The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20051678.tiff a Town of Mead �,,�u P.O.Box 626 441 Third Street bind (970)535.44471. Palma'Little Tovro Mead,Colorado 60542-0626 With BigBigg May 24,2005 • Weld County Board of Commissioners CERTIFIED MAIL#7044 2890 0001 0697 7880 P.O. Box 758 Greeley,CO 80632 RE: Notice of Public Hearing-Margil Supplemental Annexation Planning Commission- 7:00pm,Wednesday, June 15, 2005 Gentlemen: Please be advised that a public hearing before the Mead Board of Trustees has been set to review and consider the annexation of a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. The property is owned by MFDP, LLC,a Colorado limited liability company and is proposed to be developed for commercial uses as defined in the annexation agreements and open space and storm water detention areas serving the Margil Farms development. As currently defined,the commercial uses may include retail and highway business type uses in addition to offices,medical clinics, service establishments, restaurants, motels and similar commercial uses. In addition, such quasi- residential uses as nursing homes, senior housing facilities,assisted-living care facilities and churches are permitted. In accordance with C.R.S. § 31-12-108 (2), this notice has been sent to the Board of County Commissioners and County Attorney for Weld County,and to each special district or school district having territory within the area to be annexed. This notice has also been sent to service providers and those holding a franchise with the Town. In addition, a purpose of this referral is to obtain the comments and recommendations of various governmental agencies and service providers as to the appropriateness of the annexation. Your comments are welcome and will assist the Board of Trustees and Planning Commission in their review of the proposal. Attached is a copy of the published public hearing notice,together with a copy of the applicant's letter of intent,the petition for annexation,the adopted resolution finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings, maps of the property location and a"concept plan"for the development of the property. Copies of the full application, as well as the full-sized maps submitted with the application are available for review in the Mead Town Hall,441 3r°Street, Mead, Colorado. Written comments may be sent to Michael D. Friesen, Town Manager,Box 626,Mead, CO 80542. Very truly yours,*Zeit&L 1� Candace Bridgwater Town Clerk 5/24/05 12:17,prn) R,,,tL l G (EL) 2005-1678 oG -o4, -a.5- CO PL , SO O71 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MEAD PLANNING COMMISSION Margil Farms Supplemental Annexation NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Mead has adopted a Resolution of Substantial Compliance initiating annexation proceedings for the "Margil Farms Supplemental Annexation," said Annexation being more particularly described in the following Resolution No. 8- R - 2005. The Planning Commission of the Town of Mead will hold a Public Hearing commencing at 7:00pm, Wednesday, June 15, 2005, at the Mead Town Hall, 441 3r° Street, Mead, Colorado 80542, for the purpose of reviewing the petition and making a recommendation to the Board of Trustees regarding whether the property proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of the statutes of the State of Colorado and is eligible for annexation to the Town of Mead, and to recommend the appropriate land use for the property, if requested. Any person may appear at the Public Hearing and be heard regarding the matters under consideration. Copies of the petition and supporting material submitted to the Town are on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the Town Clerk, at the Mead Town Hall, 441 3`' Street, Mead, Colorado 80542. Dated this May 24, 2005. TOWN OF MEAD, COLORADO By: /s/Candace Bridgwater Town Clerk Notice to Inlgetlon Dltohes.wpd 5/24/05 11:15 pm) • RESOLUTION NO. 8 - R- 2005 A RESOLUTION FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN WELD COUNTY, COLORADO TO THE TOWN OF MEAD, SAID ANNEXATION TO BE KNOWN AS THE MARGIL FARMS SUPPLEMENTAL ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, a written petition dated 4/5/04, together with four(4) prints of the annexation map for the annexation of certain properties in Weld County have been filed with the Board of Trustees of the Town of Mead by MFDP, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, whose address is 1208 Wagon Wheel Court, P.O. Box 38, Berthoud, CO 80513; and WHEREAS, the applicant has withdrawn Item No. 7 from the petition regarding the reservation of a right to withdraw the petition for up to 30 days after the adoption of the annexation ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the petitions and supporting material; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees wishes to permit simultaneous consideration of subject property for annexation and zoning, if requested in the petition; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the petitions and desires to adopt by Resolution its findings in regard to the petitions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF Mead, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. The petition, whose legal description is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein, is accepted and determined to be in substantial compliance with the applicable laws of the State of Colorado. Section 2. No election is required under C.R.S. §31-12-107(2). Section 3. No additional terms and conditions are to be imposed except those provided for in the petitions. Section 4. The Board of Trustees will hold a public hearing for the purpose of determining if the propose annexation complies with C.R.S. §31-12-104, and with C.R.S. §31-12- 105, and will hold a public hearing to determine the appropriate zoning of the subject properties Notice to Irrigation Dttchee.wpl 5/24/05 1115 pm) if requested in the petition, at the Mead Town Hall, 441 3'd Street, Mead, Colorado 80542, at the following time and date: 7:00 PM, Monday, July 11, 2005 Section 5. Any person may appear at such hearing and present evidence relative to the proposed annexation or the proposed zoning. Section 6. Upon completion of the hearing, the Board of Trustees shall set forth, by resolution, its findings and conclusions with reference to the eligibility of the proposed annexation, and whether the statutory requirements for the proposed annexation have been met, and further, will determine the appropriate zoning of the subject property if requested in the petition. Section 7. If the Board of Trustees concludes, by resolution, that all statutory requirements have been met and that the proposed annexation is proper under the laws of the State of Colorado, the Board of Trustees shall pass one or more ordinances annexing the subject property to the Town of Mead, and shall pass one or more ordinances zoning the subject property if requested in the petition. INTRODUCED, READ, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 23'd day of May , 2005. ATTEST: TOWN OF MEAD By By Candace Bridgwater, Town Clerk Richard E. Kraemer, Mayor Notice to Irrigation Ditchhes.wpd 5/24/05 11:15 pm) EXHIBIT A MARGIL FARMS SUPPLEMENTAL ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A TRACT OF LAND (LABELED PARCEL 1) LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST '/ OF SECTION 3, T3N, R68W OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST ' CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ' CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3 S88°59'41" W, A DISTANCE OF 250.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST R.O.W. LINE OF I-25; THENCE N00°33'03"W, A DISTANCE OF 1353.34 FEET ALONG SAID WEST R.O.W. LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N00°33'03"W, A DISTANCE OF 1242.38 FEET ALONG SAID WEST R.O.W. LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH R.O.W. LINE OF WCR 38; THENCE N80°58'16"W, A DISTANCE OF 496.81 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE; THENCE S89°13'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 302.28 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE S00°33'03"E, A DISTANCE OF 1157.21 FEET; THENCE 578°40'05"E, A DISTANCE OF 809.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT CONTAINING 22.11 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Notice to Irrigation Uttches.wpd 5/24/05 11:15 pm) \ E ! _ •° 41 ° P i ( \! ( [ \. li:• h. j� } /) ! \ _ ( 2 e) , / , (j( E2 \• } E ` - - _ I _ _ 3 , . . _ ! IC2 . ) q } - : i i \)}/\� " ) I \- I ° } \\\\\_ - I _\ •, ' � ! � � \_ � \� _I : } , \ _ : rut g,[ty[ > I C. ) ! \ Al i. \ \\ \ / } } { } \ \ } \ } \ } IIX } \ i \E } c \ - - I \ f - } | { \ @j { ) - - \ . § ' 1 , ; U§\\ { z . . } n . , : -. : g ) } ! ! » ° \ f ! IQ g z ~ Ij'i E \ / } \ mmw: EA & » • ® °2° ` ® ^ . _ / D I / \ 3\ © \ { «� { \ \ Cr j -- , y / / dsq / _ �r / § \ \ � \ bcZ — - - ' - t ° ( Q® ° ` � � ` ` � Z / r�/ . `� i G_ \ ) ' ` C . J : ^ 0 26 45 }52 2,2 a. - < ) ' b C J Ls Z a;4 i '2 P e o r - 268 CI 2 _= Ye cffL e atti O s e• 9" ti 2 EE ` € a . _ 8 s ill IN . O _ °S r sz 312152131Ni 5 P E—za I "m g o pp' � na p •8^.dM1 ..miroo. ..... —'I Cr) yW�i Zd60 N A-� zfN TN\ € • <164r4 e-rz /+ ttie 227'00.. N of :I/ r n V3W1 L1 w e': GY1 VF •s v'imaah \ `e1g j�f ,.., ie•i �' .• .� Nm4 U4. N J - _ y g\\ .G rG 22.zoN W .Y P sex // R .�i aoo o i';i � eit a x"�� rya \ o sql ?,,a: \ Y Ic\cia ______CLe�Z _ / ,kX D€° / v'' 1 o Z i :744 / li -age" '_J T__I_T' / / T . \ e I a I x / 7 I / / ve , Todd Hodges Design, LLC Margil Farms Supplementary Annexation to the Town of Mead Prepared for: MFDP LLC 1208 Wagon Wheel Court PO Box 38 Berthoud, CO 80513 Prepared by: Todd Hodges Design, LLC 1269 North Cleveland Avenue Loveland, Colorado 80537 Submitted: April 8, 2004 And March 11 , 2005 1269 North Cleveland Avenue• Lo'elaad, Colorado 80537 • (970) 613-8556 • fax: (970)613-8775 entail: toddhodgesdesign(aearthlink.net . Todd Hodges Design, LLC Table of Contents Margil Farms Supplementary Annexation to the Town of Mead I. Letter of Intent 2. Annexation Petition 3. Affidavit of Circulator 4. Annexation Impact Report Support Information; Annexation and Development Information/Impact Assessment Narrative and Annexation Impact Report Map a. Water Rights Report b. Statement of Community Need c. Statement of School Impact d. Utility Provision Statements e. Compatibility Narrative 5. Form D-2 6. Authorization Form 7. Form D-4 8. Non-Tributary/Tributary Water Rights Deed 9. Proof of Ownership,Prepared by Weld County Title 10. Surrounding Property Owner List,Prepared by Weld County Title 11. Mineral List, Prepared by Bill Crews 12. Weld County Tax Notice a. Evidence of Inclusion in North Colorado Water Conservancy District 13. Mailing List of Adjacent Property Owners 14. Preliminary Soils Report,Attached a. Updated letter prepared by Terracon dated September 17,2004 15. Preliminary Utility Plan,Attached 16. Preliminary Drainage Report,Attached 17. Overall Concept Plan,Attached 18. Annexation Maps,attached 1269 North Cleveland Avenue• Loveland, Colorado 80537 • (970) 613-8556 • fax: (970)613-8775 email: toddhodgesdesign(aearthlink.net MFDP LLC A Colorado Limited Liability Company 1208 Wagon Wheel Court—P.O. Box 38 Berthoud Colorado 80513 (970)532-2948 April 6,2004 Planning Commission Board of Trustees Town of Mead P.O. Box 626 Mead,Colorado 80542 RE: Letter of Intent for Margil Farms Supplementary Annexation to the Town of Mead Dear Commissioners and Trustees: We are pleased to present our formal Margil Farms Supplementary Annexation to the Town of Mead. The annexation of this property is in conformance with our agreement made through the Margil Farms Annexation Agreement dated September 2, 1997 and subsequently amended. Margil Farms First Filing is completed in the South half of Section 34, Township 4N, Range 68 W. Margil Farms Second Filing is currently underway in the Northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 3N, Range 68W. Further development of the Margil Farms project will be staged in logical phases, with individual plats. Thus, development of the area is expected to continue in phases over several years. The property considered for Annexation described herein has been placed in the Preliminary Plat application to the Town of Mead under concurrent review. If this Annexation is not approved, then per note,this property will not be included in the Preliminary Plat. Adequate utilities are or will be in place as this property is developed. The area is presently served by United Power, Inc., with 3-phase power in place. Domestic water will be provided by the Little Thompson Water District. Margil Farms cooperated with downstream developers to install sewer extension. This extension links the Second Filing with the Mead Sanitary Sewer system. The land under annexation review herein will be served by the Mead Sanitary Sewer system. No general increase in rates will be caused by this annexation proposal. This approximate 22-acre parcel is requesting commercial land use designation on approximately 10 acres, as defined in the Margil Farms Annexation Agreement, as amended. The remaining acreage will include open space, stormwater detention area, road rights-of-way, ditches and ditch embankments. No residential development shall be allowed within the property. Under separate submittal to the Town of Mead, a bubble diagram of land uses on the non- residential portions of the remaining unplatted portion of Margil Farms Annexation includes this 22-acre property. This is done per the Second Amendment to Margil Farms Annexation Agreement recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder on November 15,2002. The Town of Mead's major responsibilities will be limited to police protection, road upkeep and sewer service. Other services such as fire protection, water and utilities would be provided by other agencies or utility companies. The non-residential nature of this proposal does not impact the School District. The property has been in agricultural use by the Olson family for more than four generations. The family is not aware of any unusual natural hazards or nuisances upon the property. We request the Town of Mead include an election for this Margil Farms Supplementary Annexation to the Town of Mead at the next available general election. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Aa„....7 M._______ MFDP LLC by Gary G. Olson, Operating M MFDP LL by oger E. Olson, Operating Manager Margil Farms Supplementary Annexation PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF MEAD, COLORADO: We, MFDP LLC, the undersigned landowner(s), in accordance with Colorado law, hereby petition the Town of Mead and its Board of Trustees for annexation to the Town of Mead of the following described unincorporated territory located in the County of Weld and State of Colorado, to-wit: See Exhibit A for Legal Description, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. As part of this petition, your petitioner further states to the Board of Trustees of Mead, Colorado, that: 1 . It is desirable and necessary that the territory described in Exhibit A be annexed to the Town of Mead. 2. The requirements of C.R.S. sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, as amended, exist or have been met in that: a. Not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the Town of Mead or will be contiguous with the Town of Mead within such time as required by 31-12-104. b. A community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the Town of Mead. c. The area proposed to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. d. The area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the Town of Mead. e. No land within the boundary of the territory proposed to be annexed which is held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, has been divided into separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the landowner or landowners thereof, unless such tracts or parcels were separated by a dedicated street, road or other public way. f. No land within the boundary of the area proposed to be annexed which is held in identical ownership, comprises twenty acres or more, and which, together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon has an assessed value in excess of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) for ad valorem tax purposes for the year next preceding the annexation, has been included within the area proposed to be annexed without the written consent of the landowner or landowners. r. 1 g. No annexation proceedings have been commenced for any portion of the territory proposed to be annexed for the annexation of such territory to another municipality. h. The annexation of the territory proposed to be annexed will not result in the detachment of area from any school district. i. The annexation of the territory proposed to be annexed will not have the effect of extending the boundary of the Town of Mead more than three miles in any direction from any point of the boundary of the Town of Mead in any one year. j. In establishing the boundary of the territory proposed to be annexed, if a portion of a platted street or alley is to be annexed, the entire width of the street or alley has been included within the territory to be annexed. The Town of Mead will not deny reasonable access to any landowners, owners of any easement, or the owners of any franchise adjoining any platted street or alley which is to be annexed to the Town of Mead but is not bounded on both sides by the Town of Mead. 3. The owners of more than fifty percent of the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of dedicated streets and alleys, have signed this petition and hereby petition for annexation of such territory. 4. Accompanying this petition are four copies of an annexation map containing the information following: a. A written legal description of the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed; b. A map showing the boundary or the area proposed to be annexed, said map prepared and containing the seal of a registered engineer; c. Within the annexation boundary map, a showing of the location of each ownership tract in unplatted land and, if part or all of the area is platted, the boundaries and the plat numbers of plots or of lots and blocks; d. Next to the boundary of the area proposed to be annexed, a drawing of the contiguous boundary of the Town of Mead and the contiguous boundary of any other municipality abutting the area proposed to be annexed, and a showing of the dimensions of such contiguous boundaries. 5. Upon the Annexation Ordinance becoming effective, all lands within the area proposed to be annexed will become subject to all ordinances, rules and regulations of the Town of Mead, except for general property taxes of the Town of Mead which shall become effective as the January 1 next ensuing. 6. The zoning classification (land use) requested for the area proposed to be annexed is Commercial as governed by the Margil Farms Annexation Agreement dated September 2, 1997 as subsequently amended. 2 7. The plan for the territory proposed to be annexed shall be governed by the Margil Farms Annexation Agreement dated September 2, 1997 as subsequently amended. 8. The Landowner reserves the right to withdraw its annexation request and its originally filed annexation petition. The Town and Landowner acknowledge that owner may withdraw its petition for annexation at any time thirty (30) days after notice of the Town's adoption of the ordinance annexing the property has been published. Owner's right to withdraw the petition for annexation shall expire thirty (30) days after the notice of the adoption of the annexation ordinance has been published. Prior to such time, owner may provide receipted-for written notice to the Town that the annexation has been withdrawn. While provision of the written notice will preclude the Town from annexing the property, owner shall continue to be obligated for all costs associated with the annexation. 3 r-. WHEREFORE, the following petitioner respectfully requests that the Town of Mead, acting through its Board of Trustees, approve the annexation of the area proposed to be annexed. By this acknowledgment, the undersigned hereby certify that the above information is complete and true. (if the applicant is not the owners) of the subject property, the owner(s), mortgage and/or lienholder shall also sign the Appli tion.) Owner: A� Date: 2/2—S/id IVIFDP LL¢' by ary G. Olson, Operating Manager STATE OF COLORADO ) SS. COUNTY OF WU i The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this05 day ;: OF CO Lu .. 2005 by +.— �� MYCommissionplres31112U06 Myi !mion expires: ✓ry Fx Witness My hand and official seal. / 1 N7 Pub i Owner: 40,-/ Date: „ter S MFDP LLC biRoger E. Olson, Operating Manager STATE OF COLORADO ) ] ) SS. C JOHN COUNTY OF \Al U ) a ,.••..'.. S • • • NSA The foregoing instrument was aacknowledgged/beefoorre�_me this d •�B`� 'it? 2005 by �1 e lJ 5Y i OF C01 OP My Commission Fires 311/M6 My commission expires: Witness My hand and officials o} /V Notary Public Applicant: Same as Owners Date: 02 AZI 4 —_ — -. Landowner/Petitioner 1 Date Signed Leg& Description Mailing Address of Land Owned MFDP LLC / , 1208 Wagonwheel Court OYI'�J� 00 See Exhibit A fbr Legal PO Box 38 Description Berthoud, CO 80513 l , r-. 00"- AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF W LLD ) ss. Gary G. Olson being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says that he was the circulator of this Petition for Annexation of lands to the Town of Mead, Colorado, consisting of [ 7 1 pages including this page and that each signature hereon was witnessed by your affiant and is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be. irculator STATE OF COLORADO ) SS. COUNTY OF Wtia ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /0.16— day of , 2005 by ret /f My commis n expires: Witness My hand and official seal. o cA R1-S9 •?v* ib t r • Or cOV"---- Notary P is My Camilssen E gybes 31ll208 6 MARGIL FARMS SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF MEAD LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT A: A TRACT OF LAND (LABELED PARCEL 1) LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST ''A OF SECTION 3, T3N, R68W OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST / CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ''A CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3 S88°59'41" W, A DISTANCE OF 250.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST R.O.W. LINE OF I-25; THENCE N00°33'03"W, A DISTANCE OF 1353.34 FEET ALONG SAID WEST R.O.W. LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N00°33'03"W, A DISTANCE OF 1242.38 FEET ALONG SAID WEST R.O.W. LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH R.O.W. LINE OF WCR 38; THENCE N80°58'16"W, A DISTANCE OF 496.81 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE; THENCE S89°13'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 302.28 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE S00°33'03"E, A DISTANCE OF 1157.21 FEET; THENCE S78°40'05"E, A DISTANCE OF 809.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT CONTAINING 22.11 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 7 r-� Annexation Impact Report Margil Farms Supplementary Annexation to the Town of Mead The following Annexation Impact Report for the Margil Farms Supplementary Annexation to the Town of Mead has been prepared according to documentation provided by the Town of Mead per the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, C.R.S., 31-12-108.5. As this Annexation is greater than ten (10) acres in size, this report is prepared. The final Annexation Impact Report shall be prepared by the Town of Mead. This document is prepared as support documentation for the Town of Mead as a courtesy. Consultant Qualifications This report has been prepared by Todd Hodges Design, LLC. Todd Hodges Design, LLC has extensive experience in land-use planning in the State of Colorado. Todd Hodges started Todd Hodges Design, LLC in February, 1998 with several years experience in the planning field. Prior to starting the firm, Mr. Hodges worked for the City of Stillwater, Oklahoma Planning Department. He was also a Planner for Weld County Plannir^Department for four years. In his position as Lead Planner with Weld County, Mr. Hodges supervised planning, code enforcement and drafting staff. Mr. Hodges was also involved in the Poudre Trail Project and worked with staff from the City of Greeley and Town of Windsor. Mr. Hodges holds a Bachelor's in Landscape Architecture from Oklahoma State University, and is a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects. Anne Best Johnson has a rich history with community visioning and work plan development. Ms. Johnson worked for the City of Lincoln and Lancaster County Planning Department (Nebraska) and was the State Director of the Nebraska Lied Main Street Program prior to moving to Colorado in 1997. Ms. Johnson worked for Weld County's Right to Read Program and the North Colorado Medical Center Foundation as a fund-raiser and in program development prior to becoming the Long-Range Planner for Weld County. In her position as the Long-Range Planner, Ms. Johnson led the special committees of the County Commissioner-appointed Agricultural Study and the Comprehensive Plan Update Committees. Ms. Johnson was responsible for processing and writing amendments to the County Code, the production of the St. Vrain Valley Trails and Open Space Master Plan, Grant-writing and allocation coordination, and working with citizens through land use planning. Ms. Johnson is a member of the American Planning Association and holds her American Institute of Certified Planners certificate. Both Mr. Hodges and Ms. Johnson have prepared numerous annexation applications to Colorado Municipalities. 1 Annexation Impact Report The Impact Report Map has been prepared according to the checklist provided by the Town of Mead. This map is attached. This annexation will be governed by the Margil Farms Annexation Agreement dated September 2, 1997 as amended. Municipal Service Extension The Town of Mead will provide municipal sewer and police protection services through Town Funds. Affected District List and Impact Statement The following list names each district affected by this annexation. This list was prepared from the Weld County Tax Notice issued to the applicant for Account R7529699, and confirmed with Claude Hanes, Weld County Treasurer(2-10-04). As this annexation is proposing Non- Residential uses, the impact to local public school district systems is non-existent. There will be no additional students generated by this annexation. As a result,no capital construction is required to educate the non-existent students generated by this annexation. District Type District Name Fire Protection Berthoud Fire Protection District ,—. School District RE-1J Water District Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Water District Saint Vrain/Left Hand Water Conservancy District County Weld County Library Weld Library District 2 Margil Farms Supplementary Annexation to the Town of Mead Annexation and Development Information The following information has been submitted as attachments to this annexation document: Preliminary Soils Report, Preliminary Utility Plan, Water Rights Report, and Drainage Report. The Water Rights Report is not necessary as stated by Gary West on February 25, 2004. This information is based upon the fact that the property has not been irrigated. Statement of Community Need The property will provide a 2 acre allowance (less existing CDOT right-of-way) for future right-of-way for an I-25 and WCR 38 Interchange into the Town of Mead. This proposal also provides for 10 acres of non-residential land use designation as defined in the Margil Farms Annexation Agreement dated September2, 1997 and as amended. The remaining acreage of this property will be used for open space, storm water detention area, road rights-of-way, and ditches and their associated ditch embankments. The regional transportation and storm water detention components are vital benefits to the Town of Mead as well as the region. The 10 acre non- residential component will blend with the non-residential corridor planned through the Margil Farms Annexation. Elements of traffic flow and design will be made with regard to surrounding property uses. Statement of School Impact The impact of this annexation to the local public school district is non-existent as this is a non-residential Annexation proposal. No capital construction is required to educate the non- existent students generated by this annexation. 