/PgiWS ` DEIFNTRON CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPOSED wMEL/C(W.F SURFACE ONE: LANDSCAPE ARCwTECr UP / I Exmnxc BUILDING RI�1I�R�� I EASING ELECTRIC VAULT ® ENGM NMEEsERING EUSING OFF HYDRANT Ed,/ / 301 North Howes Street /D / STRI TNEEs Suite 100 Fort Collins, Coloretlo I/ I / PRCPaED RDOF BRAIN ® 970.221.4158 / a STUB FOR FUTURE ROOF piMX ®p w PROP D TRANSFORMER I I ENTERING UAOR CWTWR----x15--_— / EMSTNG MINOR CONTOUR----sms---- LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: I / 1 maoscD caxrcuRs °a DESIGN POET Q ■�nwtli<r tl<49n sWtllo 1 _1_—r— / I i I �� BAmx wq � �_� ~` EIEIer4gglstWb DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY t• t• vnaossD sTax SEVER PROPOSED UNDERBRAIX nI / PLUMBING CONSULTANT: NOTES: u�owNE„xDOER ONEG p NAE RON SPEC / NuTEDFOM „6EOmTIK " c60MnxB nvnvrMa,xs.xxs / GUARANNTEE TINE ACCURACY OFESUCH INFORMAIOUKAff Prarasalanal Bn01nEarinp ConsulloMs.PA / NANA AND SCRVNav NOT BE STWG LI AS PKKChNO 323 W. OHIO Rd, sue 116 FoI CNN, OO ALI / ONi ESE W„ESTHECONTMCrpa5x4LBEREsPMt• W 970232-0558 e2WJ YAW 000 COM / CONSTRUCTION IO VEFFYE EXACT UTIL'nLOCATivl'Gp1O N r�������a�e3r.�4>.aa�r•En� �ae���.,,�r�sa�a:ae�[aeevaa e�aevr• tom!• oxaE. T,IN..x w Uo ILxb *w1 a HU ea A LmEsoceArea 31 WpLNWAmw4nY eTrti YxUrlr®au x;0 ftO Area Rurannea M. awl] MeanoM1bb/Pw 6R2w 1 If eabM Amnuxb IO�E 9x E \ 2 NORTHER.EXGryr RING wrED x0Vu.6En na BIT64o�R ADwa INFORRauiMY. FIELD SURVEY BY: NORI ENGINEERING aRNa M. FRUUeCT NUMBER GATE. MNOM.m1E .", vrxmxxsrwncxGEnmla GdIMIM • Call bMp you do, r.�.N�.BrBRnm City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL city sagnawer MPRON D CHECKED BY. WEP(ED BY: WECK0 BY. �e�6Ti ca�rteE� �N� CHECKED BY Lyric Cinema Glover, LLC DRAINAGE PLAN C50