1 Utility Provision Statements Impact Assessment 6.1 Water— Water will be provided by Little Thompson Water District. The projected usage is 200,000 gallons/year. Current service is located in Weld County Road 38 adjacent to the northern property boundary. 6.2 Sewer- Sanitary Sewer Service is to be provided by the Town of Mead. Effluent quantities are projected to be within the single-family equivalents allocated to Margil Farms. Margil Farms cooperated with downstream developers to install sewer extension. This extension links Margil Farms with the Mead Sanitary Sewer system. The land under Annexation review herein will be served by the Mead Sanitary Sewer system. A connection will be made at Tincup Lane adjacent to the property. Treatment will be handled at the Mead Waste Water Treatment Plant. 6.3 Natural Gas— Xcel Energy will provide Natural Gas Service. Fifteen thousand (15,000) is the projected units per year. The current location of available service is 500 feet to the West. 6.4 Electric— United Power will provide Electric Service. Seventy-five thousand kilowatts is the projected units per year. The current location of available service is in Weld County Road 38 adjacent to the northern property boundary. 6.5 Telephone— Qwest will provide Telephone service. Ten is the projected units per year. The current location of available service is at Weld County Road 38 adjacent to the northern property boundary. 6.6 Streets - Internal streets will be designed to provide an interconnection between surrounding property uses and the existing Town road network. The internal street cross-sections are equivalent to Town standards and therefore, a cross-section is not submitted herein. 6.7 Drainage The historic drainage for this parcel flows to the east toward I-25. There are two 60" RCP that have provided conveyance to the other side of the highway. As Margil Farms Filing No. 2 was developed, a detention pond was built to the east of the development(the southern portion of the parcel to be annexed.) As development continues, this detention pond will grow to the west. 6.8 Law enforcement— Law Enforcement will be provided by the Town of Mead. There are no additional security needs or officers required as a result of this development. 2 6.9 Fire protection— This proposal is within the Berthoud Fire Protection District. There are no special fire hazards. The Fire District requirements will be met at the time a building permit is pulled and a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 6.10 Parks and recreation - This proposal will not produce a negative impact to the Town of Mead's open space, park System, active play areas, sports fields,tot lots, or trail systems. 6.11. Environmental considerations— Not applicable due to existing site uses and surrounding properties. 6.12 Economic development potential— The Margil Farms Second Annexation to the Town of Mead proposes a non-residential component coupled with regional transportation and drainage needs. ^ 3 Compatibility Statements 7.1 Street Master Plan— The location of streets are illustrated on the following plans. The placement is consistent with the Overall Development Plan as outlined in the Margil Farms Annexation Agreement dated September 2, 1997 as amended. The applicant has reviewed regional plans for the area to determine potential for future connections. Internal streets are not designed/delineated at this time. These details shall be presented to the Town at the time of Final Plat. 7.2 Subdivision Plan— The Margil Farms Second Annexation proposes a non-residential component to be compatible and interconnected with the non-Residential portions of the Margil Farms Annexation. 7.3 Comprehensive Plan This Annexation is compatible with the Town of Mead's Comprehensive Plan, dated April, 1997. Page 4 of such document states, "Mead has maintained an annexation policy until recently which has resulted in a boundary which is somewhat meandering. More recently, the town's voters adopted a policy which requires a vote of the electorate prior to annexation. There is great interest in infill development to fill in the service area of the town in a more logical way. A compact form of development is desirable to facilitate the logical extension of services." This small 20+ acre annexation was not annexed at the time of the other Margil Farms annexation and thus completes Margil Farms. This property is contiguous to existing Town Boundaries and within the boundary defined by the Mead Area Comprehensive Plan Mead Area of Influence Map. Goal 1 of the Mead Comprehensive Plan states, "Plan and guide the growth of the community through implementation of the three areas of interest concept." Strategy 1.6 supports the annexation pattern within the Mead Service Area to be toward infill. This project is an infill annexation as discussed above. Strategy 1.7 encourages a responsible approach to planning neighborhoods and the entry to the Town of Mead. This annexation is located at the southwestern corner of I-25 and Weld County Road 38. Allowance is made for a potential 5-acre (less existing CDOT right-of-way) interchange into the Town of Mead. This annexation will conform to the high standards of design and quality of land use planning as has been observed with the previous Margil Farms annexation and developments. This annexation will provide an entry to the Town of Mead future residents will have pride in. Goal 3 (Page 9) of the Mead Comprehensive Plan regards an interconnected transportation system as important to the Town. Allowance has been made for a future interchange at Weld County Road 38 and I-25. Goal 5 (Page 10) states the provision"for landscape beautification of roadways, parking lots, town entryways and other visually undesirable uses" is important. The development result will be high quality. Goal 9 (Page 21) of the Mead Comprehensive Plan states, "Maximize the choices for Mead residents and persons passing through Mead for commercial opportunities." This annexation embodies this goal as it is an annexation proposing non-residential uses. The location is prime, 4 at the southwestern corner of I-25 and WCR 38. This location allows for a future 5-acre (less existing CDOT right-of-way) interchange into the Town of Mead from the Interstate. Strategy 9.9.A(Page 23) lists standards of Commercial Retail Land Uses. These goals have been reviewed in preparing this document and anticipate reaching these goals with future planning efforts in the area. This annexation proposal also provides the opportunity for Economic Development and growth of such to the Town of Mead. "The ideal community land use mix contains enough residential for a healthy population, enough public and quasi-public uses to provide adequate services, enough commercial to meet the retail and service needs of the residents, and enough planned industrial land use such that the emerging generation can find work and stay in the community. This mix rarely occurs in a vacuum or fortuitously but comes about as a result of forward thinking decision-makers and pro-active programs intended to achieve such goals and objectives." The Margil Farms Annexation has been designated for a variety of Residential and Non-Residential uses. This annexation project does propose a strengthening of the Non- Residential component to add to the economic base for the community of Mead, supporting Goals 10, 11 and 13 (Pages 26 and 27). 7.4 Land Use Code The Town of Mead Land Use Code, Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code,was consulted in preparing this application. The Buildable area defined in Section 16-8-20 has been followed. The provisions set forth by Division 4, Industrial and Commercial Standards have been incorporated. 7.5 Existing and Adjacent Land Use Existing and proposed adjacent land uses include mixed development uses. After review of existing and proposed adjacent land uses, future land use on this parcel will be in harmony with surrounding land uses. Buffering shall be achieved by the proposed roadway separating proposed residential development to the west from uses proposed in this application. The Land Use Code specifically states criteria that must be met to achieve compatibility in Division 5. These standards have been used when appropriate to this application. 5 LARGE MAPS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CLERK TO THE BOARD'S OFFICE, IN THE PUBLIC REVIEW FILE. TOWN OF MEAD LAND USE CODE FORM D-2 ANNEXATION APPLICATION AND DECISION RECORD FORA MAJOR LAND USE CHANGE Name of Subdivision: Margil Farms, Supplementary Annexation Applicable Section(s): Copies Required: A. Preliminary Plat Submission Requirements. 1. Applicant's name, address and telephone number: MFDP LLC 1208 Wagonwheel Court, PO Box 38 Berthoud, Colorado 80513 Phone Number: (970) 535-0757 2. Legal description of the property to be platted: SEE EXHIBIT A TO THE ANNEXATION PETITION. 3. Proposed land use change located in Mead Performance District No. 1 . 4. Give a brief nonlegal description of the existing land use of the site and of the general character of the use of adjacent lands. The property is currently in drvland pasture. Surrounding property uses to the West include single family residential; to the East is 1-25, to the North and South is proposed non-residential, 5. Give a brief nonlegal description of the proposed land use including the number of living units, amount of commercial and industrial space, etc. An allocation of approximately 2 acres(5.5 acres less existing CDOT right-of-way) has been made so as to not preclude a potential interchange at 1-25 and WCR 38. Approximately 10 acres is proposed as non- residential uses similar to those uses allowed through the Margil Farms Annexation Agreements, as amended,the remainder will be used for open space, stormwater detention, road rights-of-way, ditches and ditch embankments. 6. Provide all material required by the"Application Submittal Checklist for Form O-2." 7. The fiscal impact analysis, Form 0-4. 8. The agreement for payment of review fees, Form D-5. 9. The required application fee ($25.00) and cash deposit($2,500.00) Mead-0-2 Form LOC.wpd Revised October 17,2001(4:37pm) 1O. Provide other information that the applicant believes will assist the Planning Commission and the Board of Trustees in making a fair decision. [attach additional sheets as necessary] This application is an infill Annexation adjacent to the existing Margil Farms Annexation to the Town of Mead and represents a Non-Residential component compatible to the same component north of WCR 38 in the existing Mardi/Farms Annexation to the Town of Mead as well as property_ south of this proposed Annexation. -. 11. Signature of the Applicant By this acknowledgment, the undersigned hereby certify that the above information is complete and true. (if the applicant is not the owner(s) of the subject property, the owner(s), mortgage and/or Iienholder shall also sign the Application.) _..__ Date: 1/4 /ef- zs Owner: ._/(fid- MFDP LLC bI ry G. Olson, Operating Manager STATE OF COLORADO) e.a� •'' 'Okl1/9 COUNTY OF\yti ) The regoing i strum nt was acknowledged before me this day of , ZOO5 by My cornmi ion expires: `:t .. ;.j O -7; Sl;J% 1 ..,..4:;) Witness my hand and official seal. c('Ofi CO\-OAP • ✓, Notary Public My Commission Expires 3/1/2006 '---. Owner. /-�/--fij - Date: ./,s-/5 MFDP LLQ'Roger E. Olson, Operating Manager STATE OF COLORADO) r I )13S- COUNTY COUNTY OF �f e �7 — `� T foregoing stru as acknowledged before me this�+55 day of r. ,/L4.. = il�S t1 f ` y remission expires: ('-:.\\..O. rI • • 1 Witness my hand and official sea / • . # i • o ' - Notary Public 't,1*ti. .. v9S 1` ,„,--.......,..4e,, F coy._ -_ My Concession Expires 311/2008 Applicant Same as Owner Date: , 6• 0055 (attach additional signatures as necessary) 1 mead-rt-2 Form LUC.WO Rowed October 17,2001(4:37pm) *****************APPLICANT NOT TO WRITE BELOW THIS LINE******************* B. Review Agency Comments. 1. Building Official: 2. Town Engineer: 3. Town Attorney: 4. Other Referrals: C. Further information requested, if any: D. Action by the Planning Commission: 1. The application is complete. Yes_ No_ 2. The application is for a Major Land Use Change. Yes_ No_ 3. The requirements of the Mead Land Use Code have been satisfied. Yes_ No_ 4. If the application is for the annexation of property,has the annexation question benn submitted to,and approved by the electorate? Yes_ No_ 5. The application is: _ approved _ disapproved _ approved with the following conditions: a) b) c) d) (attach additional conditions as necessary) Mead-D-2 Form LUC.wpd 3 Revised October 17.2001(437pm) DONE by the Mead Planning Commission of Mead, Colorado, this day of , 20 ATTEST: Secretary to the Commission Chairman Mead-O-2 Form lUC wpd 4 Revised October 17,2001(4;37pm) • E. Action by the Board of Trustees. 1. The application is complete. Yes_ No_ 2. The application is for a Major Land Use Change. Yes_ No_ 3. The requirements of the Mead Land Use Code have been satisfied. Yes No 4. The application is: _ approved _ disapproved _ approved with the following conditions: a) b) c) d) (attach additional conditions as necessary) DONE by the Mead Board of Trustees of Mead, Colorado, this day of , 20_ ATTEST: Town Clerk Mayor Mead-D-2 Form LUC.wed 5 Revised October 17,2001(437pm) MFDP LLC A Colorado Limned Liability Con cony 1208 Wagon Wheel Court—P.O.Box 38 Berthoud Colorado 80513 (970)535-0757 February 25,2005 To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that We,MFDP LLC,hereby authorize Todd Hodges Design, LLC,to represent us in our endeavor to annex our land, located in the NE 1/4 Section 3-T3N-R68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. MFDP LLC by Gary G. Olson, Operating Manager n MFDP LLC b Roger E. Olson, Operating Manager TOWN OF MEAD LAND USE CODE FORM D-4 FISCAL ANALYSIS (Required for all Conceptual and Final Applications) (for Major Land Use Changes) Applicable Section(s): Copies Required: Applicant's name, address and telephone number: MFDP LLC Gary G. Olson and Roger E. Olson, Operating Managers 1208 Wagonwheel Court, PO Box 38 Berthoud, CO 80513 (970)535-0757 Name of the Project: Margil Farms Supplementary Annexation REVENUES. A. Recurring Revenues: 1. Property Tax. Market value all single family units( ](t) x factor[ 9.74% 1'4 = Assessed Valuation 1 0 Market value all multi-family units ( l(t) x facto r( 9.74% 1(�)=Assessed Valuation ( 0 Market value all mobile home units( 1(t) x factor(9.74% 1(2) =Assessed Valuation 1 0 1 Market value all non-residential structures F 1,000,000.00](f) x factor( 29% 1(2) =Assessed Valuation [$290,000.001 Total Assessed Valuation ($290,000.001 Total Assessed Valuation [$290,000.00] x Town mill levy [ 12.879 mills ](3)=Town Property Tax Revenue J$3,734.911 Total Assessed Valuation [$290,000.00] x School mill levy ( 40.374 mills 1(3) = School Property Tax Revenue J$11,708.46] Developer's projected market value. (2)Call county assessor to determine what factor to use in order to obtain current assessed value of proposed development from market value in the area. (3)Contact the Town Clerk for current factors. 1 Total Assessed Valuation ($290,000.00] x Berthoud Fire District mill levy ( 13.774 mills 1(3)= Fire District Property Tax Revenue J$3,994.461 Total Assessed Valuation ($290,000.00] x Berthoud Fire District Bond mill levy f 1.500 mills 1(3'= Fire District Bond Property Tax Revenue ($435.001 Total Assessed Valuation [$290,000.00] x County mill levy( 21.474 mills 1(3)=County Property Tax Revenue f$6,227.461 Total Assessed Valuation($290,000.00]x all other mill levies( 4.552 mills 1( ) =Other Property Tax Revenue [$1.320.081 Total Property Tax Revenue ($27,420.371 2. Sales Tax. Population in the development[ 0 1 x the last year's per capita collection [ $48.46 1(3) =total annual sales tax revenue ( 0 1 3. Water Revenue. Population in the development[ 0 x the last years per capita collection J $144.34 it es-- =total annual sales tax revenue [ 0 1 4. Sewer Revenue. Population in the development[ 0 1i x the last year's per capita collection [ $75.21 13> =total annual sales tax revenue ( 0 1 5. Other Revenue(taxes,fees, permits, etc.). Population in the development[ 0 1 x the last years per capita collection [ $65.80 1(3) =total annual sales tax revenue 1 0 1 TOTAL RECURRING REVENUE ($27,420.371 I`•• 2 B. One-Time Revenues. 1. Building Permits. Market value of structure(s) [$1,000,000.00](1) x factor j .0099375 +$30.00/BP 1(3) =building permit revenue f$9,937.50+ $30.00/BP1 2. Use Taxes. Market value of structure(s) [$1,000,000.00](1) x 50%x 2% = use tax revenue f$10,000.001 3. Water Plant Investment. Total taps x factor[ $5,100.00 ]t3' =total PIF [ N/A 1 4. Sewer Plant Investment. Total taps x factor[ $3,000.00 1(3) = total PIF [ N/A 1 TOTAL ONE TIME REVENUE J$19,937.50+ $30.00/BP +1 (1)Developer's projected market value. is Call county assessor to determine what factor to use in order to obtain current assessed value of proposed development from market value in the area. rat Contact the Town Clerk for current factors. 3 II. EXPENDITURES. A. Recurring Costs. 1. Street Maintenance. Acres in development[101 x 4%x factor ( $2,287.00 ]t = total street maintenance costs f$9.148.001 2. Police Protection. Projected population at full development[ 0 1 x per capita cost of police protection [ $23.87 1(3) =total police protection costs f 0 1 3. General Government. Projected population at full development f 0 x per capita cost of general government( $87.18 ]t I =total general government costs ( 0 1 4. Parks and Recreation. Projected population at full development[ 0 x per capita cost of park maintenance [ $10.00 1(3 =total park maintenance costs ( 0 1 Projected population at full development[ 0 x per capita cost of recreation program J $50.00 1 I = total recreation program costs [ 0 1 5. Water Treatment and Delivery. Projected population at full development( 0 1 x per capita cost of water treatment and delivery I $221.42 1(3) =total water costs ( 0 1 (')Developer's projected market value. (2)Call county assessor to determine what factor to use in order to obtain current assessed value of proposed development from market value in the area. nr Contact the Town Clerk for current factors. 4 6. Sewer Collection and Treatment. Projected population at full development[ 0 1 x per capita cost of sewer collection and treatment f $100.20 1(3) =total sewer costs 1 0 1 7. Storm Water and Drainage. Projected population at full development( 0 1 x per capita cost of storm water and drainage maintenance 1 1(3)=total storm water costs 1 0 1 TOTAL RECURRING COSTS 1$9,148.001 B. One-Time Costs. 1. Park and Recreation. Projected population at full development 1 0 1 x .001 facilities per capita x 5,000 sq.ft. x average cost per sq.ft. for recreation facilities J $65.00 1(3) =total recreation facilities costs 1 0 1 2. Water Plant. Projected population at full development[ 0 1 x gallons per capita 1 220 1(3)x cost per gallon of capacity 1 $5.50 lt3t=total cost of water plant [ 0 1 3. Sewer Plant. Projected population at full development 1 0 1 x gallons per capita[ 120 gal. 131 x cost per gallon of capacity [ $3.50 1(3)=total cost of sewer plant 1 0 1 TOTAL ONE-TIME COSTS 1 0 1 TOTAL RECURRING REVENUES f$ 27,420.371 TOTAL RECURRING EXPENDITURES/COSTS f$ 9,148.001 DIFFERENCE 1$ 18.272.371 TOTAL ONE-TIME REVENUES f$19,937.50 +$30.00/BP +1 TOTAL ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES/COSTS 1 $0 1 DIFFERENCE I$19,937.50 + $30.00/BP +1 ************************************************************************* 1)Developer's projected market value. m Call county assessor to determine what factor to use in order to obtain current assessed value of proposed development from market value in the area. (3)Contact the Town Clerk for current factors. 5 M. Signature of the Applicant. By this acknowledgment,the undersigned hereby certify that the above information is complete and true. (If the applicant is not the owner(s)of the subject property,the owner(s), mortgage and/or lienholder shall also sign the Application.) Owner: A v� Date: Z/2 S O cc, J/1/1, MDP LL7Gary(3. Olson, Operating Manager Q;SO `'r i'Pek • • • STATE OF COLORADO ) N9T• A....... e t_,G.QUO OF COL COUNTY OF \MA ) SS. 6 • O '�y,CommissionEx es&1II008 Th Ding irstrume was acknowledged before me this 2 c day of _ Y ,2005 by !`j^ CJ Myy commission expires: Witrress My hand and e . I. Notary. is Owner. % % y Date: !�� s MFDP LLC by4oger E. Olson, Operating Manager STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF Ivelt� SS. by The r of uystrurlte was acknowledged before me this aS day of/T.ib ,2005 My co expires: Witness My hand and official seal. • ublic Applicant: Same as Owner_Date: A- � (attach additional signatures as necessary) f • • q O • 0 6 • ' • pP' My Commission Expires 3/V2008 6 eeD Syecia(Warranty Deed THIS DEED is a conveyance of real property from the person(s)or legal entity named below as GRANTOR to the person(s)or legal entity named below as GRANTEE. The GRANTOR hereby sells and conveys to the GRANTEE the real property described below with all its appurtenances,and the GRANTOR warrants the title against all persons claiming under the GRANTOR, except for any particular matters described below under"Additional Warranty Exceptions,"and except for any of the following matters established by the GRANTOR and evidenced by recorded document easements, rights-of-way, mineral grants, mineral leases, and protective covenants and restrictions. The GRANTOR does not warrant against the lien of the general property taxes for the year of this Deed. If the Grantor intends this Deed to convey less than his entire interest in the Property or if the Grantor intends to impose restrictions on the Grantee's use of the Property,then appropriate language has been added below under"Reservations And/Or Restrictions." If there are two or more Grantees named in this Deed,they are accepting this conveyance as tenants in common, unless the words "joint tenancy with right of survivorship"or'joint tenancy°have been added below under"Form of Co-Ownership." The Grantor acknowledges that there is good and/or valuable consideration for this Deed, and that the consideration is adequate;the indication of a dollar amount below under'Consideration" does not necessarily mean that the stated amount is the only consideration for this Deed, and the absence of a stated amount under°Consideration"is not intended to indicate that there is no consideration for this Deed. The following information completes this Deed: GRANTOR: (Give Name(s),Address(es),and Marital Status) MFDP LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company PO Box 38 Berthoud CO 80513 GRANTEE: (Give Name(s),Address(es) Town of Mead P.O. Box 626 Mead CO 80542 FORM OF CO-OWNERSHIP: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: All non-tributary and not non-tributary groundwater as defined by C.R.S. §37-90-103, whether adjudicated,unadjudicated,permitted or unpennitted, underlying the property (part of the NE 'A Section 3,Township 3N,Range 68 West of the 6`"P.M.)described in Exhibit A,attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. PROPERTY ADDRESS: CONSIDERATION: RESERVATIONS AND/OR RESTRICTIONS: (If none, leave blank) ADDITIONAL WARRANTY EXCEPTIONS: (If none, leave blank) Signed on , 20 r Gary G. Olson, Operating Manager Grantor Roger E. Olson,Operating Manager Grantor STATE OF COLORADO ss: COUNTY OF Weld The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 By Gary G. Olson and Roger E. Olson as Operating Manager(s)of MFDP LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF ss: COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 by WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public LEGAL DESCRIPTION ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF MEAD A TRACT OF LAND(LABELED PARCEL 1)LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST'/.OF SECTION 3,T3N, R68W OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST '/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST%CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3 S88°59'41"W, A DISTANCE OF 250.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST R.O.W. LINE OF I-25;THENCE N00°33'03"W,A DISTANCE OF 1353.34 FEET ALONG SAID WEST R.Q.W. LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N00°33'03"W, A DISTANCE OF 1242.38 FEET ALONG SAID WEST R.O.W. LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH R.O.W. LINE OF WCR 38; THENCE N80°58'16"W, A DISTANCE OF 496.81 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE;THENCE S89°13'44"W,A DISTANCE OF 302.28 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE S00°33'03"E, A DISTANCE OF 1157.21 FEET;THENCE S78°40'05"E,A DISTANCE OF 809.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT CONTAINING 22.11 ACRES MORE OR LESS. a LandAmerica® PRIVACY POLICY NOTICE Dear LandAmerica Customer: The Financial Services Modernization Act recently enacted by Congress has brought many changes to the financial services industry, which includes insurance companies and their agents. One of the changes is that we are now required to explain to our customers the ways in which we collect and use customer information. The statement attached to or on the reverse side of this letter is the privacy policy of the LandAmerica family of companies. The three largest members of the family - Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, and Transnation Title Insurance Company - may issue policies and handle real estate closings in virtually every part of the country. A number of other companies in the family provide other real estate services, and some operate more locally. You may review a list of LandAmerica companies on our website (www.landam.com). You may also visit our website for an explanation of our privacy practices relating to electronic communication. Our concern with the protection of your information has been a part of our business since 1876, when the company that is now Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company issued its first policy. We will continue to protect the privacy, accuracy, and security of customer information given to us. No response to this notice is required, but if you have questions, please write to us: LandAmerica Privacy P.O. Box 27567 Richmond, VA 23261-7567. LandAmerica Companies Title Insurance Companies: Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company of New Jersey, Industrial Valley Title Insurance Company, Land Title Insurance Company. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, Title Insurance Company of America, Transnation Title Insurance Company, Transnation Title Insurance Company of New York Relocation and Mortgages: Commonwealth Relocation Services, CRS Financial Services, Inc., LandAmerica Account Servicing, Inc. Title Agents: Austin Title Company, ATACO, Inc., Albuquerque Title Company, Atlantic Title & Abstract Company, Brighton Title Services Company, Capitol City Title Services, Inc., CFS Title Insurance Agency, Charleston Title Agency; Charter Title Company of Fort Bend, Galveston, and Sugarland; Commercial Settlements, Inc., Commonwealth Land Title Company; Commonwealth Land Title Company of Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Washington, Congress Abstract Corp., Cornerstone Residential Title, Cumberland Title Company, First Title & Escrow, Inc., Gulf Atlantic, Harbour Title, HL Title Agency, Lawyers Title Company; Lawyers Title of Arizona, El Paso, Galveston, Nevada, Pueblo, San Antonio, Lawyers Title Settlement Company, Lion Abstract, Longworth Insured, Louisville Title Agency of Central Ohio, Lorain County Title Company, M/I Title Agency, NIA7 Lawyers Title Agency, Oregon Title, Park Title, Partners Title Company, Pikes Peak Title Services, RE/Affirm Title Agency, Rainier Title Company, Residential Abstract, Residential Title, Rio Rancho Title, Texas Title Company, Title Transfer Service, Inc., TransOhio Residential Title Agency, Transnation Title &Escrow, Union Title Agency, University Title Services, Wilson Title Company Appraisals and Ancillary Services: LandAmerica OneStop, Inc. LANDAMERICA PRIVACY POLICY What kinds of information we collect. Most of LandAmerica's business is title insurance, but there are companies in our family that provide other real estate services to consumers. We collect information about you, (for instance, your name, address, telephone number), and information about your transaction, including the identity of the real property that you are buying or financing. We obtain a copy of any deeds, notes, or mortgages that are involved in the transaction. We may get this information from you or from the lender, attorney, or real estate broker that you have chosen. Our title insurance companies then obtain information from the public records about the property so that we can prepare a title insurance policy. When we provide closing, escrow, or settlement services, mortgage lending, or mortgage loan servicing, we may get your social security number, and we may receive additional information from third parties including appraisals, credit reports, land surveys, escrow account balances, and sometimes bank account numbers to facilitate the transaction. If you are concerned about the information we have collected, please write to us. How we use this information. The company giving or specifically adopting this notice does not share your information with marketers outside its own family. There's no need to tell us to keep your information to ourselves because we share your information only to provide the service requested by your or your lender, or in other ways permitted by law. The privacy laws permit some sharing without your approval. We may share internally and with nonaffiliated third parties in order to carry out and service your transaction, to protect against fraud or unauthorized transactions, for institutional risk control, and to provide information to government and law enforcement agencies. Companies within a family may share certain information among themselves in order to identify and market their own products that they think may be useful to you. Credit information about you is shared only to facilitate your transaction or for some other purpose permitted by law. How we protect your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need the information to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with law to guard your nonpublic personal information. We reinforce the company's privacy policy with our employees. Agents that may be covered by this policy. Often, your transaction goes through a title insurance agent. Agents that are part of the LandAmerica family are covered by this policy. Agents that are not part of the LandAmerica family may specifically, in writing, adopt our policy statement. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE � t isLandAmerica Lawyers Title Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation,a Virginia corporation,herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance,as identified in Schedule A,in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A,as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company,either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six(6)months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall be issued,whichever first occurs,provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers, this Commitment to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company. �l •,,-�y Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation o Attest: 'Nun yshr By: Lege4—.,,t_ .� Ala-w-4 L . ,qy a ft �+ %3(STJAL'1?2% Secretary r 1925 /" President .• o y r. ,af EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE I. The term mortgage,when used herein,shall include deed of trust,trust deed,or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect,lien,encumbrance,adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter,the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly,but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith(a)to comply with the requirements hereof,or(b)to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B,or(c)to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. ALTA Commitment 1966 Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE INSURED OWNER: Re: Mechanic's Lien and Gap Protection This is to advise that Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation makes available to its prospective insured owners, in conjunction with their Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation policy covering a single family residence, including a condominium or townhouse unit, protection against mechanic's liens. This protection is not automatic nor given in all cases, but is subject to the Company's Underwriting requirements, and does not cover those liens which arise out of work contracted for or entered into at the request of the insured owner. • These underwriting requirements include, but may not be limited to, the following: 1. Receipt by the Company of agreement(s) indemnifying it for any loss resulting from its granting of lien protection, executed by the seller, contractor or others who might have incurred debts which could result in mechanic's liens; 2. Information concerning the solvency and whereabouts of the parties set forth in Item No. 1, possibly including financial statements; 3. Evidence of payment of any bills which might have been incurred for work done on the property, depending upon the length of time elapsed since the last work was completed and what remains to be done; es- 4. In the event of extensive recent construction, whether on all of the improvements upon the property or not, additional items required may include: (a) the Company's review of the owner's and/or builder's history relative to construction projects previously completed or presently under construction; (b) review of the construction loan agreement, if applicable; (c) review of any performance or materialmen's bonds concerning this construction, if applicable; (d) payment of the appropriate charge for mechanic's lien protection during construction, if applicable. This is also to advise that, pursuant to Regulation of the Colorado Insurance Commissioner, every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording, and subsequent to the effective date of the commitment, whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed. This does not include those matters created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured. The prospective insured is advised to inquire of the closing entity as to whether it is an office of Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, or is an independent agent which will be the responsible entity relative to the closing only. .-� Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Schedule A 1. Effective Date: Commitment No.: March 03, 2005, at 7:00 am LTTL0000222 C-2 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount Premium A. ALTA Owner's Policy - 10/17/92 $0.00 Proposed Insured: Informational Commitment B. ALTA Loan Policy - 10/17/92 $0.00 Proposed Insured: Tax Information Services $350.00 The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is Fee Simple and Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in: MFDP, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation Prepared By: Trudy Meis Commitment No. LTTL0000222 C-2 Exhibit"A" A tract of land located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 3; thence along the South line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 3 South 88 degrees 59 minutes 41 seconds West, a distance of 250.01 feet to a point on the West R.O.W. line of I-25; thence North 00 degrees 33 minutes 03 seconds West a distance of 1353.34 feet along said West R.O.W. line to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 00 degrees 33 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of 1242.38 feet along said West R.O.W. line to a point on the South R.O.W. line of WCR 38; thence North 80 degrees 58 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 496.81 feet along said South R.O.W. line; thence South 89 degrees 13 minutes 44 seconds West, a distance of 302.28 feet along said South R.O.W. line; thence leaving said South R.O.W. line South 00 degrees 33 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 1157.21 feet; thence South 78 degrees 40 minutes 05 seconds East, a distance of 809.51 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Commitment No. LTTL0000222 C-2 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with prior to the issuance of said policy or policies. Any other instrument recorded subsequent to the date hereof may appear as an exception under Schedule B of the policy to be issued. Unless otherwise noted, all documents must be recorded in the Office of Clerk and Recorder of the county in which said property is located. NOTE: Pursuant to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122) the Company will not issue its policy or policies of title insurance contemplated by this commitment until it has been provided a Certificate of Taxes Due or other equivalent documentation from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent; or until the proposed insured has notified or instructed the Company in writing to the contrary. NOTE: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the Clerk and Recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half inch. The Clerk and Recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform. NOTE: This commitment has been issued for information purposes only and there are no requirements. The liability of the Company in terms of this Commitment is limited to the charges paid for the Commitment. Commitment No. LTTL0000222 C-2 SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The Policy or Policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien or right to a;lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments, and all unredeemed tax sales, if any. 7. Right of way for county road and incidental purposes 30 feet wide on either side of Section and Township lines as established by Order of the Board of County Commissioners for Weld County, recorded October 14, 1889 in Book 86 at Page 273. 8. Reservations by the Union Pacific Railroad Company of all coal all as contained in Deed recorded November 27, 1897 in Book 153 at Page 458; and recorded April 5, 1910 in Book 327 at Page 203, and any interests therein or rights thereunder. 9. Each and every right or rights of access conveyed to The Department of Highways, State of Colorado by Deed recorded April 8, 1959 in Book 1528 at Page 529. 10. An undivided 1/4 interest in all fossil fuel, oil, gas and minerals rights as conveyed to Gary C. Olson in a Deed recorded July 12, 1983 in Book 1001 as Reception No. 1933300 and any interest therein or rights thereunder. 11. An undivided 1/4 interest in all fossil fuel, oil, gas and minerals rights as conveyed to Roger E. Olson in a Deed recorded July 12, 1983 in Book 1001 as Reception No. 1933301 and any interest therein or rights thereunder. 12. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Agreement by and between Gilman E. Olson and Margaret B. Olson and Highland Lake Lateral Ditch Company recorded September 27, 1985 in Book 1085 as Reception No. 2026396. 13. Right of way for McKay Lateral as evidenced by Statement filed in the Weld County Clerk & Recorder's Office, insofar as the same may affect. 14. Right of way for Mead Lateral as evidenced by Statement filed in the Weld County Clerk & Recorder's Office, insofar as the same may affect. 15. Right of way for Ballenger Reservoir as evidenced by statement filed in the Weld County Clerk & Recorder's Office, insofar as the same may affect. Commitment No. LTTL0000222 C-2 16. The following notice has been recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Weld County pursuant to CRS 9-1.5-03(1). This instrument does not define the exact location of the underground facilities and may or may not affect the subject property: United Power, Inc., formerly Union Rural Electric Association, Inc., recorded January 24, 1991 in Book 1288 as Reception No. 2239296. 17. Covenants and restrictions recorded March 3, 2000 as Reception No. 2753399; and Amendment recorded January 25, 2001 as Reception No. 2821302, but omitting any covenant or restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin unless and oly to the extent that said covenant (a) is exempt under Chapter 42, section 3607 of the Unites States Code or (by relates to handicap but does not discriminate against handicap persons. 18. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in Agreement for Construction of Sewer Line by and between MFD, LLC, Barbara J. and Gerald J. Forro, Vale View Development Company, LLC and The Town of Mead recorded September 29, 1999 as Reception No. 2723420. 19. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not shown by the public records. 20. Request For Notification of Surface Development executed by RME Petroleum Company (formerly known as Union Pacific Resources Company) and/or RME Land Corp. (formerly known as Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation) and recorded May 28, 2002 as Reception No. 2954758. 21. Right of way, whether in fee or easement only, for storm drainage and detention, as granted to Willowbrook Development, LLC, Olson Bros. LLC and MFDP LLC, in the instrument recorded July 28, 2003 as Reception No. 3088394, the location of which is shown in the map attached to said instrument. 22. Right of way, whether in fee or easement only, for storm drainage and detention, as granted to Town of Mead by 247, LLC and MFDP, LLC, in the instrument recorded November 24, 2003 as Reception No. 3129472, the location of which is shown in the map attached to said instrument. NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122 notice is hereby given that: (A) The subject property may be located in a special taxing district; (B) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent; (C) INFORMATION regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. i t g t sa`aa2a^a22 En=aaae$gsgeaEE 22 2`2223 23323321323 1 332,3333.1138133333 I p AIIIIII:Pr aaaamaIE MIMI eavaoa H Eaeo a 3223° E §Ea 8888883838 8888 888 VEEU Epp° 888g88gg88g8888 888E ^ 888 pp�pppppE pp�ppp E 88888888 pp � s iiV II€Igi& iiif€te ti€ egggg€1ll 31333333-- g;as" €€ 3 Iii uuoSS::::.5'w8 ef.Stl 3 -m , -,xm3 9�.93S39fmm a"isfl ee ,. ,3 •. e are a I I z ILLpp o o €III I ea Ss . a . . as.: e <' I2:pa opEY:4m -mt{efie max . m f.E1$s pW$ flAf l3 w IM I,d9;i£Cemi,V1. . laa>]II! `iii £{om2Ta. al33 uji SzY I $25.4.niAI2ea"sRoa� s^P tni.”aaa mm i1;2 RW 22222 3g8 �{ a g i6 E Q g : s f a & o 4 5 g 3 oyfe ice€ y I e E E Ai ms Y 5 2 in e; ilia i.zV e z F . °se gE : Z: .wee ££ e —p 6 i i gill E u° $2� ffi$ Of! $ $ec s $ fax 9 a a I € Itf!I Ie <e • ( y (m oo if "t BEEEEE�Ei^t.ikas-e^, EEEEEEEEm LS'SS SFIS ~ e@S 'S SSpp 3•pmi� Sil'Uggmen3 mm SZe goonowFE3t0tt£®t0E0® ECEE00@Ot iaatkatiabaiffi r 000 �peppeeo38umpp°p°136 �u'uA°3G u'8 pppepo8pm ppd 86 pax n' ,p'p'a' e { EI g. . t ..i $ € �1 RE a oo S I 513 € g ${i��i I g5 , ° {i a 28 11_ $T$$-/[ E. _tel {� . pp m. it ��€ Vg E`f ; g a59Sr Eie... E ES: FE oy F 5�¢€; ^F{ a Sa£BFco&44938 € iiCC�g SS ss i w2 E EC g11 1 Itii as Ii Ia2';eggin PAR a " f 's"s s s i € _ liciiii Prif b6F 1411 14111 .16° `:: a'c !mil II 1 °I .h i 1 $l{: s^- iIIEr"ut iiz$IH € u E€ge 3133a it,2•tfectill Felmool z „Ai 333;�{ze ;xxfllif p E tig:A Lli 21113 32 IMA �a aap'pi c a` 5{a. j. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE Application No. Subject Property Portions of the NE1/4 of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., all in Weld County, Colorado. WCTC Order No. LTTL0000221 STATE OF COLORADO ) s:. COUNTY OF WELD THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his or her knowledge, the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owner of property (surface estate) within 300 feet of the property subject to the application. this list was compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or abstract company or attorney, derived from such records, or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The list compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor shall have been assembled within thirty (30) days of the application submission date. This Certificate is not to be construed as an Abstract of Title nor an Opinion of Title, nor a Guarantee Title, and the liability of WELD COUNTY TITLE COMPANY is hereby limited to the fee paid for this Certificate. WELD COUNTY TITLE COMPANY 77162-.1 Title: se J Y � The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20_ WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: Nerd County, Colorado Page 1 of 1 Weld County,Colorado I S` p " I I it 1 i ,_ , . Legend � SeleGetl_Features '- ihe9uilerPotygons k�� 1 ,A/ the9utierrarget rIIl� County Border r .....- a- 7 Parcels o 7 ' n r s1 0. - Otr.Sectioe Gad r---- T 9 %' �_I- r— �- Photography(Mgt)Res.) .r Photography(ow Rea) lI iT it I I ._ I I ,.I, pp '.' R°5) „ch 1 ,l j _i' U .__:I ,:1 LII l i u?l S 03000025 MFDP LLC Total Taxes: $10.60 PO BOX 38 Amount Due: $10.60 BERTHOUD, CO 80513 http://maps.merrick.com/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?Servi ceName=weldovr&Form=True&Encode=... 3/9/2005 Page 1of1 Property Owners Within 300 ft. of Parcel# 120703000025 _ NAME 1 MAILING ADDRESS 1 PARCEL IDENTIFICATION# 3734 SETTLER RIDGE DR CARREON ELOY � 120703101051 MEAD,CO 80542 -- ------- � 4886 HWY 66 r DOUTHIT MEAD LLC 106135000004 LONGMONT,CO 80504 3711 SETTLER RIDGE JOHNSON ERIC L& 120703101112 MEAD,CO 80542 3723 SETTLER RIDGE DR KEZAR ROBERT & 120703101113 MEAD,CO 80542 1 3710 SEFILERS RIDGE OPEZ MARK G & 120703101053 MEAD,CO 80542 --_------ ---------------- 441 THIRD ST 'IMEAD TOWN OF 120703101197 MEAD,CO 80542 I - �� `- 3746 SETTLER RIDGE DR v1ENDOZA AURELIA 1 120703101050 I - -� MEAD,CO 80542 �.,, PO BOX 38 3N BROS LLC 120703100040 BERTHOUD,CO 80513 PO BOX 38 1OLSON BROS LLC 120703100041 BERTHOUD,CO 80513 MARGARET B TRUSTEE 'OLSON GILMAN E (HEIRS OF) & 17850 I-25 120702000036 PLATTEVILLE,CO 80651 I 17850 1-25 IOLSON MARGIL TRUST 106134000029 PLA'1"1'EVILLE,CO 80651 ` 3722 SETTLER RIDGE DR i !STRANTZ DENNIS M & 120703101052 W_ MEAD,CO 80542 1 3758 SETTLER RIDGE DR 'TORRES LAWRENCE E 120703101049 1 _ MEAD,CO 80542 - 7251 W 20 ST BLDG L#201 I WILLOWBROOK DEVELOPMENT LLC 120703101192 GREELEY,CO 80634-4626 7251 W 20 ST BLDG L#201 ICI L.LOWBROOK DEVELOPMENT LLC 120703101193 GREET FY,CO 80634-4626 i....,.ii,,,.,.,,. „,P,-,-;,.1• nml.,,,hcitp/wpIri/cpt.Sn1 acn9rmt1—hiiffer&PIN=120703000025&Part=106135000004... 3/9/2005 LIST OF MINERAL OWNERS AND MINERAL LESSEES (Olson Annexation) Subject Property: See attached Exhibit A for a complete description of the lands covered hereby. Crews & Zeren, LLC, a mineral title company, states that to the best of its knowledge the following is a true and accurate list of the names and addresses of the mineral owners and mineral leasehold owners having an interest in the Subject Property, based upon the real property records of Weld County, Colorado, as verified through February 23, 2005. A photocopy or facsimile of this list shall be as valid, for all purposes, as the original hereof. Dated this 71°day of March, 2005. CREWS & ZEREN, LLC By: William G. Crews, CPL Certified Professional Landman#3477 Mineral Owners Gary G. Olson and Roger E. Olson as Successor Trustees of the Margil Loving Roger E. Olson Trust, dated 5/24/1991 and of the Margil P.O. Box 38 Living Trust dated 4/21/1994 ,,.% Berthoud, CO 80513 P.O. Box 38 Berthoud, CO 80513 Gary G. Olson P.O. Box 38 Anadarko Land Corp. Berthoud, CO 80513 Attn: Mgr. Property & ROW P.O. Box 9149 Olson Bros. LLC The Woodlands, TX 77387-9147 P.O. Box 38 Berthoud, CO 80513 Mineral Leasehold Owners: MFDP LLC (none) P.O. Box 38 Berthoud, CO 80513 Crews e5'Zeren,.CLC Mineral Title Services P.O. Box336337 (970)351-0733 Greeley, CO 80633-0606 Page 1 of 2 fax(303)484-2110 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION ANNEXATION TO mg TOWN OF MEAD A TRACT OF LAND(LABELED PARCEL 1)LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST '/ OF SECTION 3, T3N, R68W OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, WELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST%CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3;THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST' CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3 S88°59'41"W, A DISTANCE OF 250.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST R.O.W. LINE OF 1-25; THENCE N00°33'03"W, A DISTANCE OF 1353.34 FEET ALONG SAID WEST R.O.W. LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N00°33'03"W, A DISTANCE OF 1242.38 FEET ALONG SAID WEST R.O.W. LINE TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH R.O.W. LINE OF WCR 38; THENCE N80°58'16"W, A DISTANCE OF 496.81 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE; THENCE S89°13'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 302.28 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH R.O.W. LINE S00°33'03"E, A DISTANCE OF 1157.21 FEET; THENCE S78°40'05"E, A DISTANCE OF 809.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT CONTAINING 22.11 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Crews eteZeren,LLC Mineraffitle Services P.O. Box336337 (970)351-0733 Greeley, CO 80633-0606 Page 2 of 2 fax(303)484-2110 Crews eh'Zeren,LLC MineralTit(e Services P.O. Box336337 (970)351-0733 Greeley, CO 80633-0606 Page 3 of 2 Sax(303)484-2110 • • • ACCOUNT# R7529699 REAL ESTATE PROPERTY TAX NOTICE PARCEL# 120703000025 2003 TAXES DUE IN 2004 WELD COUNTY TREASURER a(6• TAX DISTRICT 2312 P.D.BOX 458 T�+ duplicate GREELEY,CO 80832-0458 C T• AUTH+•ITY T•X LEVY TEr.:-T G E.R GENE••LT• V• U•TI•N • . •SSESSE' WELD COUNTY 22.038 0.564 1.50 LAND 231 70 WELD LIBRARY 3.249 0.23 SCHOOL DIST AEI] 40.374 2.83 NCW WATER 1.000 0.07 SVW WATER 0.243 0.02 PrIOUD FIRE 13.774 0.96 DUD FIRE BOND 1.500 0.11 NET LEVY->81.614 5.72 PROCESSING FEE. 5.00 The value of your property for 2004 will not change from GRAND TOTAL 10.72 the value shown on this tax notice unless the Assessor's office sends you a notice of value in May. Property owners may appeal by letter postmarked no later than June 1,2004, or by appearing in the Assessor's office from May 3 to June 1,2004. SB 25-In absence of State Legislative Funding, your School General Fund mill levy would have been 65.601 LEG•L tESC'1•TIeN •F ••�,•E•TY Un•ai• •ri•ryeart x s: PT NE4 3-3-68 BEG N4 COR N89D 13'E 1860.98'SOD46'E 30'TO POB S80.58'E 496.81'SOD33'E 1242.38' N78D40'W 809.51'N0D33'W 1157.21' N89D13E 302.29'TO POB(I.I0D) Contact Treasurers Office Imnetlratey H a number appears above. FULL PAYMENT APR 30,2004 10.7: PROPERTY LOCATION: Make Checks Payable To: MFDP LLC WELD COUNTY TREASURER PO BOX 38 POST DATED CHECKS ARE NOT ACCEPTED If you have sold this property,please forward this statement to BERTHOUD,CO 80513 the new owner or return to this office marked'property sold? THE TREASURER'S OFFICE IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO SEh THE TAX NOTICE TO THE OWNER OF RECORD. IF VOL r.vcc ART= nacres nv a tanern_nrc rnsonuv etL® TM .4 September 17, 2004 lerracon 301 N.Howes•P.O.Box 503 Fon Collins,Colorado 80521-0503 (970)4840359 Fax (970)484-0454 Margil Farms C/o Olson Brothers P.O. Box 38 Berthoud, Colorado 80513 Attn: Mr. Gary G. Olson Re: Review and Update of a Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Margil Farms Residential Development— 560 Acres Weld County Road 38 and Interstate 25 Mead,Weld County, Colorado Terracon Project No. 20045160 Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Margil Farms Development 560 Acres Weld County Road 38 and Interstate 25 Weld County, Colorado Terracon Project No. 21975107 dated January 14, 1997 Terracon's Greeley, Colorado office conducted a geotechnical engineering subsurface exploration for the above referenced site located on the south and north sides of Weld County Road 38, west of Interstate 25 and east of WCR 7 in Mead, Weld County, Colorado, and prepared a report detailing our findings and ,e recommendations. For further information and findings thereof, please refer to our "Geotechnical Engineering Report" dated January 14, 1998. This updated report was provided in general accordance with the project specific proposal prepared by Terracon during the geotechnical exploration for Hall-Irwin Construction Company, Proposal No. 2197P104 dated November 24, 1997. Reliance on the information included herein by Olson Bros. and/or assignee is in accordance with the terms and conditions of our proposal dated November 24, 1997. Mr. Gary Olson, with Margil Farms/Olson Brothers of Berthoud, Colorado, has requested Terracon review and provide an updated report for the site based on current standard of the industry practices in regards to the recommended foundation systems, floor slabs, and pavements and to confirm the subsurface conditions have not changed since our initial exploration in December of 1998. We understand the proposed Margil Farms Property will consist of single-family residential structures having full-depth basement construction, along with interior roadways and infrastructure to accommodate the planned improvements. We also understand several residential structures along with their associated septic systems and interior roadway infrastructure are already in-place for portions of the property. Our review and updated recommendations included herein, are based on the findings and the field and laboratory test results presented in our original report from the 22 test borings drilled in December of 1997 and the 9 preliminary test borings drilled in December of 1994, throughout the site, as well as the following information provided to us by Mr. Olson from the Town of Mead. Mr. Gary West, Town of Mead states "The preliminary soils report provided was prepared by Terracon in 1998. Although it is unlikely that the soil conditions have changed in the intervening period of time, the soils report should contain a letter from Terracon confirming that their 1998 recommendations for foundations and pavement sections remain appropriate. Further comments from the Town's engineer may be appropriate." Arizona M Arkansas ® Colorado ® Idaho M Illinois M Iowa M Kansas M Minnesota EP Missouri M Montana Nebraska IS Nevada @ New Mexico W North Dakota M Oklahoma M Tennessee ® Texas MI Utah'® Wisconsin M Wyoming Quality Engineering Since 1965 Geotechnical Engineering Report—Updated Recommendations Terracon Margil Farms—WCR 38 and Interstate 25 Weld County, Colorado Project Nos. 21975107 and 20045160 Page 2 Site Exploration—Soil, Bedrock and Groundwater Conditions As shown on our Figure No. 1: Site Plan, a total of 22 test borings were drilled in December of 1997 along with 9 preliminary test borings in December of 1994, during the subsurface exploration phases to approximate depths of 15 to 25-feet below existing site grades. The subsurface soil and bedrock conditions generally consisted of cohesive to slightly cohesive lean clay with sand, sandy lean clay, to sandy silt and clayey sand lenses, extending to the underlying bedrock formation. Siltstone/sandstone bedrock with intermittent claystone lenses was encountered beneath the overburden soils in the majority of the test borings at approximate depths of 1-1/2 to 22-feet below site grades at the time of the exploration and extended to the depths explored. The upper 1 to 4-feet of the bedrock was weathered; however the underlying siltstone/sandstone was hard to cemented with increased depths. It is our opinion the subsurface soil and bedrock conditions have not changed since our site exploration in December of 1997; however overlot grading operations and recent construction activities have modified/improved the overall site complexity and appearance. Groundwater was not encountered in the test borings during the time of our site exploration in December of 1997. Based upon review of U.S. Geological Survey maps ('Hillier, et al, 1983), regional groundwater is expected to be encountered in unconsolidated alluvial deposits on ute site, at depths greater than 20 feet ^ below the existing ground surface at the project site. Zones of perched and/or trapped groundwater may also occur at times in the subsurface soils overlying bedrock, on top of the bedrock surface or within permeable fractures in the bedrock materials. The location and amount of perched water is dependent upon several factors, including hydrologic conditions, type of site development, irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site, fluctuations in water features, seasonal and weather conditions. Field and Laboratory Test Results The results of the previously mentioned subsurface field exploration and laboratory testing performed by Terracon, indicated the overburden soils at the site vary from medium stiff to stiff in consistency, or loose to medium dense to dense in relative density, and generally exhibit a low expansive potential and a slight tendency to hydro-compact when inundated with water, and have low to moderate bearing characteristics. The siltstone/sandstone bedrock with intermittent claystone lenses exhibits moderate to high bearing characteristics and low to moderate expansive potential. Swell-Consolidation Tests The swell-consolidation test is commonly performed to evaluate the swell potential and compressibility potential of subsurface materials along the Front Range of Colorado. In this test, a relatively undisturbed soil and/or bedrock sample usually obtained directly from the Dames and Moore ring barrel and California Barrel sampler or a cylindrical Shelby Tube device is placed in a laboratory one-dimensional consolidometer rte. ' Hillier, Donald E.; Schneider, Paul A., Jr.; and Hutchinson, E. Carter, 1983, Depth to Water Table (1979) in the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley Area,Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado, United States Geological Survey, Map I-855-I. Geotechnical Engineering Report—Updated Recommendations Terracon . Margil Farms—WCR 38 and Interstate 25 Weld County, Colorado Project Nos. 21975107 and 20045160 Page 3 apparatus and inundated after a predetermined load is placed. The swell index is the resulting amount of swell as a percent of the sample's thickness after the inundation period. The swell pressure is the additional load needed to return the sample to its initial thickness before inundation. This test is often performed as an index test to evaluate the relative swell potential of the sample being tested. As an index test, samples are typically inundated at loads of 500 to 1000 pounds per square foot (psf), depending upon the depth at which the sample is obtained. After the inundation period, additional loads are applied to determine the swell pressure as well as to establish the consolidation curve for the material being tested. Based on our review of the limited laboratory test data presented in the geotechnical engineering report, the results indicate the cohesive to slightly cohesive overburden soils exhibited low swell potential characteristics along with a slight collapse potential. The bedrock formation also exhibited low swell potential characteristics. However, based on our experience, interbedded expansive siltstone and/or claystone lenses are prone to exist within the Pierre Shale formation, which may exhibit higher swell index values than those presented herein. Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE) uses the following information to provide uniformity in terminology between geotechnical engineers to provide a relative correlation of slab performance risk to measured swell. "The representative percent swell values are not necessarily measured values; rather, they are a judgment of the swell of the soil and/or bedrock profile likely to influence slab performance." Geotechnical engineers use this information to also evaluate the swell potential risks for foundation performance based on the risk categories. Recommended Representative Swell Potential Descriptions and Corresponding Slab Performance Risk Categories iRepresentativ gementSuaell Repres �tatir Per�centrSwbll Slab Per`Pormance.Risk,Category! � 5, c r ;' - (SOgf" AlrchartgBl� (10,�ll,psf Survharge'j Low oto <3 0 < 2 Moderate 3 to < 5 2to <4 <4 High 5to < 8 4to< 6 Very High > 8 > 6 L — • Geotechnical Engineering Report—Updated Recommendations Terracon y-. Margil Farms—WCR 38 and Interstate 25 Weld County, Colorado Project Nos. 21975107 and 20045160 Page 4 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINGEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary Foundation System -Conventional Type Spread Footings Based on the available subsurface information and limited laboratory test results provided to us, it is our opinion, depending upon final overlot grading and design elevations, that the majority of the proposed residential structures could be supported by conventional-type spread footings placed either on the native, undisturbed subsoils, undisturbed sandstone bedrock and/or on engineered fill material using a net allowable bearing pressures ranging between 1000 to 3000 psf. The footings should also be sized to maintain a minimum dead load pressure of 500 psf. An alternative foundation system, depending upon final overlot grading operations and actual design loads for the residential structures, would be to support structures placed within 3-feet of any intermittent claystone or siltstone bedrock lens on a drilled pier/caisson foundation system. Prior to designing any foundation system, further exploratory activities consisting of an individual lot boring, and additional laboratory testing during a thorough foundation excavation observation should bejerformed to confirm the site specific soil conditions and appropriate foundation system. Basement Construction Groundwater was not encountered in the test borings during the time of our site exploration in December of 1997. However, perched groundwater may occur at times since the subsurface soils are relatively impermeable and tend to trap water. Completion of site development, including installation of landscaping and irrigation systems, may lead to perched groundwater development. Full-depth basement construction is considered acceptable on the site provided an exterior perimeter drainage system is installed around all lower levels. To intercept the potential for surface water infiltration from impacting the foundation bearing stratum and entering the lower levels, an exterior perimeter drainage is recommended. The exterior drainage system should be constructed around the exterior perimeter of the basement foundation, and sloped at a minimum 1/8 inch per foot to a suitable outlet, such as a sump and pump system. The exterior drainage system should consist of a properly sized perforated pipe, embedded in free-draining gravel, and placed in a trench at least 12 inches in width. Gravel should extend a minimum of 3 inches beneath the bottom of the pipe, and at least 1-foot above the bottom of the foundation wall. The system should be underlain with a polyethylene moisture barrier, sealed to the foundation walls, and extending at least to the edge of the backfill zone. The gravel should be covered with drainage fabric prior to placement of foundation backfill. Floor Slab Construction The variability of the existing low to moderate expansive soils in proximity to the proposed slab subgrade elevations could result in differential movement should the expansive materials become elevated in moisture Geotechnical Engineering Report—Updated Recommendations Terracon ' 'Margil Farms—WCR 38 and Interstate 25 Weld County, Colorado Project Nos. 21975107 and 20045160 Page 5 content. If conventional-type slab on grade construction is utilized, differential slab movement on the order of 1-inch or more is possible. If slab movement cannot be tolerated, a structural floor system is recommended. An alternative to the structural floor system is a conventional-type slab on grade bearing upon non-expansive moisture controlled fill material and/or an approved imported fill material. This procedure will not fully eliminate the possibilities of slab heave; but movements should be reduced and tend to be more uniform. Overexcavation and replacement design criteria will be provided during the final geotechnical engineering exploration stages. Additional floor slab design and construction recommendations for the proposed development are as follows: • Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs and all foundations, columns or utility lines to allow independent movement. • Control joints should be provided in slabs to control the location and extent of cracking. • Where practical, a minimum 2-inch void space should be constructed above or below non- bearing partition walls placed on slabs on grade. Special framing details should be provided at doorjambs and frames within partition walls to avoid potential distortion. Partition walls should be isolated from suspended ceilings. • Interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in accordance with recommended specifications as stated in Ground's report. • In areas subjected to normal loading, a minimum 4-inch layer of clean-graded gravel or aggregate base course should be placed beneath upper level interior slabs. • A minimum 8-inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement floor slabs in conjunction with the underslab drainage system. • Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade. • Other design and construction considerations, as outlined in the ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R are recommended. Pavement Design and Construction In our geotechnical engineering report dated January 14, 1998, we provided pavement thickness recommendations for low volume streets, collector streets, automobile parking and truck traffic drive/parking areas. The thicknesses presented on page 12 of our report were standard pavement thicknesses at the time. b Geotechnical Engineering Report— Updated Recommendations Terracon Margil Farms—WCR 38 and Interstate 25 Weld County, Colorado Project Nos. 21975107 and 20045160 Page 6 However, present pavement evaluation studies are providing an increase thickness in the asphalt sections for residential roadways. Generally, residential roadways are being constructed using a minimum 4-inch thickness of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) underlain by a minimum thickness of 6-inches of aggregate road base. Depending upon the swell potential of the underlying subgrade section, a fly ash stabilized subgrade section is also implemented to reduce the swell potential if deemed necessary. The subsurface soils encountered on-site during the 1997 exploration activities have low subgrade strength characteristics and exhibit a low swell potential. For preliminary planning purposes, we anticipate a composite pavement section consisting of 4 to 6-inches of HMA over 6 to 8 inches of aggregate base course for the majority of the interior residential roadways, and depending upon off-site improvement needed, additional pavement thicknesses may be necessary for the widening of the adjacent county roads. A subgrade investigation and pavement design should be performed to determine the required pavement section after final design configuration for the site has been completed, utilities have been installed and subgrade has been "rough-graded" to final elevations in general accordance with the Town of Mead's or Weld County's pavement design criteria. Terracon is available to provide an updated pavement evaluation for the site upon request. GENERAL COMMENTS er% The analysis and opinions presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations by Terracon's Greeley office and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, and bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Geotechnical Engineering Report—Updated Recommendations Terracon Margil Farms—WCR 38 and Interstate 25 Weld County, Colorado Project Nos. 21975107 and 20045160 Page 7 We appreciate being of service to you during this review phase of the project, and are prepared to assist you during the final geotechnical engineering and construction phases as well. if you have any questions concerning this report or any of our testing, inspection, design and consulting services please feel free to contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, p00 R£C/ TERRACON �O;,.•_••. fl , " ,�o , • Off/ �_ 2 David A. Rich 98'x. :wx Geotechnical Erlgpp Manager ",./ONAI E� Reviewed by: Doug e, P.E. Regional Manager Copies: Addressee(4) 7^. • No, 1 No, 2 No, 3 s No, 4 , 5 Nab No, • • No, 8 No, 7 No. 8 No, 9 No, 7 No, 6 No. 5 • • • ® No, l° ® No, 11 &No, 12 No, I3 No, 14 COUN1 Y p0A17 38 No, 22 N o No, 2 ® No, 4- Q. • ii, • No. IVz o MEAD 9 `-' LAMM No. I5 4 n!-rCN ® )No. No, 3 910, 18 No, • No. 17 �n• 1 - 9 WILL 12-23-9q No, 16 i o&21 &No. 20 No1 N ® I -22 nI 1L-1- P 12-15/ 16-97 F I G L R_H: 1 : SITE PLAN AiJI'' '1iLL OLSON BROS LLC, MARGIL FARMS IIIII„n.wu,U!►l MEAD. COLORADO TCW, INC. PROJECT No. 21975107 SCALE 1" = 1000' 1 rerracon . r^ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED MARGIL FARMS DEVELOPMENT 560 ACRES WELD COUNTY ROAD 38 AND INTERSTATE 25 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 21975107 January 14, 1998 Prepared for HALL IRWIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P.O. BOX 659 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 ATTN: MR. ADAM MACK Prepared by: Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. 1289 1st Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 r Ilerracon 1lerracon CONSULTANTS WESTERN,INC. January 14, 1998 P.O.Box 1744.1269 First Avenue Greeley.Colorado 80632-1744 (970)351-0460 Fax(970)353-8639 Hall Irwin Construction Company P.O. Box 659 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Attn: Mr. Adam Mack Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Margil Farms Development 560 Acres Weld County Road 38 and Interstate 25 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 21975107 Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. (Terracon) has completed a geotechnical engineering exploration for the proposed residential and commercial/industrial development project to be located at the southwest and northwest corner of Weld County Road 38 and Interstate 25 in Weld County, Colorado. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number 2197P104 dated November 24, 1997. A "preliminary Geotechnical engineering r- report" was prepared for the site in January 1995. For recommendations and findings thereof, please refer to Terracon's Report No. 22945185 dated January 11, 1995. The results of our engineering study, including the boring location diagram, laboratory test results, test boring records, and the geotechnical recommendations needed to aid' in the design and construction of foundations, pavement areas, and other earth connected phases of this project are attached. The recommendations contained in this geotechnical engineering report are based upon the available information provided. If the complexity of the project changes significantly from what is presented in this report, additional exploration activities and geotechnical engineering analyses and recommendations will be required. We recommend that final geotechnical studies be completed after building locations and structural loads are finalized, primarily in the commercial and industrial development portions of the site. The subsoils at the site consist of clay, silt, and sand layers underlain by the weathered sandstone /siltstone bedrock. The clay strata exhibit low expansive potential and moderate bearing capacity characteristics. The sand strata exhibit non-expansive potential and low to moderate bearing characteristics. It is Terracon's understanding the proposed structures are to be supported by a reinforced conventional-type spread footing foundation system. Based on the subsurface soils encountered, it is our opinion that the proposed foundation system is suitable for the type of construction proposed and the anticipated foundation loads. Further details are provided in this report. Offices of The Terracon Companies,Inc. Geotechnicel,Environmental and Materials Engineers Arizona U Arkansas U Colorado U Idaho M Illinois ni Iowa U Kansas ■ :Minnesota ■ Missouri Montana U Nebraska U Nevada U New Mexico f6 Oklahoma ■ Tennessee N Texas ■ Utah U Wisconsin ■ Wyoming QUALITY ENGINEERING SINCE 1965 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon el.` Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this phase of your project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service to you, please feel free to contact us at (970) 351-0460. Sincerely, TERRACON CONSULTANTS WESTERN; INC. Prepare by: •°°\",nPo�A„Ri c�' ' eviewed by: _..v; 27712 TC osi =moo' avid A. Richer, P.E. % 'rF�.,. :��`` dward Paas, P.E. Project Engineer/Office Manages„tS/OWitt.EN ;l'Associate Principal Copies to: Addressee (4) Olson Bros. LLC (1) : Gary and Roger Olson 1-`-- Geotechnical Engineering Exploration r- Hall Irwin Construction Company Terracon Margil Farms Development - Terracon Project No. 21975107 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Letter of Transmittal INTRODUCTION 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1 SITE EXPLORATION 2 Field Exploration 2 Laboratory Testing 3 SITE CONDITIONS 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 Geology 5 Soil and Bedrock Conditions 6 Field and Laboratory Test Results 7 Groundwater Conditions 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 Geotechnical Considerations 8 • Foundation Systems 9 Basement/Lower Level Construction 9 Seismic Considerations 11 Floor Slab Design and Construction 11 Pavement Design and Construction 12 Septic System Construction 14 Earthwork 16 Site Clearing and Subgrade Preparation: 16 Excavation: 16 Fill Materials. 16 Placement and Compaction: 18 Compliance 19 Excavation and Trench Construction 19 Drainage 20 Surface Drainage' 20 Additional Design and Construction Considerations 20 Exterior Slab Design and Construction 20 Underground Utility Systems 21 GENERAL COMMENTS 21 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDIX A Site Plan and Boring Location Diagram Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C General Notes APPENDIX D Pavement r-� Terracon GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED MARGIL FARMS DEVELOPMENT 560 ACRES WELD COUNTY ROAD 38 AND INTERSTATE 25 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 21975107 January 14, 1998 INTRODUCTION This report contains the results of our geotechnical engineering exploration for the proposed Margil Farms Development project to be located at the southwest and northwest corners of Weld County Road 38 and Interstate 25 in Weld County, Colorado. The site is located in the South 1/2 and Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, and the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, Township 3, North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: subsurface soil and bedrock conditions • groundwater conditions • foundation design and construction • basement construction • floor slab design and construction • preliminary septic system construction • pavement design and construction • earthwork • drainage The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and experience with similar soil conditions, structures and our understanding of the proposed project. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Based upon preliminary design concepts, the majority of the site will be developed for a residential subdivision to include approximately 150 residential building lots varying in size '"` from about one (1) to two (2) acres. Development will include site infrastructure, single Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon '" Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 family residential structures, and individual sewage disposal systems. Major elements of site infrastructure are anticipated to include: • site grading; • utility installation; and, • street construction Design and construction of streets, with both low-volume residential and industrial/commercial designations, in accordance with Weld County requirements, are anticipated. Although final site grading plans were not developed prior to the preparation of this report, some site grading is anticipated, due to variable topography, to bring this site to final construction grade. Whether mass site grading is planned in the areas of residential development, is not known at this time. Single-family residential construction is anticipated to include one and two-story structures with full depth basements where practical. Structures of wood-frame and brick veneer construction, supported on reinforced concrete foundations are anticipated. Maximum wall and columns loads are anticipated to be on the order of 2 to 4 klf, and 20-40 kips, respectively. • Other site considerations will include the development of a commercial/industrial subdivision along the extreme eastern portion of the site contiguous to Interstate 25. This portion of the development will include approximately 80 acres. At this time, it is uncertain the type and size of structures planned for this area. SITE EXPLORATION The scope of the services performed for this project included a site reconnaissance by a geotechnical engineer, a subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing and engineering analysis. Field Exploration A total of twenty-two (22) test borings were drilled on December 15, and 16, 1997 to approximate depths of fifteen (15) to twenty five (25) feet below existing site grades, at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. A preliminary percolation boring was also drilled adjacent to Test Boring Nos. 10,11,12,15,16, and 21. Percolation tests were conducted in 2 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon / Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 general accordance with Weld County regulations. All borings were advanced with a truck- mounted drilling rig, utilizing 4-inch diameter solid stem auger. The borings were located in the field by a Terracon Representative as well as with Mr. Gary Olson, by measurements from property lines and existing site features. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the methods used. Continuous lithologic logs of each boring were recorded by the geotechnical engineer during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by pushing thin-walled Shelby tubes and by driving a split-spoon sampler. Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split-spoon barrel into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index to the consistency, relative density or hardness of the materials encountered. Groundwater measurements were made in each boring at the time of site exploration, and >^ one (1) to three (3) days after drilling. Laboratory Testing All samples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to the laboratory for observation by the project geotechnical engineer, and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Appendix C. Samples of bedrock were classified in accordance with the general notes for Bedrock Classification. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Boring logs were prepared and are presented in Appendix A. Selected soil and bedrock samples were tested for the following engineering properties: • Water content • Expansion • Dry density • Grain Size • Consolidation • Plasticity Index • Compressive strength • Hveem Stabilometer (R value) 3 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon " Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B, and were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. The significance and purpose of each laboratory test is described in Appendix .C. All laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards. SITE CONDITIONS The site is currently vacant and has been or is currently being used for agricultural and/or crop production purposes. Interstate 25 and Weld County Road 7, form the eastern and western boundaries of the property. Weld County Road 38 forms the approximate north- south centerline of the property. Residential development is in the process of begin completed or has been completed to the south and west of the southeast portion of the site. Vacant undeveloped agricultural land borders the remaining sides of the property to the west and north. Topographically, the site consists of gently rolling hill terrain and slopes down to the south and southeast. Review of USGS topographic maps indicates approximately 100 to 120 feet of relief across the project site. Overall site drainage was generally directed to the southwest and southeast by apparent sheetflow although numerous secondary drainage patterns existed. No evidence of extensive fills or underground facilities, other than the waterline crossing the southeastern quadrant of the site, were observed at the time of our site reconnaissance. Vegetation consisted of either a winter wheat crop or fallow land vegetated with a combination of native weeds and grasses. Other geographic features of significance on or adjacent to the site included the Mead Lateral Ditch and other small bodies of water. The irrigation ditch is concrete-lined and was dry at the time of field exploration. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Geology The proposed area is located within the Colorado Piedmont section of the Great Plains physiographic province. The Colorado Piedmont, formed during Late Tertiary and Early Quaternary time (approximately 2,000,000 years ago), is a broad, erosional trench which separates the Southern Rocky Mountains from the High Plains. Structurally, the site lies .-� along the western flank of the Denver Basin. During the Late Mesozoic and Early Cenozoic Periods (approximately 70,000,000 years ago), intense tectonic activity occurred, causing the uplifting of the Front Range and associated downwarping of the Denver Basin to the 4 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon r Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 2197510T. east. Relatively flat uplands and broad valleys characterize the present-day topography of the Colorado Piedmont in this region. Surficial geologic conditions at the site, as mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), consist of eolian materials of Pleistocene or Recent age. These materials generally consist of non-stratified sandy silts or sandy clays. Engineering characteristics of this material include moderate to high shear strength when dry, and low to high consolidation when wet. These materials have been reported to produce low to moderate swelling pressures when moisture content is elevated. Bedrock underlying the surface units consists of the Upper Pierre Shale of the upper Cretaceous age. The Pierre Shale Formation in the area has been reported to include Interbedded sandstone and shale with hard sandstone ledges. Due to the relatively flat nature of the site, geologic hazards at the site are anticipated to be low. Seismic activity in the area is anticipated to be low; and from a structural standpoint, the property should be relatively stable. With proper site grading around proposed structures, erosional problems at the site should be minimal. Mapping completed by the Colorado Geological Survey ('Hart, 1972), indicates the site in an area of "Windblown Sand or Silt". This material has been described as having low swell potential and may be subject to severe settlement or collapse when water is allowed to saturate the deposits. Bedrock with higher swell potential may be locally less than 10 feet below the ground surface. Soil and Bedrock Conditions As presented in Logs of Borings, included in Appendix A of this report, on-site soils consisted predominantly of a clay, silt, and sand soils extending to the underlying weathered siltstone/sandstone bedrock encountered at approximate depths of one and one-half (1-1/2) to twenty two (22) feet below the surface and extending to the depths explored. The nine (9) preliminary test borings drilled in December 1994 are also included with this report in Appendix A. The final boring logs included in this report represent our interpretation of the field logs. These logs show soils encountered, location of sampling, and groundwater at the time of the field exploration, as well as one (1) to three (3) days after our drilling operations. The 1 Hart, Stephen S., 1972, Potentially Swelling Soil and Rock in the Front Range Urban Corridor Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey , Environmental Geology No. 7. 5 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon /" Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 stratification boundaries shown on the attached boring logs represent the approximate locations of changes in soil types; in-situ the transition of materials may be gradual. During the drilling operations, a geotechnical engineer from Terracon was present and made continuous observations of the soils encountered. Field and Laboratory Test Results Field test results indicate that the clay soils very from medium stiff to stiff in consistency and the sand soils vary from medium dense to dense in relative density. The siltstone/sandstone bedrock varies from weathered to competent and cemented with depth. Laboratory test results indicate that subsoils at shallow depth have a low expansive potential. The siltstone/sandstone bedrock has low to moderate expansive potential. Percolation testing conducted in the area of the proposed soil absorption bed and relevant field data are summarized as follows: aw r x °fix zw° r� '4,:k.r1i. -d ittertz'7t ti t Wn�L 4 s�4,i ,I �) i, ;L '1' 7:L' ,B K l� r • Nr ' ( '4 yry S`+F 1 ' r''..t:,-« .«:z...“: �. --..-- a..,,..., ,....h .,. 1..L.0 M "j4aor.;aF".Au:i«,�P. ,........+ms.l.''..,.. m..n ..4.',. . ' sir ;.2., ...5,.�.:d Test Hole Depth(inches) Soil Percolation Rate Depth to Depth to Bedrock Classification (minutes/inch) Groundwater(ft) (ft) 10 30 CL 30 NA 8-1/2 11 30 CL 20 NA 14-1/2 12 30 CL 60 NA 7-1/2 15 30 CL 19 NA 4-1/2 16 30 CL 60 N/A 7-1/2 21 30 CL 40 NA 5 Field test results indicate the majority of the soils in the areas tested have fair to good percolation characteristics. Therefore, it is anticipated that standard septic systems will be suitable for the required areas tested. However a complete septic system evaluation will be required for each residential site to determine design criteria. r- 6 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon r^ Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was not observed in any test boring at the time of field exploration, nor when checked one (1) to three (3) days after drilling. However, groundwater was encountered during our preliminary exploration activities in December 1994 at approximate depths of five (5) to nine (9) feet below the surface in Borings 1-3. These observations represent only current groundwater conditions, and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions. Based upon review of U.S. Geological Survey maps (2Hillier, et al, 1983), regional groundwater is expected to be encountered in unconsolidated alluvial deposits on the site, at depths greater than 20 feet below the existing ground surface at the project site. Zones of perched and/or trapped groundwater may also occur at times in the subsurface soils overlying bedrock, on top of the bedrock surface or within permeable fractures in the bedrock materials. The location and amount of perched water is dependent upon several factors, including hydrologic conditions, type of site development, irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site, fluctuations in water features, and seasonal and weather conditions. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can best be determined by implementation of a groundwater monitoring plan. Such a plan would include installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and periodic measurement of groundwater levels over a sufficient period of time. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnical Considerations The site appears suitable for the proposed construction. The following foundation systems were evaluated for use on the site: • spread footings and/or grade beams bearing on undisturbed soils; and, spread footings and/or grade beams bearing on engineered fill. 2Hillier, Donald E.; Schneider, Paul A.. Jr.; and Hutchinson, E. Caner, 1983, Depth to Water Table (7979) in the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley Area, Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado, United States Geological Survey, Map I-855- I. 7 • Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon '. Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 Design and construction recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. Foundation Systems Due to the presence of non- to low-swelling soils on the site, spread footing foundations bearing upon undisturbed subsoils, recompacted native soils and/or engineered fill are recommended for support for the proposed structure. The footings may be designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 1500 psf founded on the native undisturbed subsoils and 3,000 psf if extended to the weathered sandstone bedrock stratum. In addition, the footings should be sized to maintain a minimum dead load pressure of 500 psf. The design bearing pressure applies to dead loads plus design live load conditions. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. Anv fill material encountered on the site during construenn should not be used for support of foundations without removal and recompaction. Any additional fill should be placed prior to foundation construction to allow for some consolidation of the subsoils from the added weight of the new fill. Exterior footings should be placed a minimum of 30 inches below finished grade for frost protection. Interior footings should bear a minimum of 12 inches below finished grade. Finished grade is the lowest adjacent grade for perimeter footings and floor level for interior footings. Footings should be proportioned to minimize differential foundation movement. Proportioning on the basis of equal total settlement is recommended; however, proportioning to relative constant dead-load pressure will also reduce differential settlement between adjacent footings. Total settlement resulting from the assumed structural loads is estimated to be on the order of 1 inch provided the subsoils are not saturated or become inundated with water. Proper drainage should be provided in the final design and during construction to reduce the settlement potential. The footings, designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 1,500 psf, bearing on the undisturbed native soils, are for maximum column loads up to approximately 40 kips. It is recommended that the column loads be limited to a level that yields an approximate one (1) inch of settlement. If the column loads are to exceed 40 kips, it is recommended that the on- e,. site soil be overexcavated approximately two (2) feet and replaced and recompacted with an imported structural fill material compacted in uniform lifts and moisture conditioned to 95% of Standard Proctor Density. If anticipated column loads are in excess of 40 kips, or if the 8 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon r Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 expansive claystone bedrock stratum is encountered at shallows depths at areas not tested, further explorations are recommended, and a deep foundation system, such as a drilled pier and grade beam foundation system, will be required. Finished grade is the lowest adjacent grade for perimeter footings and floor level for interior footings. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. • Foundations and masonry walls should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. The use of joints at openings or other discontinuities in masonry walls is recommended. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. If the soil conditions encountered differ from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be required. Basement/Lower Level Construction Groundwater was not encountered on the site at approximate maximum depths of fifteen (15) to twenty five (25) feet below existing site grades. Lower-level construction is considered acceptable on the site, provided placement of a permanent perimeter drainage system is installed around the lower level foundations. Perched groundwater may occur at time since the bedrock surface is relatively impermeable and may tend to trap water. Completion of the site development, including installation of landscaping and irrigation systems, will likely lead to perched groundwater development. To reduce the potential for perched groundwater or groundwater to enter the lower level of the structures, installation of a perimeter drainage system is recommended. The drainage system should be constructed around the interior perimeter of the lower level foundation and should consist of a properly sized perforated pipe, embedded in free- draining gravel, placed in a trench at least 12 inches in width. The gravel should extend a minimum of 3-inches beneath the bottom of the pipe and to the bottom of the lower level slab. The drainage system should slope at least 1/8-inch per foot and should empty into a suitable outlet, such as a sump and pump system. If approved by the City of Mead, consideration 9 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration r* Hall Irwin Construction Company Terracon Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 may be given to emptying the perimeter drain(s) into a sewer underdrain adequately sized to accept the anticipated flow(s). The underslab drainage layer should consist of a minimum 8-inch thickness of free-draining gravel meeting the specifications of ASTM C33, Size No. 57 or 67. Seismic Considerations The project site is located in Seismic Risk Zone I of the Seismic Zone Map of the United States as indicated by the 1994 Uniform Building Code. Based upon the nature of the subsurface materials, a seismic site coefficient, "s" of 1.0 should be used for the design of structures for the proposed project (1994 Uniform Building Code, Table No. 16-J). Floor Slab Design and Construction . It is anticipated that non-expansive or low-swelling natural soils or engineered fill will support the floor slab. Some differential movement of a slab-on-grade floor system is possible should the subgrade soils increase in moisture content. To reduce any potential slab movements, the subgrade soils should be prepared as outlined in the "Earthwork" section of this report. Floor slabs should not be placed on fill without removing twenty-four (24) inches and recompacting it as an engineered fill. Additional floor slab design and construction recommendations are as follows: • • Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs and all foundations, columns or utility lines to allow independent movement. • Contraction joints should be provided in slabs to control the location and extent of cracking. Maximum joint spacing of 15 to 20 feet in each direction is recommended. Joints should be a minimum of 25% of slab thickness plus 1/4 inch. • Interior trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in accordance with recommended specifications outlined below. • In areas subjected to normal loading, a minimum 4-inch layer of clean-graded gravel or aggregate base course should be placed beneath interior slabs. For heavy loading, reevaluation of slab and/or base course thickness may be required. • Floor slabs should not be constructed on frozen subgrade. 10 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 • Other design and construction considerations, as outlined in the ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R are recommended. Pavement Design and Construction Design of pavements for the project have been based on the procedures outlined in the 1986 Guideline for Design of Pavement Structures by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Areas within proposed pavements on the site will be divided into two categories based upon anticipated traffic and usage. Traffic criteria provided for pavement thickness designs are in general accordance with the City of Mead's Engineering Department "Design Criteria and Construction Specifications" manual, and include an equivalent 18-kip single axle loads (ESAL's) of 50 for collector streets, 5 and 15 for automobile parking and truck traffic areas respectively. " " Based upon AASHTO criteria, Colorado is located within Climatic Region IV of the United States. This region is characterized as being dry, with hard ground freeze and spring thaw. The spring thaw condition typically results in saturated or near-saturated subgrade soil moisture conditions. The AASHTO criteria suggests that these moisture conditions are prevalent for approximately 12-1/2% of the annual moisture variation cycle. Local drainage characteristics of proposed pavement areas are considered to vary from fair to good depending upon location on the site. For purposes of this design analysis, fair drainage characteristics are considered to control the design. These characteristics, coupled with the approximate duration of saturated subgrade conditions, results in a design drainage coefficient of 1.0 when applying the AASHTO criteria for design. For flexible pavement design, terminal serviceability indices of 2.0 and 2.5 for parking areas and collector streets were utilized along with inherent reliability's of 70% and 85% for parking areas and collector streets and a design life of 20 years. Using the correlated design R- value of 8 appropriate ESAUday, environmental criteria and other factors, the structural numbers (SN) of the pavement sections were determined on the basis of the 1986 AASHTO design equation. In addition to the flexible pavement design analyses, a rigid pavement design analysis was completed, based upon AASHTO design procedures/ Rigid pavement design is based on an evaluation of the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of the soils (K-value), the Modulus of Rupture of the concrete, and other factors previously outlined. The design K-value of 100 11 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Terracon Hall Irwin Construction Company Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 for the subgrade soil was determined by correlation to the laboratory test results. A modulus of rupture of 600 psi (working stress 450 psi) was used for pavement concrete. The rigid pavement thickness for each traffic category were determined on the basis of the AASHTO design equation. Recommended alternatives for flexible and rigid pavements, summarized for each traffic area, are as follows: nrtr T"nr�^ mr 4i B .m 4g a rtflre 'im `"R° '• w r 1 pp i` I s`�- t t 4 `r � i ,, mm "' av„�+ nt≥5s�n .a n nesj '.-",�;' > r. • y f _� y,fz' art '21 -'"a :Y.412,4 .`e t 14 } '- ft}RA.Bt * 34 44 ; �l � .N.3`0.06:4,;;;ti1'.^ f i tan �Vilx rP+ Sr t$ " t • tt a� � r� �d = F itu in_.o.. . F4 L ♦ ri e c a Low Volume A 3.0 6.0 9.0 Residential B 2.0 3.5 5.5 Streets C 6.0 6.0 Collector A 3.0 8.0 110 Streets B 2.0 4.0 6.0 C 7.0 7.0 Parking A 3.0 4.0 7.0 Areas B 2.0 2.5 4.5 Automobiles C 5.0 5.0 Parking A 3.0 6.0 9.0 Areas B 2.0 3.5 5.5 Truck Traffic C 6.0 6.0 Each alternative should be investigated with respect to current material availability and economic conditions. Aggregate base course (if used on the site) should consist of a blend of sand and gravel which meets strict specifications for quality and gradation. Use of materials meeting Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Class 5 or 6 specifications is recommended for base course. Use of materials meeting Colorado Department of Transportation Class 1 specifications is recommended for select subbase. 12 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration ^ Hall Irwin Construction Company Terracon Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 Aggregate base course and select subbase should be placed in lifts not exceeding six inches and should be compacted to a minimum of 95% Standard Proctor Density (ASTM D698). Asphalt concrete and/or plant-mixed bituminous base course should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler and additives, if required, and approved bituminous material. The bituminous base and/or asphalt concrete should conform to approved mix designs stating the Marshall or Hveem properties, optimum asphalt content, job mix formula and recommended mixing and placing temperatures. Aggregate used in plant-mixed bituminous base course and/or asphalt concrete should meet particular gradations. Material meeting Colorado Department of Transportation Grading C or CX specification is recommended for asphalt concrete. Aggregate meeting Colorado Department of Transportation Grading G or C specifications is recommended for plant-mixed bituminous base course. Mix designs should be submitted prior to construction to verify their adequacy. Asphalt material should be placed in maximum 3-inch lifts and should be compacted to a minimum of 95% Marshall or Hveem density (ASTM D1559) (ASTM D1560). Where rigid pavements are used, the concrete should be obtained from an approved mix design with the following minimum properties: • Modulus of Rupture @ 28 days 600 psi minimum • Entrained Air Content 6 to 8% • Concrete Aggregate ASTM C33 and CDOT Section 703 • Aggregate Size 1 inch maximum • Maximum Allowable Slump 4 inches Concrete should be deposited by truck mixers or agitators and placed a maximum of 90 minutes from the time the water is added to the mix. Other specifications outlined by the Colorado Department of Transportation should be followed. Septic System Construction: The depth of bedrock precludes the use of a standard leach field at some locations on the site as outlined by Weld County regulations. Accordingly, engineered septic systems are anticipated for these areas of the site, where the bedrock stratum is encountered within the first four (4) to five (5) feet of overburden soils.. s-� Alternative engineered septic systems which could be considered for the site include: 13 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration '" Hall Irwin Construction Company Terracon Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 • Mounded Soil Absorption • Combination Soil Absorption and Evapo-transpiration • Overexcavated Engineered Fill • Infiltrate graveless Leaching Chamber Weld County and/or State regulations for individual sewage disposal systems indicate that the following criteria must be met for standard septic system and leach field ( soil absorption bed) construction: a The depth to bedrock or the maximum seasonal high groundwater level must be at least 5 to 6 feet below existing site grades in the area of proposed septic system construction; • Soil percolation rates must be between 5 to 60 minutes/inch; • The ground surface slope must not exceed thirty percent; and • Standard septic system construction applies only to single-family residential structures; commercial/industrial developments will require an engineered septic system in all cases. Preliminary field test results and data indicate that standard septic system construction may be feasible in the areas of Test Borings 10,11,12,15,16, and 21. When size and location of each residence or building is finalized, additional field percolation tests, soil profile evaluation and/or engineering analysis will be required to determine system type and design criteria. Supplemental testing may reveal conditions significantly different from those found during the preliminary evaluation. Earthwork • Site Clearing and Subgrade Preparation: 1. Strip and remove existing vegetation, fill, debris, and other deleterious materials from proposed building and pavement areas. All exposed surfaces 14 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Hall Irwin Construction Company Terracon Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 should be free of mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction. 2. If unexpected fills or underground facilities are encountered during site clearing, such features should be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction. All excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to backfill placement. 3. Stripped materials consisting of vegetation and organic materials should be wasted from the site or used to revegetate exposed slopes after completion of grading operations. If it is necessary to dispose of organic materials on-site, they should be placed in non-structural areas and in fill sections not exceeding 5 feet in height. 4. The site should be initially graded to create a relatively level surface to receive fill, and to provide for a relatively uniform thickness of fill beneath proposed building structures. 5. All exposed areas which will receive fill, floor slabs and/or pavement, once properly cleared and benched where necessary, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted. Excavation: 1. It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. 2. If excavations need to penetrate into the sandstone bedrock, ripping or jack- hammering may be needed to advance the excavation, particularly in confined excavations. 3. Groundwater seepage should be anticipated for excavations approaching the level of bedrock. Pumping from sumps may be utilized to control water within the excavations. Well points may be required for significant groundwater flow or where excavations penetrate groundwater to a significant depth. 15 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 'e-' Hall Irwin Construction Company Terracon Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 4. On-site clayey sand soils in proposed pavement areas may pump or become unstable or unworkable at high water contents. Workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. Overexcavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials may be necessary. Lightweight excavation equipment may be required to reduce subgrade pumping. 5. Use of lime, fly ash, kiln dust, cement or geotextiles could also be considered as a stabilization technique. Laboratory evaluation is recommended to determine the effect of chemical stabilization on subgrade soils prior to construction. 6. Proof-rolling of the subgrade may be required to determine stability prior to paving. • Fill Materials: 1. On-site bedrock materials are not recommended for use beneath structural areas of the site, or as backfill. Should bedrock materials be used for general site grading, placement in fills at non-structural locations on the site is recommended. 2. Frozen soils should not be used as fill or backfill. 3. Imported soils (if required) should conform to the following or be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Percent finer by weight Gradation (ASTM C1361 6" 100 3" 70-100 No. 4 Sieve 50-80 • No. 200 Sieve 35 (max) Liquid Limit 30 (max) • Plasticity Index 15 (max) • Minimum R-Value 8 16 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration .— Hall Irwin Construction Company Terracon Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 5. Aggregate base should conform to Colorado Department of Transportation Class 5 or 6 specifications. Select subbase should conform to Colorado Department of Transportation Class 1 specifications. Placement and Compaction: 1. Place and compact fill in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. 2. No fill should be placed over frozen ground. 3. Materials should be compacted to the following: Minimum Percent Material (ASTM D698) Subgrade soils beneath fill areas 95 On-site soils or approved imported fill: Beneath foundations 98 Beneath slabs 95 Beneath pavements 95 Utilities 95 Aggregate base (beneath slabs) 95 • Miscellaneous backfill 90 4. If a well defined maximum density curve cannot be generated by impact compaction in the laboratory for any fill type, engineered fill should be compacted to a minimum of 75 percent relative density as determined by ASTM D4253 D4254. • 5. Granular soils should be compacted within a moisture content range of 3 percent below to 3 percent above optimum unless modified by the project geotechnical engineer. 6. Clay soils placed around or beneath foundations should be compacted within a moisture content range of optimum to 2 percent above optimum. Clay soils 17 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration r- Hall Irwin Construction Company Terracon Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 placed beneath pavement should be compacted within a moisture content range of 2 percent below to 2 percent above optimum. Compliance Performance of slabs-on-grade, foundations and pavement elements supported on compacted fills or prepared subgrade depend upon compliance with "Earthwork" recommendations. To assess compliance, observation and testing should be performed under the direction of the geotechnical engineer. • Excavation and Trench Construction Excavations into the on-site soils will encounter caving soils and possibly groundwater, depending upon the final depth of excavation. The individual contractor(s) should be made responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. The soils to be penetrated by the proposed excavations may vary significantly across the site. The preliminary soil classifications are based solely on the materials encountered in widely spaced exploratory test borings. The contractor should verify that similar conditions exist throughout the proposed area of excavation. If different subsurface conditions are encountered at the time of construction, the actual conditions should be evaluated to determine any excavation modifications necessary to maintain safe conditions. As a safety measure, it is recommended that all vehicles and soil piles be kept to a minimum lateral distance from the crest of the slope equal to no less than the slope height. The exposed slope face should be protected against the elements. Drainage • Surface Drainage: 1. Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the proposed development. Infiltration of water into utility or foundation excavations must be prevented during construction. 18 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Hall Irwin Construction Company Terracon Margil Farms Development Yerracon Project No. 21975107 Planters and other surface features which could retain water in areas adjacent to the building or pavements should be sealed or eliminated. 2. In areas where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin the structure, we recommend that protective slopes be provided with a minimum grade of approximately 10 percent for at least 10 feet from perimeter walls. Backfill against footings, exterior walls and in utility and sprinkler line trenches should be well compacted and free of all construction debris to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration. 3. Downspouts, roof drains or scuppers should discharge into splash blocks or extensions when the ground surface beneath such features is not protected by exterior slabs or paving. 4. Sprinkler systems should not be installed within 5 feet of foundation walls. Landscaped irrigation adjacent to the foundation system should be minimized or eliminated. Additional Design and Construction Considerations • Exterior Slab Design and Construction Exterior slabs-on-grade, exterior architectural features, and utilities founded on, or in backfill may experience some movement due to the volume change of the backfill. Potential movement could be reduced by: • minimizing moisture increases in the backfill • controlling moisture-density during placement of backfill • using designs which allow vertical movement between the exterior features and adjoining structural elements • placing effective control joints on relatively close centers • allowing vertical movements in utility connections • Underground Utility Systems All piping should be adequately bedded for proper load distribution. It is suggested that clean, graded gravel compacted to 75 percent of Relative Density ASTM D4253 be used as bedding. Utility trenches should be excavated on safe and stable slopes in accordance with OSHA regulations as discussed above. Backfill should consist of 19 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration ✓� Hall Irwin Construction Company Terracon Margil Farms Development Terracon Project No. 21975107 the on-site soils or existing bedrock. If bedrock is used, all plus 6-inch material should be removed from it prior to its use. The pipe backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of Standard Proctor Density ASTM D698. All underground piping within or near the proposed structure should be designed with flexible couplings, so minor deviations in alignment do not result in breakage or distress. Utility knockouts in grade beams should be oversized to accommodate differential movements. GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon should also be retained to provide testing and observation during excavation, grading, foundation and construction phases of the project. >^ The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based upon data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. The scope of services for this projects does not include, either specifically or by implication, any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes, and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. r-� 20 No, I No, 2 No, 3 No, 4 o, 5 No, 6 •No. 9 • No. 8 No. 7 No, 8 No, 9 No, 7 No, 6 No, 5 • • • s & No, I O 9 No, I I s'1o, l2 5 No, 13 No, I u\ cv o COUNTY WAP 38 No, 22 No, 4 cv No, 2 l 5 Q • ,,, • No, 19e IF z A17 SAL No. 19 PITCH &No' , No, 3 ®No, 18 No, 1 • I - 9 nt?ILLM712-23-94 No. l6 ® No. 17 ®21 ® No, 2O No. I N & I - 21 PRILLW 12-15/ 16-97 FIGURE 1 : SITE PLAN OLSON BROS LLC, MARGIL FARMS l I� MEAD, COLORADO TCW, INC. PROJECT No. 21975107 SCALE r' = 1000' lierracon LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 1 " Page l of l CLIENT ARCHTTECTIEN GINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS b q t • go.. o ,� 64n DESCRIPTION y > z� .104 w �C�7 qzg c, w o . 3 � Q z P�� °° o zpu. off;. C7 Soil Description per depth of Exploration Z ')� Ora. OE.)a.. abt ^.'-^:^ 0.5 6' TOPSOIL i — CL 43,25,87 / LEAN CLAY / Brown,moist, medium stiff to stiff - 3.5 I ST1 12" 11 96 1650 SANDY LEAN CLAY CL 2 SS 12" 14 18 Tan, buff, moist, medium stiff to stiff 5 7.5 3 ST 12" 11 101 WEATHERED STLTSTONE/SANDSTONE 4 SS 12" 22 11 &f.213O Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist,poorly 10.0 cemented — 10— • COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SAEDSTONE - BEDROCK — T Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented — • 14.3 5 SS_ 4" 50 8 BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATE OBSERVATIONS ,t �� BORING STARTED 12_15-97 H'1- Q DRY W.D. DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 WL lierracon RIG CME-55 >: J,7 oRvfAN DAR W1- Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB N 21975107 LOG OF TEST RARING NO. 2 Page I of I CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE I-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS 0 O �. toy) �W pG a G Z -. 7Zc. U DESCRIPTION >~ w ua ua z c7 N a v) a' ua o z3 Q 4DZW A1- a U Is, U F O O U z4t3.. O,G.� 0 Soil Description per depth of Exploration Q Z v'A° .4 0a. )O- -.1a..1?- ‘,..-..:. 0.5 6' TOPSOIL _ � % CL _ � BEAN CLAY — Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff — 2.5 1 ST 12 11 95 1800 SANDY LEAN CLAY � r Tan, buff, moist, medium stiff to stiff CL 2 SS 12" 9 12 • • 5 - • n • . 7.5 Xt a 3 RS 12" 22 7 98 WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE 9,0 BEDROCK ._. 'Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly I cemented — COMPETENT SILTSTONECSA DSTONE 10— )3EDROCK — Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented — 14.5 4 SS 6" 50 6 BOTTOM OF BORING .-. I 4 THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 F W1- Q DRY W.D. I DRS' A B• BORING COMPLETED 72-16-97 WL err aCOfl IuG CME=55 FOB DAR WL Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB W 27.975107 .1 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 3 Page 1 of 1 .rLIEhT ARCHITECT/EN GINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company sITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS 121 DESCRIPTION �„ w Z� c�i� P° w O Z3 H Q pZ Qua u a, U o o >-u. V u_ aa:-• O Soil Description per depth of Exploration Z O Die A� ��0 .ILb `."�"•' 0.5 6" TOPSOIL A n,t ✓�f - CL 1 SS 12" 14 19 LEAN CLAY with SAND Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff f/ ' — 2 SS 12" 7 19 // 5 WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE - 7.0 DEQROCK -' Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poor3y cemented COMPETENT SI.LTSTONE/SANDSTONE 3 SS , 4", 50 5 . BEDROCK— — Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented *Hard Cemented Caprock SANDSTONE — Lense 10— 14.3 - 4 33 6" 50 8 BOTTOM OF BORING HE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK'TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSTTION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS � .s BORING STARTED 1,-15-97 - Q DRY W•D• I DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 wl_ _ err acon RIG CME=55 FOREMAN DAR WL Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB if 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 4 Page 1 of 1 . CLIENT ARCHTrECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Develo.went SAMPLES TESTS O ^ 0 w r., F >. i V) zx 'z DESCRIPTION w �� w z° Q..S Q ( o I~o CI 0Z(4 - A a z - ° °4 z p od c�7 Soil Description per depth of Exploration °�� A0. av�D :lo..* 0.5 6' TO SOIL _ LEAN CLAY with SAND —Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff — 1 A 4.0 2 SS 12" 21 10 WEATHERED STLTSTONE/SANDSTONE 5 BEDROClc - 6.5 Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly \ cemented / COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTON BEDROCK 3 SS 10" SO 15 32,7,88 Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented J *Bedrock Classified as a SILT 10- *Interbedded CLAYSTONE Lense -' SWELL • _ PRESS " • 4 SS 12" 50 16 ® 14.0' 15.0 _ 425 PSF - 15 BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL.AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 WI- Q DRY W.D. t DRY A B BORING COMPLETED —16-97 Wl rracon RIG CME=55 FORF1vlAN DAR �'I _Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB ad 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 5 Page 1 of 1 _LIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE I-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS o bp. R ca DESCRIPTION w z,,, to ztD A N a a� W O 3 v� A 0Z �Na Q C3 a, U F.O O a ��w a≤w cY, r:4 U.10 Soil Description per depth of Exploration Q a z N� z QO.. 1o.,oe " •� 0.5 6" TOPSOIL A A • CL 1 SS 12" 9 17 LEAN CLAY with SAND — Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff /: 4.5 2 SS 12" 9 20 5 WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTQNE BEDROCK Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly — cemented 7.5 3 RS ' 10" 50 17 106 COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE • BEDROCK Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented 10—s _ J • • 34.3 4, SS 4" 50 9 BOTTOM OF BORING 1E STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES .ETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12,-15-97 WI- V DRY W.D. DRY A.S. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 erracon RIC CME=55 FOREMAN DAR WL Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB II 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 6 Page I of l CLIENT ARCHITECT/EN GINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROFECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS o �r.� �� x a4 zE 7� i?S DESCRIPTION > z"' r' - Ta-� Q Z Fa F� 6 a U r~O O >-L, V x L„ pr¢ � Soil Description per depth of Exploration A Z I- L=.1 N .4 oa azna .-J a.. ; 0.5 6" TOPSOIL CL 38,23,79 LEAN CLAY with SAND Brown, moist,medium stiff to stiff -- SWELL PRESSURE 3.5 1 ST 12" 17 101 6000 ® 3.0' - pr 410 PSF FAT CLAY with SAND CH 2 SS 12" 4 17 Tan, olive, moist, medium stiff to stiff 5 , z. 7.5 3 SS 12"" 23 21, 50,29,83 4 SS 8" 50 , WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE — 9.5 BEDROCK - }Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly I — 1 cemented 10— coMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANPSTON — BEDROCK — Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented — -.7.--- -- SWELL - PRESSURE _ `]nterbedded SILTSTONE Lense 5 SS 10" 50 17 ® 14.0' • •. 14.8 - 385 PSF BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE ORADUAL. ��,�.��t..�. . WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 WI- U DRY W.D. I DRY A.B. G COMPLETED 12-16-97 WL ErraCOflG CME=55 FOREMAN DAR WL Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR 3OB J/ 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 7 Page 1 of 1 ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS O E W„, W DESCRIPTION —v) z w H ,a z g rn m Z 1 A 0 Z 2I— (5 Soil Description per depth of Exploration Z Di Oa au n a� AAAA/' 0.5 6" TOPSOIL, LEAN CLAY with SAND Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff — 3.5 _ 1 ST 1T 11 94 SANDY LEAN CLAY CL 2 SS 12" 12 17 • Tan, buff, moist, medium stiff to stiff 5 SWELL PRESSURI3 3 ST 12" 13 112 6850 ®7.0' 310 PSF 4 SS 12" 8 13 10- 12.0 WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE 13.5 BEDROCK Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly 14.5' cemented Tan, SS 6" 50 12 COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE BEDROCK Tan, gray,olive, moist, cemented BOTTOM OF BORING 'RE sT'RAT1P CATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES JETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 DRY W.D. X DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 erracon RIG C E-55 FOREMAN DAR wL Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR 1OB# 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 8 Page l of l CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE I-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS oh � _ • n EZ� o DESCRIPTION z t"' -1?0 tst z C7 csi oz Ati� °- U I a O 1_O p Y'u- u v Soil Description per depth of Exploration A a z °;'m On--. a .≥n , t. 0.5 6" TOPSOIL r/ _CL I SS 12" 10 20 � LEAN CLAY with SAND - Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff 2 ST 12" 4.5 3 SS 12" 13 13 /1/1/ 5 SANDY LEAN CLAY �-•t�j Tan, buff, moist, medium stiff to stiff — • CL 4 RS 12" 20 11. 111 • 10-- • • • • • 5 SS 12" 16 7 / 15.0 15 BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIPICAT)ON LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: INSTTU,TI-EE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL WATER LEVEL.OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 W1- 3 DRY WD• I DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 1246-97 WL err acon R1G CME=55 FOREMAN DAR WL Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB# 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 9 1 Page I of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE I-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development 1 SAMPLES TESTS oL9v, CW o •DESCRIPTION L x w x Z uZ~.,I-- .?o a. H (n C° W O Z3 r4 A pZ 5Na W u . U p > p U O � z O'Q O Soil Description per depth of Exploration Q a Z co Cm. ,l-,",A -1atR 0.5 6" TOPSOIL CL 1 SS 12"t 12 LEAN CLAY with SAND — Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff - 1 2 RS 12" 17 4 83 -, 5- 3 ST 12" 11 112 8380 37,22,72 8.5 4 SS 12" 30 12 WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE 10.0 BEDROCK — \Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly 1 10—, cemented jr COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONN -, DEDROCIS — Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented — 14.3 5 SS 4" 50 8 — BOTTOM OF BORING THE S'TRAT PICATION urras REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN.STrl,THE TRANSmON MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 1Z-15-97 WI- DRY W.D. 'f DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 air WL err can RIG C =55 FOREMAN DAR WI- Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB# 21975107 .. t LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 10 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE I-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margii Farms Development - SAMPLES TESTS 0 O _ W W v4 F"i txu o z v DESCRIPTION >" w w u, w z� �" f__0 O - U AG O'Q CD Soil per XP Description depth of Exploration A t' Z alE Q° �`t-;A). iii* P ""r"„", 0.5 6"TOPSOIL _ / CL 1 SS 12" 16 18 , LEAN CLAY with SAND Brown,moist, medium stiff to stiff _ 2 ST 12'1 8 94 — ;/ 4.0 CL 3 SS 12" 10 12 SANDY LEAN CL 6Y A 5 • Tan, light brown, moist, medium stiff to ``. stiff e""" /'. _ 4 ST 12" 6 106 8.5 _ 5 SS 12" 12 6 • SILTY. CLAYEY SAND Tan, light brown, dry to moist, medium dense 10--- _SC- --, _SM 7 14.0 ^ 6 SS 12" 34 7 15.0 WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE — BEDROCK j 15 Tan,gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly cemented BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES I BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSMON MAY BE ORADUAL. WATER LE OBSERVATIONS Avamo� � BORING STARTED 12-15-97 WL- U DRY W.D. i DRY All. BORING COMPLETED 12.16-97 vii_ - _ err ac Ofl �Ia CME-55 -F01 AN DAR WL- Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB 61 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 11 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE I-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development — SAMPLES TESTS O Q ua ,�• A v DESCRIPTION w w - w zC5 `Jzg x "' co > Z H Ca p Z Q I-: a 0 . o rn ��._ w w n--0 O ,-.41.,..t) Z _�..- o soil Description per depth of Exploration Q L 2 t �q ❑a ��°- :-_-3 a!, 0.5 6" TOPSOIL. CL 1 SS 12" 16 LEAN CLAY INA SAND Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff — 2 ST 12' 9 90 .' 4.0 _ CL 3 SS 12" 12 15 LEAN CLAY 9�Y 0 5 _ Tan, buff,moist, medium stiff to stiff • • :./ 8.5 4 SS 12" 7 14 - SILTY. CLAYEY SAND Tan, ligbt brown, dry to moist, medium — dense 10—' SC- ..e". _ SC- -SM • ' ]4.5 5 SS 12" 17 ' 15 WEATHERED SILTSTO [,SAND STONE 15 ~ 15.0 DEMOS { Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist,poorly cemented BOTTOM OF BORING 'THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES !ETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 WI- U DRY W-11I DRY A.B. air acon BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 WL [err RIG C]yjE=55 FOREMAN DAR WL Water checked 4 days A.D. APPROVED DAR JOB 1/ 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO, 12 _ ~ Page l of l ,LIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS O tRtr; ;w ca z v DESCRIPTION z y m zu, A z QFa t� Soil Description per depth of Exploration A Z En= .4 pa "'a 0.5 6" TOPSOIL CL 1 SS 12" 23 17 LEAN CLAY Brown,moist, medium stiff to stiff 2 ST 12" 14 96 40,22,93 3 SS 12" 8 14 5 _ 4 sT 12" 7 L 91 :155 WEATHERED SIL.TSTONE/SANDSTONE 5 SS 12" 40 8 BEDROCK Tan,gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly cemented — COMp$TENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE 10— BEDROCK — Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented *Hard Caprock Sandstone Lease 1' to 1-1/2' `- thickness 14.3 6, SS 4" 50 7 BOTTOM OF BORING STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES ,E WEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 WL U DRY W.D. DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 erractin RlG ..55 FOREMAN DAR Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB# 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 13 Page 1 of 1 •LIEN.I. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company sITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS 0 D z 2 DESCRIPTION ( on > Zrn H Q OZ QF-N pd Soil Description per depth of Exploration Q z I- cn� Qa.a. ivv air :A^A:A 0.5 6" TOPSOIL CL 1 SS 12" 20 LEAN CLAY with SAND Brown,moist, medium stiff to stiff SWELL PRESSURE' 2 ST 12" 11 93 @ 3.0' 320 PSF 4.5 r 3 SS 12" 10 • SANDY LEAN CLAY Tan, buff, moist, medium stiff to stiff CL 4 ST 12" 11 109 30,14,58 _ 5 SS 12" 13 • 10- _ • 6 SS 12" 10 15.0 15 BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES „......,BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,TICE TRANSTI7ON MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-91 A'1 DRY W.D. DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-91 WL uierracon RIG CME=55 FOREMAN DA.R �'1- V6'ater checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB# 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 14 Page 1 of 1 .LIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE I-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development ' SAMPLES TESTS i .-I 8e F^7C ,� O W v> w vo3d W -ieW L75Z x U DESCRIPTION ww > zcnH 0 zz pE;,eNi w O . - r.„ o �., C6 tt U F..O >- . U 4i ,, 2,`< 2-,Soil Description per depth of Exploration Q p z it D ri 2 r4. m"'0. nElt ,."A_-A, 0.5 6' TOPSOIL o CL 1 SS 12" 11 19 34,15,87 LEAN CLAY _— Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff 2 ST 12" 9' 1-75- - 3 SS 12" 11 13 - 5 , , 6.0 _ SANDY LEAN CLAY — CL 4 ST 12" 14 92 5250 Tan, buff, moist, medium stiff to stiff _ 5 SS 12" 13 13 / 10 . • %. • 14.5 _ 6 SS 12" 20 11 15.0 WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE 15 - ' BPROCK Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly cemented BOTTOM OF BORING ' ""THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES LIETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU.THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED .�� . ;12-15-97 � WL U DRY W.D. Z DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 WL -.J. rr acon RIG CME=55 FOREMAN DAR WL Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB it/ 21975107 LOG OF TESL' BORING NO. 15 Page 1sof 1 .LIENT ARC3IITECTIEN GINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development ' SAMPLES TESTS !s Ca ' F-X g x w ' z �� i?S Z DESCRIPTION x � wca > Zg CI 0ZZ QI-a a `6 W. OU F O L >-t,. U u, ]per C7 Soil Description per depth of Exploration Q Z ' i [4= CO.. �a" -_Ic_tr 0.5 6" TOPSOIL /2? CL 1 SS 12" 8 18 LEAN CLAY with SAND Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff — — 2 ST 12" 11 101 1580 4.5 _ 3 SS 12" 22 10 WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE S 6.0 BE12.13SKK Tan,gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly — /"', cemented Jr — COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE BEDROCK Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented 4 SS 3" 50 20 • *Hard Caprock SANDSTONE Lense 10— — —r. 14.3 5 SS 3" 50 17 BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES 3ETWEEN SOIL AND ROOD TYPES: u-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS T _ BORING STARTED 12-j$-97 WI- U DRY W.D. I DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 - [err acon AP CME=5S 'FOREMAN DAR - Water checked days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB p 21975107 A Mar-VA-WO uz:14Y YANK ENGINEERING 1 P.O2 Technical Memorandum To: Town of Mead From:Joel Seamons P.E.,Senior Project Engineer,Park Engineering Date: 02/15/05 Re: MARGIL FARMS LOTS THAT REQUIRE SEPTIC SYSTEMS Margil Farms is approximately a full section of land. Some portions have already been platted and 453 acres are currently in the preliminary plat process. It is to become a residential subdivision. After a preliminary look of the grades and the sanitary service needs for this proposed community, it was found that two lots at the south end of Sickle Court and one at the end of Thresher Court could not be served by the proposed sanitary sewer system. If the sanitary service was to be brought down Sickle Court, the rim of the proposed manhole (5121.5) would be lower than the proposed invert of the pipe itself(5124.7). A similar situation exists in Thresher Court. If positive drainage in the cul-de-sac(to the north)was created,there would be a 25' drop in the back yards of that lot to get back to grade. Thus, septic systems for these three lots are recommended. These lots are all larger than an acre and would have adequate space for such a system. ZMOMNIOOCUMENT1200127901toanneon AprZseptic mwnanoc 5. A discussion should be included as to where the off-site drainage travels from Basin N and a map showing the routing should be included e•.., An exhibit showing the outfall for the north basins has been included in the report. 6. Sheet 1 of 2, Preliminary Drainage Plan South Half The culvert under the Highland Lake Lateral is not shown. The 54"existing culvert is now illustrated. The existing 24-inch culvert under CR 38 is not shown. The 24" culvert illustrated under WCR 38 just west of the intersection with I-25 was an error. The true diameter of this particular culvert is 36" as illustrated on enclosed revised drawings. All culverts should be labeled as existing or proposed. 7. Sheet 2 of 2, Preliminary Drainage Plan South Half. Pond 6 — the note that the "pond collects from Margil Farms Filing. 1" is not exactly correct. It also collects from areas outside Filing 1. This note has been revised. 8. On the drawing titled "Drainage Plan Future Ultimate Build-out", Please indicate that the 54-inch culvert under the canal is existing. This older plan has been updated to illustrate this note. The detention pond numbers should be numbered to be consistent with the previous drawings noted above. One of the ponds has been numbered previously (Pond 231)which is now referenced in the plans. There are also design points that are illustrated on the plans that are consistent with previous reports. Since the rest of the ponds are new per the new site,the project Engineer has opted to number them as well. Please revise notes in legend to number the detention ponds. This comment has been addressed. Geotechnical Engineering Report: 1. Many of the borings, particularly on the hill top, show sand stone less than 10 feet below the surface. The designer will need to consider this when performing the lot grading to assure basements are located above the rock. This comment will be considered when the lot grading is performed as part of the future FDP for that particular phase. 2. Page 12, in the table showing pavement sections, we will not allow full depth asphalt as indicated by Alternative B. Pavement design will need to be submitted to the Town following sub-grade preparation. Please see updated letter prepared by Terracon enclosed in application materials. 16 g. Sheet 7 of 8. 1. The side yards on Planters Way and the rear yards of Tiller r.. Court and Plowshare court should not allow stockade fencing along Margil Road. A note has been added to the plat stating stockade fencing is not allowed along Margil Road. ii. The median entry treatment on Margil Road at WCR 7 should be identified as an outlot that will be maintained by the homeowners association. Outlot DD has been created. The dedication of Outlot S as future right-of-way for WCR 7 is appropriate, however, the dedication includes 30 feet which is not within the town boundaries. Therefore, the plat should stop at the east right-of-way line of WCR 7. Corrected iv. The point identified as the "NW COR CENTER SEC. 34, T4N, R68W" should be labeled as the "NW COR SEC. 24, T4N, R68W." This point should also be labeled as the "Point of Beginning"for the legal description. Corrected v. The point identified as the "N 1/4 COR CENTER SEC. 34, T4N, R68W" should be labeled as the "N 1/4 COR SEC. 24, T$N, 1268W." Corrected 26. Tabbed Section-Phasing Plan. The phasing plan repeats the development of the WCR 7 right-of-way as Outlot S. Thirty feet of Outlot S is outside the Town's boundaries.Also, that portion of the WCR 7 right-of-way improvements adjacent to Phase 6 will not be completed until Phase 10. That is a concern. Thirty feet of Outlot S is out of the legal description for Tract 2. The portion of right of way that is adjacent to Phase 6 will not be built with this phase. 27. Tabbed Section-Preliminary Master Utility Plan. The concern is that three lots on Sickle Way and Thresher Way will be required to have septic systems. It would be preferable to have these three lots served by the central collection system even if they were required to have individual in-house sewage lift pumps. These three lots will have septic systems. See attached letter for explanation. 28. Tabbed Section-Preliminary Soils Report. The preliminary soils report provided was prepared in 1998.Although it is unlikely that the soil conditions have changed in the intervening period of time, the soils report should contain a letter from Terracon confirming that their 1998 recommendations for foundations and pavement sections remain appropriate. Further comments from the Town's engineer may be appropriate. See attached updated letter. 29. Tabbed Section-Preliminary Traffic Study. The traffic impact study was completed in April, 2004 and is signed and stamped as required. Section VII, Recommendations are based entirely of upon residential traffic and the effects upon the WCR 7 and WCR 38. It does not address what happens with the commercial component adjacent to 1-25, nor to the effect of an interchange at I- 9 • 25 and WCR 38 in its long-range (2025)projections. Further comments from the Town's traffic engineer would be appropriate. See memo dated November 8,2004 prepared by Matthew J.Deitch,P.E. Supplemental Annexation Application Comments: 30. Tabbed Section-Annexation Petition Affidavit of Circulator. The standard petition has been modified at Section 2,paragraph j. It is understood that the development plan for the territory proposed be annexed is controlled by the Margil Farms Annexation Agreement. However, the intent of this standard paragraph is to allege that the Town has in place a "three-mile annexation plan"that includes the subject property. This required in order to comply with the statutory provisions of C.R.S. 31-12-105(1)(e)(1) and the original "standard provision"must be used. You may place the proposed "paragraph j"language in a new section later in the petition, as a "condition"to the annexation. However, as a "non-standard"provision, this will require review and approval of the Town Attorney and the Board of Trustees. Please see amended language in the Annexation Agreement. 31. Tabbed Section-Annexation Petition Affidavit of Circulator. A new Section 7 has been added to the petition. This "non-standard"provision will require review and approval of the Town Attorney and Board of Trustees. Further explanation of the reason for this provision is requested. In the past the Town has allowed the applicant to withdraw the petition up to the adoption of the annexation ordinance, but not after. Explain how this provision is compliant with the statutory provisions governing the disconnection of territory. Please see amended language. 32. Tabbed Section - Annexation Petition Affidavit of Circulator. Page 4, the date the petition was signed is not filled in. This is a statutory requirement-C.RS. 31-12-107(1)(c)(VIIIJ. The date has been completed on this form. 33. Tabbed Section-Annexation &Development Impact Assessment Narrative. The information contained in this section will be used by staff to prepare the Annexation Impact Report that is sent to the County for any annexation greater than 10 acres. Missing from this information is the Annexation Impact Report Map. See the Annexation Impact Report Checklist provided to the consultant earlier. See attached Annexation Impact Report Map. 34. Tabbed Section-Annexation&Development Impact Assessment Narrative. The narrative material was not provided in electronic form. See attached disc. 35. Tabbed Section-Annexation &Development Impact Assessment Narrative. Exhibit A, the attachment of the full text of Chapter 16 of the Mead Municipal Code is not necessary. Comment is accepted. 36. Tabbed Section-D-4 Form. Missingfrom the information provided are the "development impact fees"in the one-time revenue section. The correct form was used with the preliminary plat submittal, the one provided with this annexation application did not contain the complete information. See attached correction. 37. Tabbed Section- Water Rights Deed. The Town's standard "special warranty deed for non- tributary water"has been replaced by a standard form "quit claim deed" The substitution will require approval of the Town Attorney. See attached Deed. 10 38. Tabbed Section-Proof of Ownership. The title policy was issued less than 30 days before the submittal as required. The title policy does not contain the required "severed mineral interest"notification. See document attached herein. 39. Tabbed Section-Proof of Ownership. Schedule A, there's a typo in the last line of the legal description. It should read "POINT OF BEGINNING."Each instance that this legal description is used hereafter should also be changed. See attached information prepared by the Title Company. 40. Tabbed Section-Proof of Ownership. Schedule B, Exception No. 8, reserves to the Union Pacific Railroad Company, coal deposits the may be found on the property. This reservation obviously deals with a severed mineral interest but does not appear in the mineral affidavit. An explanation from Minco LLC is requested. See response from Bill Crews as follows: 1. You asked what happened to RME Land Corp., since the document by which RME requested notification is in the exceptions list to the title commitment. By Amended Application for Authority to Transact Business for a Profit Corporation filed with the Colorado Secretary of State and recorded under Rec. No. 3031561 of the real property records of Weld County, RME Land Corp. changed its name to Anadarko Land Corp. 2. You asked why the Union Pacific Railroad Company did not appear, since the exceptions included the reservation of all coal by the railroad. Union Pacific Railroad became Union Pacific Land Resources Company,which became RME Land Corp.,which became,as noted above,Anadarko Land Corp. 3. You asked about the reservation in the Patent concerning the rights of a proprietor of a vein or lode. This language did not constitute a reservation of minerals. Congress did not authorize any mineral reservations in Patents until the Act of June 22, 1910,which authorized the reservation of coal.The Act of July 17, 1914 authorized the reservation of minerals other than coal to the USA. 41. Tabbed Section -Proof of Ownership. Schedule B, Exception No. 20, is a request for notification of surfaced development by RME Petroleum Company pursuant to statute. RME petroleum Company does not appear in the mineral affidavit. An explanation from Minco LLC is requested. See response to Gary West's item#40 above. 42. Tabbed Section-Surrounding Property Owner List. A copy of the assessor's map was not included with the application as required. See attached document prepared by the Title Company. 43. Tabbed Section-Surrounding Property Owner List There's a typo in the last line of the legal description.It should read "POINT OF BEGINNING."See item no. 39 above. See attached document prepared by the Title Company. 44. Tabbed Section-Surrounding Property Owner List. The ownership list does not include the following properties east of 1-25 which are within 300 feet of the subject property: Property Owner Parcel Number Douthit Mead LLC 106135000004 Heirs of Gilman Olson 120702000036 Lenora H. Willson 120702200055 Timothy Hugh& Vider 120702200054 11 1-25 ROW is 250' in addition to the Frontage Road ROW which is 50 east of the North/South section line. Therefore, the above properties are clearly over 300 from the subject property. Please see instruments recorded in Book 1038 page 519 and Book 1528 page 526 verifying this See attached document prepared ment by the Title Company and Xcel spreadsheet. 45. Tabbed Section-Surrounding Property Owner List The mailing list d oes not include the names and address of the ditch companies whose ditches traverse the property, nor the special districts whose boundaries include the property. It is preferred that the mailing list follow the Excel spreadsheet sample provided to the consultant. .Heirs of Gilman Olson Don Owen %Steve Coleman McKay Lateral Mead Lateral Ballenger Reservoir 4322 Highway 66 PO Box 38 1508 Ave Berthoud CO 80513 Longmont CO 80501 Longmont CO 80504 See attached List prepared by the Title Company. 46. Tabbed Section -Mineral Affidavit The list of mineral owners and mineral lessees prepared by Minco LLC, does not appear to be complete. In the title commitment at exception no. 20, RME Petroleum Company and RME Land Corp., requested notification of surface development as provided by statute. In the title commitment at exception no. 8, there is evidence of the reservation by the Union Pacific Railroad Company of the coal rights for a portion of the property.An explanation should be provided for these exclusions from the mineral affidavit, or the cffidavit must be updated. Please refer to Bill Crew's response to Gary West's item#40 above. 47. Tabbed Section-Preliminary Soils Report The preliminary soils report in provided intervening prepared in 1998.Although it is unlikely that the soil conditions have changed period of time, the soils report should contain a letter from Terracon confirming that their 1998 recommendations for foundations and pavement sections remain appropriate. Further comments from the Town's engineer may be appropriate. See attached letter from Terracon. 48. Tabbed Section -Overall Concept Plan. The Concept Plan fails to provide the appropriate Planning Commission and Board of Trustees signature cert fcates. See attached revision. 49. Tabbed Section -Annexation Map, Land Survey Standards Form. See attached revision. a. Sheet 1 of 2. i, The legal description in the "Certificate of Ownership"contains an incorrect length in the 7'" line from the top. The length is to be 1242.38 feet. It is correct as written.e" is to conta ii. �t the otalc ontiguitytof 2,269.00' and in the last line the total perimeter of 4,008.19'. Text has been added. b. Sheet 2 of 2. i he existing stormdrainage et loated in the area to be annexed should be labeled with the recording information. Text has been added. ii. The map should contain a legend indicating "found pins, pins set and monument information." Pins that have been found are marked accordingly. All of the property corners will be set for the final plat. 12 Jim Wright wrote the following items in his review dated August 6, 2004:Preliminary Plat Comments: The following comments have been incorporated. Sheet I of 8 1. The Table of Tracts and outlots will need to be updated as indicated in comments listed below. This comment has been considered with changes made. Sheet 2 of 8 1. The Highland Lake lateral should have an easement indicated across Tract C. See changes made. 2. Tract C should have the future land use identified on the plat summary. See changes made. 3. The angle bend on Tin Cup Lane is not appropriate for street design. A curve will need to be designed. We have redesigned Homestead per the criteria staff deemed appropriate for this particular application. 4. Homestead Drive running into Tin Cup Lane will be confusing. We have redesigned Homestead per the criteria staff deemed appropriate for this particular application. 5. The proposed highway reservation should be described. Does this mean developer is dedicating this as right-of-way. The proposed highway reservations have been created into outlots. 6. The detention pond being located in the highway reservation is not appropriate. The pond has been relocated out of the highway outlots.(Outlots BB and CC). 7. The typical lot easement detail should show which is front and back of lot. (Le. street side) The final plat will require that all easements be shown on each lot and the detail will need to be eliminated Typical easements have been added to each lot. 8. Homestead should be a business collector and the width will need to be 80 feet. See changes made. 9. The sewer line easement in the SE corner needs to have the reception number indicated. See changes made. 10. Match lines and a plat key would make the drawings easier to read and located position over full tract of land There is excessive overlap in plat when comparing some sheets. See changes made per conversation with Jim Wright. Sheet 3 of 8 1. Outlot H, the top of the detention pond bank should be shown to determine that adequate easement exists for future maintenance of the detention pond. The top of the bank is illustrated and labeled. 2. Tract C, east of Outlot H, should be labeled Tract D so as not to conflict with the existing Tract C south of CR 38. What is the purpose of Tract D? The purpose is as Commercial as defined in Annexation Agreement as amended. 3. There are two Tract A's and this should be corrected. What is the purpose of the long tract A adjacent to the east plated lots? The purpose of Tract A is Commercial as defined in Annexation Agreement as amended. See revisions made to this sheet to eliminate confusion. r 13 Sheet 4 of 8 1. A future road needs to be extended into the NEI/4 of Section 34. Outlots E,I,L,X and Y were left open for such use. The potential for future connectivity of Terrace Drive is provided by the space between Lot 21 on Block 15 and Lot 15 on Block 1. 2. Outlots X and Y are going to be difficult to maintain. Might consider just making them part of adjoining lots. Their purpose is for potential future connectivity as well. We cannot make them part of the adjoining lots. See previous comment. 3. Outlot P should be indicated. Labeled as requested. Sheet 5 of 8 1. The Town should not offer to maintain Outlots N and O. These are basically only large enough to allow a trail to pass through It is our opinion that these Outlots are large enough at 1+acre for useable open space. Sheet 6 of 8 1. The plat does not provide for adequate utility easement along CR 7. We request that 25 feet of utility and access easement be provided along CR 7 for future utilities and trails. Oudot S is 20' dedicated right of way which can include trails and utilities. An additional 20' utility easement is proposed into the lots for a combined utility usage off 40'. Sheet 7 of 8 I. A future road needs to be extended east into the NE %.of Section 34. Outlots L,X and Y were left open for potential future connectivity use. 2. The size of the future pump station outlot is not adequate and needs to be relocated away from the back of the lot to reduce possible noise to adjacent residents when the standby generator is running. Outlot Z has been moved to the North. Sheet 8 of 8 1. No comments Utility Plans Comments: The comments have been addressed. 1. We will require that LTWD approve any future utility plans and demonstrate that adequate fire protection be provided within the development Berthoud Fire Protection District,who is the regulatory fire agency for Margit, provided the Engineer with the fire hydrant layout. 2. The Town is currently limited on its wastewater treatment capacity. An implementation plan has been developed to provide capacity for additional growth. Financing of this plan will need to occur prior to having the needed capacity for this development. The following is copied from the recorded 2°" amendment to Margil Farms Annexation Agreement (5m point),"The Town agrees to comply with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment rules and regulations in the provision of sewage treatment capacity and the expansion of treatment capacity to accommodate the development expected to occur within the Margil 14 Farms Annexations. The Annexor agrees to provide the Town, prior to December 31 of each year, an estimate of the additional sewage treatment ... capacity that will be required by the Town to service development within the Margil Farms Annexation, in the succeeding two years. The Town agrees to consider reserving future sewer tap fees to expand the existing sewage treatment facility." See separate letter enclosed to further address this issue. Concept Plan Comments: The comments have been addressed • 1. The concept plan does not address trails and how they would tie into existing trails. A note has been added to the Concept Plan. Also refer to narrative description. 2. Preliminary landscaping concepts including fencing types should have been included in the submittal Fence styles and types will be provided at the time of Final Plat. Traffic Study Comments: 1. The Town should require financial participation from the developer in the signal that will ultimately be required at CR 38 and 7. See attached memo dated November 8,2004 prepared by Matthew J.Delich,P,E. 2. CR 38 will require widening from CR 7 to 1-25. The development agreement will need to address when this work is to be completed. A Development Agreement will be addressed as part of Final Plat. 3. The traffic study did not address traffic from the future commercial areas both north and south of CR 38. We understand that specific commercial uses are required to develop a meaningful traffic report. However, we would like to see projections made based on some generalized assumptions of what is occurring along 1-25 for commercial development. These projections will need to be used to determine future cost participation by the developer for CR 38 traffic signals and road improvements. See attached memo dated November 8,2004 prepared by Matthew J.Delich,P.E. Draina¢e Report Comments: The following comments have been incorporated. 1. In the introduction, please reference all previous drainage reports for the Margil Development and their dates. This comment has been addressed. 2. Figure I. This figure does not show the entire drainage basin and leaves the new reader with a lot of confusion. It should be appropriate to reference the north and south half figures that shows the entire project area and then introduce Town's master plan drainage discussion from the September 28, 2000 drainage report. This exhibit was deleted from the body of the report since it is included in the appendix of the report. There should be a description of what was built with Margil II including the 54-inch canal crossing (shown as proposed but currently exists), drainage swale and culvert modifications at CR 38. It will be extended to the west with the addition of the infrastructure in that area. 3. The entire Addendum (dated September 28, 2000) should be included in the appendix. This comment has been addressed. 4. You will need to address how to spill the 100 plus year even over CR 38. Discussion has been added to the report. 15 LOG OF TEST BORING N0. 16 Page 1 of 1 LIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS C7 p it � wA I'W • m11" :Tiz8 �" I••.. i Z X O DESCRIPTION w w zo 0.N Z U A01. 0 p 5 Qu., u 0 Soil Description per depth of Exploration A Z H En= ,4 orz4� AAA' 0.5 6" TOPSOIL. 1�f _CL I SS 12" 7 21 ✓/� LEAN CLAY with SAND Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff SWELL PRESSURE 3.5 SC- 2 ST 12'r 15 108 6065 ® 3.0' - 225 PSF SILTY CLAYEY SAND SM 3 SS 12" 6 15 Tan,moist, medium dense — 5 :::•_.: 7.5 4 ST 12" 19 95 WEATHERED SILTSTONELSANDSTONB 5 SS 12" 34 19 9.0 BEDROCK — gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly T . \Tan, cemented• -- COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE IO- T BEDROCK • Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented — • 6 SS 8" 50 18 34.8 BOTTOM OF BORING STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOD..AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE ORADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 WI- 2 DRY 't't'•n• DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 WL err acon R.IG CME=55 FOREMAN DAR WL Water checked 4 days A.E. APPROVED DAR JOB rN 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 17 page 1 of 7 :L1ENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS o O ? A 1~w ZZ DESCRIPTION w > w u"() �„ x I- tooa w. > z, A oW A-a a. u o, UU O 5 >"u. Soil Description per depth of Exploration Q a Z m .4 in C4 u a OQ h ^� 0.5 6" TOPSOIL CL 1 SS 12" 6 20 LEAN CLAY with SAND Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff 3.0 2 ST 12" 20 92 WEATHERED SILTST.pNE/SANDSTONE 3 SS 12" 50 16 5.0 BEDROCK \Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly 5 cemented • COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE BEDROCK — Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented .=r r 4 SS 4", 50 18 • *Hard Caprock SANDSTONE Lense 10— • • 14.7 _ 5 SS 8" 50 17 BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES 3E!'WEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: II3.SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 WL 3 DRY W'D. Z DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 W rracon RIG CME-55 F°REMAN DAR WI- Water checked 4 days A.B.. APPROVED DAR JOB# 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 18 Page 1 of 1 :LIENT ARCHTTECf/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE I-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS ,-•. 0 Be A DESCRIPTION co C=1 w z ��" "} g z_ - A of QH j U Soil Description per depth of Exploration Ca O Z re En co .4 Ma. Dv �� _ 0.5 6" TOPSOIL , -t;� CL 1 SS 12" 9 22 LEAN CLAY with SAND Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff .400 33 33 2 ST 12'- 16 91 5)50 4.5 WEATHERED SILTSTQNE/SANDSTONE 3 SS 9" 50 12 BEDROCK Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly 5— cemented COMPBIENT SILTSTONE/SANNDSTQNE �'+ BEDROCK Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented • 4 SS_ 4" 50 16 *Hard Caprock SANDSTONE Lense 10— - 14.5 5 SS 6" 50 16 BOTTOM OF BORING • �.THE St_RATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETW.J:EN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES; IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 1.2-15-97 DRY W.D. DRY A.B. BORING COMPLETED L2-16-97 WL err acon Ri° CW=55 >=oREMAN DAR �'�- Water checked 4 days A.D. APPROVED DAR JOB# 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 19 Page Ion 1 CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE I-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT ! Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development , SAMPLES 'PESTS O O G O t X -� W DESCRIPTION v}, w ec al z� w zO o •S "' w O 3 A OZ lz1 '-, � a w v a a U HO O ou. Z 0 j' O Soil Description per depth of Exploration Q O Z � vac= atm. ay.)c"�. =in..* ."n 0.5 6" TOPSOIL ML I SS 12" 9 11 NV,NP,5I SAND SILT — Tan, olive, moist, medium stiff 2 SS 12" 14 8 - 6.0 -1 `r WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE - BEDROCK - 8.0 Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly cemented / — COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE - BEDROCK ' 3 SS 8"r 50 l6 • . Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented — *Hard Caprock SANDSTONE Lense 10— 14.5 4 SS 6" 50 18 BOTTOM OF BORING 'q THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTEI 12-15-97 WI- Q DRY Will I DRY A.B. ORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 �- err acon �� CME-55 FOREMAN DAR �'I- Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB N 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 20 Page 1 of I JENT ARCHITECT/EN GINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE I-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS a- w� I~w zX ro L.) DESCRIPTION �. x m w z Z3 u1 O _ A gua • U F"O O emu" w per" c7 Soil Description per depth of Exploration O a z s-- 1,2%2 rn1 Aay.. arna ..-aa 0.5 6" TOPSOIL CL 1 SS 12" 8 21 39,22,89 LEAN CLAY Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff 3.5 2 ST 12' 20 96 WEATHERED SILTSTON_E/SANDSTONE 3 SS 12" 40 14 5.0 BEDROCK Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly ' 5 y - 1` cemented COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE BEDROCK — Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented — SWELL PRESSURE *Interbedded CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE 4 SS 12" 31 22' ® 8.0' Lease • 550 PSF 10-- • • • 14.3 5 SS 3" 50 17 BOTTOM OF BORING , ){E STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES 7.TWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED - 12-15-97 airDRY W.D. DRYA•B. BORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 v✓1 erracon RJc CME=55 FOREMAN DAR WL Water checked 4 days A.B. I APPROVED DAR JOB// 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 21 �' "C-- Page I 0 l LIENT AR CHITECT/EN G INEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS o O * A tX E ' z zx z DESCRIPTION W > z� a w Z� ag °' W O 3 l_, a Oz Qt-a r„ t� v�r. C� rs. WU F-O O- V cG I, v Soil Description per depth of Exploration Q Z � r �e Aa ��a bt ",..,. v .,. 0.5 6" TOPSOIL CL 1 SS 12" 7 21 LEAN CLAY with SAND Brown, moist,medium stiff to stiff W 2 ST 1r- � -. 22 94 173b tr 4.0 3 SS 12" 30 19 WEATHERED SILTSTONE/StkNDSTONE — DEDROCK 6.0 Tan, gray, olive, rust, moist, poorly _= \ cemented / `i COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE! — - BEM= - Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented 4 SS 10" 50 20 " 10-- 5 SS 8" 50 21 '7- 14.8 - BOTTOM OF BORING � .q,, ..THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES � ET 'EEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 wI- 3 DRY WD. T DRY A.B. ORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 wi - err acon RIG CME=55 FOREMAN DAR , Water checked days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB# 21975107 i LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 22 page 1 of 2 'LIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS ee A Wu) DESCRIPTION y w z z� -� g X ca Z H Q 51--4' I—. U a O p 0 > �U W� Soli Description per depth of Exploration Ca z " 1OV. j/DO • A A 0.5 6" TOPSOIL CL 1 SS 12" 10 31 LEAN CLAY with SAND _ Brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff - 1 2 RS 12" 14 11 ' 5_ 6.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY — - CL 3 ST 12" 11 91 27,I2,66 � Tan, buff, moist, medium stiff to stiff 4 SS 12" 16 11 / 10- • • 5 SS 12" 20 13 15 • .j ..� Continued Next Page - THE$TRATIPICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES r•1EIwEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 DRY W-D. DRY A-B• BORING COMPLETED IZ-16-97 WL erracon Rip� CME'=55 FOREMAN DAR WL Water checked 4 days A.B. APPROVED DAR JOB# 21975107 LOG OF TEST BORING NO. 22 ,J.---- Page 2of2 LIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Hall Irwin Construction Company SITE 1-25 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Farms Development SAMPLES TESTS • se >. ca14 c„ F-w DESCRIPTION >, m � w �C� Q'"g tr1 O O OZ . E-t cnna ca. In el:". ...I a.* ,/, _ SANDY LEAN CLAY 6 SS 12"-- 12 10 Tan, buff, moist, medium stiff to stiff _ / 20 . . 21.0 WEATHERED SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE BEDROCK 0 Tan, gray,olive, rust, moist, poorly •--23. cemented COMPETENT SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE rT. 24.3 BEDROCK '7`SS 4" 50 13 Tan, gray, olive, moist, cemented l BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES 3ETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. S WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-15-97 WI- U DRY W.D. Z DRY A.B. 1rEBORING COMPLETED 12-16-97 [err��n RIG CME=55 FOREMAN DAR WL Water checked 4 days A..B. APPROVED DAR. JOB N 21975107 .m 1�w�wrui Ir,un LOG OF BORING NO. TB-1 Page 1 of .. .OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Olson Bros LLC SITE Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Master Plans SAMPLES TESTS 0 0 0 b° >" Z w - E--� u ..I p I-tom„ u. c i Z2 DESCRIPTION N a --- J W. Z v =c`.. Q a U . 0- Zo A oV Wa< w O Approx. Surface Elev.: 0.0 ft. W . 0 D Z Imo- c-m 2 p Gv., Z til 3- . 1.0 TOPSOIL / -1.0 _CL SS 9 /% SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown to tan, moist ` 4.0 to wet, stiff, slightly calcareous. -4.0 — ST 27 _ _ _ l 5 I SS 13 1 2 - !CB 46 10-- S&NDSTONE/SILTSTQNZ, with thin = =Y claystone interbeds, gray/tan/rust, moist, — weathered to hard. - — I SS 150/11 15 15 - 20.0 -20.0 --� I SS 150/9 I I 20 BOTTOM OF BORING r",THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES Cahbratrd Rod Pcnetro cter` BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: 1N-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS S � BORING STARTED _ 12-23-94 Wei 1, wL 4 9'0"W2/23/94 4'6' 1.2./27/94 Empire Laboratories BORING COMPLETED 12.23-94 ,'✓I- `— incorporated RiG 0,41,..55 FOREMAN TDK Division of Terracon APPROVED JOB# ES W22945185 LOG OF BORING NO. TB-2 Page 1 of 1 /^, OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Olson Bros LLC SITE Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado l Maril Master Plan SAMPLES TESTS S _o r• � W zW - --t c:10 I-L w rn z= owCt,U DESCRIPTION , I:4 Z u`-~ ._t<tn C...— < "� a F-to N 0 Z .-1:7-r-- __ .i ¢ O LI a- ZO - > o - 3wa< �- u VI •`-.n >- u� - rec., z�� pNQ > O Approx. Surface Elev.: 0.0 ft. O D Z 1-- o n� �vsn. e.�,...) I.:_v:� j:"'. 1.0 TOPSOIL -1.0 _CL SS 9 _ ST 16 103 2750 -0.1/5 — -SS 4 12 — — • SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown to reddish i brown, moist to wet, stiff to soft, slightly H 1ST 23 98 11650 1 porous soil structure. SS 3 I0J "--"s - • 12.0 -12.0 - =Et:: SANDSTONE/SLITSTONZ, with thin 15.0 claystone interbeds, gray/tan/rust, moist, -15.0 15 —I I SS1 50/6 I ' I r` , hard to very bard. / BOTTOM OF BORING i i s e"..."1 THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES Calibrated Head Peactm®ctcr" BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSrrION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED — n 12-23-94 WL $7 Dry 12123/94 I 9'6" 12/27/94 Empire Laboratories BORING COMPLETED 12-23-94 wL 42 Incorporated ! RIG CM-s,..55 'FOREMAN TDK 1 WL Division of Terrncon APPROVED Esw JOB# 22945185 LOG OF BORING NO. TB-3 Page i of l WNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Olson Bros LLC SITE Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Master Plan SAMPLES TESTS U 0 o `r CI Zu o -� ca L3= o .� �� t tau_ DESCRIPTION r � — Z u.. , a<L„ = z E- t i- U co � LI P. o OUP 1..)t.),,of::) u;- x LO v) y. �� O ado Z vi ;S R O II; >,v, a Approx. Surface Elev.: 0.0 ft. ❑ a Z I- n z C:)a. atnna e.�,.,.I t_hc_ I "^.^: 1.0 TOPSOIL -1.D _CL SS 7 1 _j� I SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown to tan, moist -I 5 _ L —�, medium, slightly calcareous. -- i _ ST SS 50/10 17 5 _ { i C= i SA,V'DSTONEISILTSTONE, with thin — ! CB 50/4 =m= claystooe interbeds, gray/tan/rust, moist, ::-..-==:: hard to very hard. 10 _= 15.0 -15.0 -- , SS 50/5 BOTTOM OF BORING - 15 I i i f l i l i I I • I 1 jAnommantamemmearaamemamaamadosamsamrert, I `HE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES C iiraicd Hand Patanxnarr• dEI WEEK SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. r WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 1.2-23-94 , ViL $ Dry 12/23/94 = 5'0. 32/27/94 Empire Laboratories BORING COMPLETED ]2-23-94 wL~� T_ Incorporated RIG CME-55 FOREMAN TDK WL — Division of Terracon APPROVED ESW JOB# 22945185 LOG OF BORING NO. TB-4 Page 1 of 1 -.-'""-. O WNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Olson Bros LLC SITE Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Master Plan SAMPLES TESTS V O O - - IA >-. C] Z u O t PE W z ZT U� . T DESCRIPTION N � cG z� �zw' F- H O Cs Z u r Q L Ili U In O } ua� ""t--% �U Z�� O-'O - `✓, co Approx. Surface Elev.: 0.0 ft. o D Z I- r-c O1I. D�1� b ?,i �s� . 1'0 TOPSOIL. 0 _CL SS 8 15 - _.., ST 300 SODY LEAN CLAY, brown to dark SS 28 1 1 • brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, slightly 5 I - _ calcareous. <! 7.0 -7.0 L 1C$ 15 I1 113 6650• 10 ,, SANDY SILT, brown to light brown, moist, stiff. 15.0 -15.0 15 --I I SS 9 I BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES C&Lbntcd Hind Pwctrcmarr' BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSCTION MAY BE GRADUAL. .31.1O6MSM0GIIMIIIM.M.WWWWWWINICW WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12_23-94 WL U Dry 12/23/94 1 14'6" Dci 1.2/27/94 Empire Laboratories BORING COMPLETED 12-23-94 WL 5: Incorporated RIG O1E:55 FOREMAN Tim Division tVI6I0p of TCIT8C0t1 APPROVED ESW JOB a 22945185 LUG OF BORING NO. TB-5 Page I of 1 WNERJcLIENT ARCHTTECT/EN GINEER Olson Bros LLC SITE Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Master Plan • SAMPLES TESTS 0 J G ao �. Z ..--, to•DESCRIPTION .. A. .`z � 51, x p i- o oz my ow c,41.,L w�• - )-Li.. zF, v 0 >f O O Approx. Surface Elev.: 0.0 ft. 0 a Z 1- a-m Oc- �rqa b'N,, t_ : " � ''.^...-.1' '.i 1.0 ;TOPSOIL -1.0 __CL SS 12 - -:Y., i1 ST 500 SS 12 10 ' 5 _ fCB 8 12 111 8600 10- �"`�✓/ SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown to reddish T brown, moist, stiff, slightly calcareous, _ L vanes in places to a sandy silt. _ . . .-. SS 9 15 _ _'::,//f:/./ _ // . I 20— .4 21.0 -21.0 _ _-- IL SANDSTONE/STSTONE, with thin _ _- claystone interbeds, gray/olive, moist, CB 50/5 12 25.0\ very bard. / -25.0 25 — _ BOTTOM OF BORING i ,—o _ I -1E'STRATIFICA7ION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES Ca lbratcd Haad Pwctromcur" BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: 1NSTTU,THE TRANSrr1ON MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-23-94 wL g Dry 12123/94 [23'0"Dci 12/27/94 Empire Laboratories BORING COMPLETED 12-23-94 wl e - incorporated RIG CM 55 FOREMAN TDK w2 Division of Tors ou APPROVED ESW JOB N 22945185 LOG OF BORING NO. TB-6 JO Page 1 of 1 WNERJCLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Olson Bros LLC — SITE Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Master Plan SAMPLES TESTS _ o o b >- O zw o H' 2 l-L t1 z z= ua I., v DESCRIPTION z 2=En Ill 0 Approx. Surface Elev.Elev.!: 0.0 ft. 0 D Z H A..m Q c-, 0 a b` .) y r - 1.0 TOPSOIL _CL SS 18 15 — SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown to tan, moist, _ ST 12 104 13550 650 stiff to very stiff, slightly calcareous. 5.0 -5.0 --I SS 8 5 r , =-= _ 1 CB 50/9 1 17 { SP,NDSTONE/SILTSTQNE, with thin 10 ."—^-7_=--7- claystone interbeds, gray/tan, moist, hard to very hard. — 15.0 -15.0 15d I SS 50/3 I I BOTTOM OF BORING l i R r THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES CAL-brawl Fiend Ptxicuccactcr• BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,Trre TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. ZMISYLIMIOCIE92.6.1XMlicilARZY .333,.... WATER LEVEL O ��BORING STARTED 12.23-94 I WL U I)ry 12113/94 111'0"Dta 12/27/94 Empire Laboratories BORING COMPLETED 12-23-94 WL i Incorporated 'RIG c 55 FOREMAN TDK WL - - Division of Tcrrocoo ,,NV APPROVED ESW JOB# 22945185 .1 LOG OF BORING NO. TB-7 Page 1 of 1 WNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Olson Bros LLC SITE Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Master Plan p SAMPLES TESTS _ O nA. iR to p v F-L sn ZT Uce U DESCRIPTION u °�, n u. Z V .. =n- ct 1-- H a O w U Z..a I;_--; a. u.-I o a`- Zit'- tn p u�,_ U �-� o �3� L Approx. Surface Elev.: 0.0 ft. O O Z H c.ca Mc_ "'o- bJ J U 2 h...,,.-. 1.0 TOPSOIL / 1'0 _CL SS 19 r r _ ST 3.1/5O0 SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown to reddish SS 14 13 — brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, slightly 5 _ � calcareous. — j/ 7.0 -7.0 — . -Y" _1vIL 1 I CB 22 10 ` 114 18800 SANDY SILT, brown to light brown, moist, 10— . 1 very stiff. _ ,I ' 11.5 -11.5 — ,SANDSTONE/SILTSTQNZ, with thin — _ 15.0 claystone interbeds, gray/rao/rust, moist, -15.0 — SS i 20 9 ` firm. / 15 BOTTOM OF BORING I ; I ; I I THE STRATIFICATION LEES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES Cslbraud}mod Pcoctromracr' BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE.TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. V.IIOIME=SPIVERIZI660.4.6,011k2MIIMIMilie. .3.60n WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 32-23-94 . WL U Dry 12/23/94 113'0'Dci 12/27/94 ' Empire Laboratories BORING COMPLETED 12-23-94 WL S Incorporated RIG ( 4 55 FOREMAN T]DK Division of Tcrracon WL APPROVED ESw JOB# 22945185 _ LOG OF BORING NO. TB-8 Page 1 of 1 .+--. OWNER/CLIENT ARCHITECT/EN GINEER Olson Bros LLC SITE Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Margil Master Plan SAMPLES T TESTS o - o tg > n z u, o L zx °a DESCRIPTION c,� h a rya z v < .„- .... W cn >— W.-) O CC.) Z H cij =O U Approx. Surface Elev.: 0.0 ft. Q Z E-' n..co 2 Inc- v.)o... DM�--) fz_c„::- :.-::::/7 .0 1 TOPSOIL, -1.0 _CL ss 18 18 2.5 SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown to tan, moist, -2.5 t_—_— \ very stiff. i1 — _ ST 14 99 9550 —— _ SS 50/9 =— 5 — —=- —::: — SS 50/8 13 10 H t'` _- = SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE, with thin — =E=• == tanrus , moist,claystone interbeds, gray/ / tist, E hard. — _ CB 50/9 1.8/500 15 E 20.0 -20.0 — SS 50/11 I 1 BOTTOM OF BORING 20 U '^ ' THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES Calibrated Hand Penetrometer' BETWEEN N SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN.SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. ,�.�, �. � ..... ism a WATER LEVEL.OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 12-73-94 WL 9 Dry 12/23/94 118'0" Ira 12129/94 Empire Laboratories BORING COMPLETED 12-23.-94 WL € Incorporated RIG CML-55 FOREMAN TDK WL Division of Terracon APPROVED Esw JOB 0 22945185 LOG OF BORING NO. TB-9 Page 1 of 1 " OWNER/cLIENr ARCH1TECr/ENGINEER Olson Bros LLC SITE Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 38 PROJECT Mead, Colorado Master Plan SAMPLES TESTS 0 *. [� w z„,p.L t i zx °aL U DESCRIPTION y. ct � c4 Z ME-- ]<v, = v, n E-� H p Zz -Jxa °- I- en t:.) w3 in OZ tnVO u2a c- chi, D WOJ O aU ZE-tp ",r O< �>LI)v, O Approx. Surface Elev.: 0.0 ft. G] Z ►-- O. Om. DV) .. aR`—I :A- 1.0 TOPSOIL -1.0 - L SS 20 f . • - SANDY SILT,brown to light brown, moist, • very stiff to medium. ■ ICB 5 18 92 3400 _ 5.5 -5.5 5 -= CB 50/10 0.5/501] 10-- ,r - • SANDSTONE/SII TSTO1 , with thin • _ __ claystone interbeds, gray/tan/rust, moist, hard to very hard. SS 50/8 15 �—' 20.0 -20.0 l SS 150/6 16 20 BOTTOM OF BORING 1 j THE'STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINTS GnLbmrd Head Pcactrometcf SEMI/BEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN-SITU,THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED L2.-23-94 WL g Dry 12/23/94 113'0" Dci 12/27/94 Empire Laboratories BORING COMPLETED 1.2-23-94 wL Incorporated RIG C v 55 FOREMAN TDK Division of Terracoa APPROVED ESW JOB 0 22945185 0.59 r 1 r 0S8 0.57 0.56 • V O 1 D 0.55 R A T 1 0.54 O 0.53 1 0.52. - \ , , 0.51 0.50 0.1 1 10 Applied Pressure-Tons per Square Foot Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% I • 5 7.0 WTE R SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE 104 18 r--' PROJECT MErgil]F.0 ms-1-25 and Weld County Road _ JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1/13/98 CONSOLIDATION TEST Terracon Consultants Western, Inc 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado f 0.• 0.5 1.0 ,�e 1.5 2.0 P 2.5 N 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.1 1 10 Applied Pressure-Tons per Square Foot Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • 5 7.0 WTFIR S LTSTONE/SANDSTONE 104 18 r—� PROJECT Margil Farms -125 and Weld_Count;?Road JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1113198 CONSOLIDATION TEST Terracon Consultants Western,,Inc. 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado - 0.82 0.80 - - 0.78 - 0.76 V 0.74 O 1 0.72 A T O 0.70 0.68 0.66 0.64 0.62 - 0.1 1 10 Applied Pressure-Tons per Square Foot Specimen Identification Classification DID MC% • 6 3.0 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 92 15 PROJECT Margil Farms -I-25_and Weld CSlunty Road IOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1113/98 CONSOLIDATION TEST Terracon Consultants Western, Inc, 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado - 1 - 2 - 3 - - - q - S T R A 5 N 6 -- 7 r g 9 10 0.1 1 10 Applied Pressure-Tons per Square Foot Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • 6 3.0 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 92 15 PROJECT Margi1 Farms - 1-25 and WehI County Road JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1/13/98 CONSOLIDATION TEST Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. a-amoc.arcarga1 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado 0.91 0.90�� 0.89 0.88 . 0.87 V 0.86 - O 1 D 0.85 R A 0.84 Q 0.83 - . 0.82 - 0.81 - 0.80 0.79 - - 0.78 0.1 1 10 Applied Pressure-Tons per Square Foot Specimen Jdentification Classification DD MC% • 9 3.0 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 87 6 PROJECT Marti Farms -l( ,5and Wad CsmotyJtoaI JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1/13/98 CONSOLIDATION TEST Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. � MSAZSPJM.S=.1, 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado 0.. 0.5 LO 1.5- - 2.0 2.5 S T 3.0 R A 1 3.5 4.0. 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 _ 6.5 0.1 1 10 Applied Pressure-Tots per Square Foot Specimen Identification Classification I DD MC% • 9 3.0 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 87 6 PROJECT Margil Farms -I-2S and Weld County Road JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1/13/98 CONSOLIDATION TEST Terracon Consultants Western,.Inc. I289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado l 0.525 - 0.520 • 0.515 0.510 - V 0 ' 0305 1 R A T O1 0.500 0.495 0.490 0.485 0.480 0.1 1 10 Applied Pressure-Tons per Square Foot Specimen Identification Classification DD I MC% • 12 3.0 LEAN CLAY CL 109 15 PROJECT Margil Farms-1;25 and Weldcounty Road JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1/13/98 CONSOLIDATION TEST Terracon Consultants Western; Inc. 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado 0. 0.4 - -- 0.6 0.8 - \. 1.0 . s 1.2 - T R A 1.4 1 Nr \ . 1.8' _ . . , �� 2.0 - 2.2 _ 2.4 2.6 2.8 0.3 1 10 Applied Pressure-Tons per Squire Foot rySpecimen Identification Classification _ DD -MC% * • 12 3.0 LEAN CLAY CL 109 15 PROJECT Margil Farms. - 1-25 and Weld County Road JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1/13/98 CONSOLIDATION TEST L.....__ Terracon Consultants Western,.-Inc. 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado 0.83 - , -------,— ' 0.8A _ 0.81 — 0.80 - - -- . 0.79 V 0.78 O 1 D 0.77 R A T 0.76 — — _ - 1 O 0.75 - 0.74 _ 0.73 - 0.72 0.71 — 0.70 - 0.1 1 10 Applied Pressure-Tons per Square soot Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • 16 3.0 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) 91 15 PROJECT I giL Farms -�5 and We otter+Road JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1/13/98 CONSOLIDATION TEST Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado 0.5 - - - _ 1.5 - - _ 2.0 2.5 _ , S T 3.0 - R A 1 N 3.5 - 40 _ 4.5 - 5.0 - i- . 5.5 6.0 6.5 L 0.I 1 10 Applied Pressure-Tons per Squirt Foot ._. Specimen Identification Classification DD MC% • 16 3.0 LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL) - 91 15 PROJECT Margil Farms - 1-25and Wel CountyRoad JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1/13/98 CONSOLIDATION TEST Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado .rte: _ ,• 1289 1ST AVENUE 5- "1 � � P.O.BOX 1744 ,r. • rye .: . c'`-!" M• GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 CONSULTANTS WESTERN,INC. (970)361-0460 FAX(970)353-8639 .z{r j �s a a r „r ; RE51ST 1NCE IAt I < )PANSI .P .2 k ';` t, a� ter t 1a y.,it{>. a a>'-. ? :+,ys� •,:>.kb `.:ft:•t -r twe: i:' ::a,;:k: is{.�;.f£u:re.�u .b`itserx:yr r x !<•::.:Y 'v.:uiii, ..f.:. .:`Sf..y<3 ..#<<}�i�ftt S::' •�:a<3.YY ...S., a... Jsa.. �<e, ..d•-'�-:< .::>.t?> :::.-: •:..••:{.a-,'k',..:.; _w._-:i•;a<c:;f::...r.;::q..... :aa<;�;n.:.t.,•.,.,::::•C::•.w.:•y, .. ga{.cq✓n•x�',:ty.:...:.yl•.;.-:�.`>.'� ..?Nt•i•.>:.,.w..:••J.-S:::'.. .. ,jZ t..:s).. 2;:>..f.:a+lw�' �'^ .:f, :. t .vc$`4• ..:A' � o a •:k+"V'•.rtrf55J:';:�:.�:..�.:.��,��.>. ? alli �<� y PRESSURE C?E +,DN ?ACTED;St:11:R.r �' S %,� ,s>f< y) rt , > r</ < > t• > e>< kr4::, .�,0 '+r q 3 s ff<��'G f 0- ' s+� S� •? F /-a a�rw n '> -;< r ^Df. 4t?:t,_.•C?>•� >>a'>.. n �t;4..fi u;� '.,:f....Q•��..•s:r.5;,� M1,.�;�� ..f S.^.�<≥:<'.*.u.E.4?ci.:::. , >:1 :;; i?W' »tard!•ii%S:r... .: a~.:w'6k,rvkf.n-. ;.+A. . T:;'>be•.:.:.•;ws;>r: S,it a�. r ii:%i5:''fs.a{.-i'>i;�: )�/,,.t..�,:::::5r>:•>xr> > i a � ��:: .{ ,.yr. �ti r.:bc� 'CC++`��:,�';r.�«f.'.++''¢;>. ..,err'\•y�,�-S'.r,ilk- > >{ At' S. f>) .-� M1 �� I' .:r' a... it, :c•.�,•.,.>� �> t.n.,w>-y';ay ......',`.3,.. >SD � :x .A .c a.. t :•.t•:,.�.. .x�5� :c':D:i�8�.;r:e�>., v� „. sv".'"'#3o-'' >ns. .+.r..:..a>..`'c ....<. �.:;.a.>:: ......`rI .. .� .:.r- : r ..... ...w., . ... ....�'^..:... `y.'g� ? ....'•`:}»>:>,�t,..�t:`v�-'si<s�RYia'rNl.�trc: +>x;:<;:��:'2bri>{• ... ... CLIENT: Hall Irwin Construction Company PROJECT: Margit Farms Development LOCATION: Composite Sample Test Boring No. 1 @ 0.5'- 4.0' TERRACON NO. 21975107 CLASSIFICATION: Lean Clay (CL) "j.G;;"rSiiti ko::m .>..... a { . ..ofi 4<.? .,✓,,c. 3.: ... ..... 7 -•. .::.,,,;>;,?:-rg;;:xs c.:A:,.,.. —s,,,r>::.;:,,,v:': :y.L.:i r.� ,::so-of»r:.,:-.. . >.. .:a,. .•fs;.... .J ..: . :. `.- .�. y '?, '� .r.{, "af•?:'::z: rr-•;;;:::'•-4-, ..? - +4>:::::o:,.rK,;Y x �� i�Ffju:�c�<3i,.�< i� 'oi� ,� ♦,ts x ,yc y Y • ?i. t u,. .:.443 S ►r.P4 pA A 3'ES ' RESULTS �MgAgiA>,.r.•: .:V.- <:' :..�... TEST SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3 DENSITY(PCF) 99.2 101.9 106.3 MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 24.9 21.9 19.6 EXPANSION PRESSURE 0.00 0.00 0.05 HORIZONTAL PRESSURE @ 160 PSI 145 133 124 SAMPLE HEIGHT (INCHES) 2.47 2.47 2.47 EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI) 270.5 397.8 676.2 CORRECTED R-VALUE 6.2 11.9 18.0 y"--, UNCORRECTED R-VALUE 6.2 11.9 18.0 R-VALUE @ 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE= 7.5 100 90 r I 80 70 - w 60 50 Ir4 40 30 I I . - 20 - I >S I 10 I 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 EXUDATION PRESSURE- PSI T"'"' 1289 1ST AVENUE I illni:;;;:ii.. 128 sox 1744 . ....... ........• GREELSY,COLORADO 8oS31 CONSULTANTS WESTERN,INC. (970)351-0460 FAX(970)353.8639 I < i> 3ya o`<'.�. c t 7 t,✓ M'' ' �,ESI$TA I-f i R AL-UP5':& /�.PANSIO, 5�, <`r . ? u,fi q0'4 \•�q. °a'J'fns6'' i 15y . ayv at;;:i t � >R43e>•�S t' )s,, s ;.i. \ \{s li•. c S 4 ° ;;,4 >;J>, ./ « �., •. r tZ .�Y &3 oo'�.x�w1 Mi `2. a ,i-. : . ' ::<::? :;'$:43,,,:i;2ci.;�?;s>t:.•t : a t ,rNt.;yE-'.2: :�c. i?: <� a,v•:.<�::fx_RE SUI�Eiar�O:F.eC�MPhCT�D•�-�OIL>` > , ��,>.,At:�C`�]t� ��''�.�,��t��i:::a�;'tii�'4'"�:<`�,L,,t�,'.y^: i $� lam. y ,,{, i\. C °\.:£3: :. •.::i:s�:--:::v»:,�{\.�•j > \�j_Yy, •:•:o-,!i::t r L'>0�`�`. �`' :.�yt. �`;3.�; i�o�s�rs h:y's:` A> .>trn Ri gi.ab:i+,'�.,.\?i.'t�f Z r < . �., v,:�,j':,...>:' L:. •.,G,t.., >.>:.Y. .o?':< '� t::�.t��3�, .:Gt... ea 'i xf�""<a Q.na :�:.•:::..�: L '..��y:,':�:.5 �.ak^t.L',,�}�. ty+,:,: y'�:t>w'ai::?;::�atfi.;'�.uq q• .t.<. o:•R:,+:,�t,.�:v{�,a�<•»:s:..tt<,u3>v •�� :•?�x•'v}:.,.•,erg .a�..,�:.,, �YL:s�C•<f<# .,`Y',:�,t`f}{, •J\� .r:.�{v•'^.S:.. .a-.+L'>..�.;;4�;. {>Y-t.yc J�?ksV.cU> .2�; ">n, ;,:t_CcF`>e.w\.r f},.^F'. .3f�7 >' c,..Kan r CL,i y v;;t.. o-n•>i1 %o?3gt3•`. ; 7,+k ,• %2.:l y:...ij:.'�S�•.y.'. r:S iyL^.:4a:)^:• t'>,'s ti s .x:*,*3�.t3:;,.h C ..:, ,,.m:,,i6.' ., p� 0:i..,. {s.Sr..v a'Sat �� .,:. n t ,t:>.::.....:: < . tt..`y-sJ•n.:.�+?.R••;., .....iu�:....�:.,3`6�,>?'::..'.S.kt oSsv; 2`^+`t•��+a x.,t,�Y3..,�,.,�,?c.�:,°.,^:,.,.;,:.y::�tt' 1?: ..�� o»�. .�t.�...�:. .. ...r.fit.,. _i ...:........ . ... ....... .. . . .. CLIENT: Hall Irwin Construction Company PROJECT: Margil Farms Development LOCATION: Composite Sample Test Boring No. 20 @ 0.5'-4.0' TERRACON NO. 21975107 CLASSIFICATION: Lean Clay (CL) ........ �s..�.• y 4 _y F2<•., �i .J- rk r.:...vsqy.:.s,t: .> ,n.ct •�oc'c:;' >' '<>;;\'≥e'd'y�Y^�" '•:Q)4,�'�•SC } � �,y�y•.,.,s•; <�O' - t q < ,is y X, 4 4 S 3,a. _ „�;r�,.<:rfK�' .Ft2 :g"`>;'tl`:..:,>.:...:: c (3.2:�3y�} t t� i a» <X t g: ::i;:;,cZ?3:.t::>,;:a2-'... � ':%Cc: . ..r ,S •. `%J :.:u! .,�:. Y.�>...:.S.a .:� +?,--,,^.,r,,,•'.,...n:.: :k;?. ;..�,a>:2b:o,r.>:IJAM RL��R�T•AFTE��R:ESU S� •-:'tL�,> ::cr>o:.r�>: ;.k,.C...o:n. � �..,,.; � ,:.).>.i.,.::...,.:Y,•.,:;$•.S ....:.k�;,��?'F,.. '?>:in.y.�^SLs:Y;a?•:vy};•9.fa-,.v:..., x::Y.:..:»::�...: �'•a rY....... f':�'t` �•....:...... , .... ....:�?"'� .<... TEST SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3 DENSITY (PCF) 98.2 100.5 103.9 MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 25.4 24.1 22.2 EXPANSION PRESSURE 0.00 0.00 0.00 HORIZONTAL PRESSURE @ 160 PSI 149 140 120 SAMPLE HEIGHT (INCHES) 2.51 2.41 2.50 EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI) 222.8 298.3 517.1 CORRECTED R-VALUE 3.9 8.3 16.7 ,•-•-` UNCORRECTED R-VALUE 3.9 8.0 16.7 R-VALUE @ 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE= ' 8.3 • 100 I I 90 80 - 70 I I I 1 160 l I 50 I 40 f - I I 30 • I - 20 I I 10 • 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 • EXUDATION PRESSURE -PSI r U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U_5. SIEVE NUMBERS l HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 I/2 318 3 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 1001200 100 I t [ -I 1 1 1 1 80 • • I . • • _IIIiiiiTiiiI • R 70 11 E 11 T 60 11 II F I 11 1 E 50 R II 1 B 1 Y 40 W II E 1 3a 111 11 T • 11 zo ll :• 111 11 1 I 10 11 1 111 1 I 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS i COBBLES GRAVEL SAND fine SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium Saecimen Identification Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu • 1 0.5 LEAN CLAY CL 43 18 25 CO 12 3.0 LEAN CLAY CL 14 40 18 22 1 13 7:0 SANDY LEAN CLAY CL 11 30 16 14 * 14 0.5 LEAN CLAY CL 19 34 19 15 Specimen Identification O100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • 1 0.5 4.75 0.0 13.0 87.0 02 12 3.0 4.75 0.0 7.0 93.0 A 13 7.0 4.75 0.09 0.0 42.0 58.0 * 14 0.5 4.75 0.0 13.0 87.0 PROJECT Margil Pars17s -I-25_and Weld Cnttnty Road JOB NO. 21975107 38 _ DATE 1/13/98 a GRADATION CURVES i ��—.— Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER S 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 in 3/8 3 • 6 8 3 0 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100140 200 100 J I_' I _ ,1 - � 1 ~ SO - - P E R ?0 C E I N T60 , 4 ' I 4 F \ _ I 1 N E 5 • R B , I E 1 1 O 30 .... . H T 20 - --- - . - ._ . 10 __ . 0 ! I 11. 100 10 1 0.3 0.01 0.00] GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse [ fine coarse I- medium I fine S ecimen Identification Classification MC% _ LL PL PI , Cc _ Cu 19 0.5 SANDY SILT ML 11 NP NP NP 20 0.5 LEAN CLAY CL 21 39 17 22 ` 22 7:0 SANDY LEAN CLAY CL 11 27 15 12 * 4 8.0 SILT ML 15 32 25 7 Siecimen Identification DI00 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt , %Clay 19 0.5 12.70 0.09 1.0 48.0 51.0 20 0.5 4.75 0.0 11.0 89.0 A 22 7.0 4.75 0.0 34.0 66.0 * 4 8.0 12.70 1.0 11.0 88.0 r — PROJECT Ma--iIJjrms - I-25 Bnd Wad ('fl1lnty R1 acJ JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1/13/98 GRADATION ION CURVES Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1314 1/2 3/8 3 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100140 200 100 III 1 I h 1 1 1 r- 11 1 I IIII " 90 -- - 80 - _____, _ N'‘ 1 r r - E N F I E50 H - -1 r 12 40 - - - - - , �. I iI W I E -I _ - I G 30 - .- - . H T i • 20 ..-... . _ w_ - _ 'I' 0 - - 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE[N MILLIMETERS �} COBBLES GRAVEL 1 SAND SILT OR CLAY { coarse I fine coarse I medium fine JJ S,ecimen Identification Classification MC% LL PL PI Cc Cu 0 6 0.5 LEAN CLAY with SAND CL _ 38 15 23 Cr 6 7.0 FAT CLAY with SAM) CH 21 50 _ 21 29 A, 9 7.0 LEAN CLAY with SAND CL 11 37 15 22 Specimen Identification D100 D60 I D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay - • 6 0.5 4.75 0.0 21.0 79.0 ® 6 7.0 4.75 0.0 17.0 83.0 A 9 7.0 4.75 0.0 28.0 72.0 PROJECT MaTgii pp I-25 and_ � yRo d JOB NO. 21975107 38 DATE 1/13/98 GRADATION CURVES Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. � � 1289 1st Ave Greeley, Colorado ®mom. ,�,�� DRILLING AND EXPLORATION LUNG & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: Riac Barrels • 2.42' I.D., 3' O.D., unless otherwise noted Spoon - 1W I.D., 2" 0.D., unless otherwise noted PS : Piston Sample ...1-Walled Tube - 2' O.D., unless otherwise noted WS : Wash Sample : Power Auger FT : Fish Tail Bit : Hand Auger RS : Rock Bit : Diamond Bit = 4-, N, B BS : Bulk Sample : Auger Sample PM : Pressure Meter : Hollow Stem Auger DC : Dutch Cone WB : Wash Bore etration Test: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch 0.D. split spoon, except where ed. TER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: : Water Level WS : While Sampling :1 : Wet Cave in WD : While Drilling I : Dry Cave in BCR : Before Casing Removal After Boring ACR : After Casting Removal ter levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils, indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of undwater levels is not possible with only short term observations. SCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: I Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification system and the ASTM Designations D-2487 and 0-2488. arse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve;they are described as: boulders, ;tiles, gravel or sand. Fine-Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are scribed as: days, if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be led as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In iition to gradation, coarse grained soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils Irasis of their consistency. Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff (CL); silty sand,trace gravel, medium .Ml. CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS: RELATIVE DENSITY OF Unconfined Compressive COARSE-GRAINED SOILS: i Strength, Qu, psf Consistency N-Blows/ft. Relative Density < 500 Very Soft 0-3 Very Loose 500 - 1,000 Soft 4-9 Loose 1,001 - 2,000 Medium 10-29 Medium Dense 2,001 - 4,000 Stiff 30-49 Dense 4,001 - 8,000 Very Stiff 50-80 Very Dense 8,001 -16,000 Very Hard 80+ Extremely Dense RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descriptive Term(s) Major Component (of Components Also Percent of of Sample Size Range Present in Sample) Dry Weight Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) Trace < 15 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. With 15 - 29 (300mm to 75mm) Modifier > 30 . Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (7RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Sand #4 to to 0 sieve #4 to #200 sieve Descriptive -fermis) (4.75mm to 0.075mm) (of Components Also Percent of Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve Present in Sample) Dry Weight (0.075mm) r,.-, Trace < 5 With 5 - 12 Modifier > 12 irerracon UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM sea cu.... lootlon P..'" Crtterie for Assigning Group Symbols end Group Namara tieing Laboratory Testa' Group Group Nantes Symbol se Grained Gravels mars than Ctssn Gravels Lear Cu > 4 and 1 < Cc <3' GW Watl-graded gravel' more than 50% of coarse than 5% fines' , retained on traction retained on 200 sieve No. 4 sieve Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3t GP Poorly graded gravel' Gravels with Finer Fines classify as ML or MH GM Slay gravel,G,H more than 12% fines' Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey graver' Sands 50% or more Clean Sands Lass Cu > a and 1 < Cc<3t SW Well-graded sand' of coarse fraction than 5% finest passas No. 4 sieve Cu < 8 and/or 1 > Cc > 34 SP Poorly graded sand' Sandy with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand'" more than 12% finoa° Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey ssnd°JU -Grained Soils Sias and Clays inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above 'A line" CL Loan da 5 6 or more Liquid limit less sea the than 50 PI < 4 or plots below 'A' line' ML Sllt54-" 200 sieve organic Liquid limit -oven dried Organic clay"' < 0.75 OL Liquid limit -not dried Organic Or' Slits and Clays inorganic Pt plots on or above "A' line CH Fat clay"" Liquid limit 50 + or more PI lots below 'A' line MH Elastic Sitt"" organic Liouid limit -oven dried Organic clayW" < 0.75 OH L.iauid limit -not drir' Organic silt''tl" my organic soils Primarily organic matter, nark in color, and organic odor PT Peat r~" the materiel passing the 3-in. 'If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add slave `Cu-D /D Cc a 0;0: 'with sand" or 'with gravel', whichever is 1,a,d sample contained cobblers or `° t° D.,„ x Dra predominant. ulders, or both. add 'with cobbles or '1f soil contains > 30% plus No. 200 ulders, or both' to group name. • predominantly sand, add "sandy' to group -aye's with 5 to 12% fines require dual 'If soil contains > 15% sand, add 'with name. mbols: send" to group name. "1f soil contains>30% plus No. 200, N,GM well-graded gravel with silt cif fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol predominantly gravel, add "gravelly' to group N-GC well-graded gravel with clay GC-GM, or SC-SM. name. "-GM poorly graded gravel with silt if fines are organic, add 'with organic fines" "PI > 4 end plots on or above 'A" line. '-GC poorly graded gravel with clay to group name. °Pl < 4 or plots below 'A" line. ands with 5 to 12% fines require dual `1f sail contains > 15% gravel, add 'with "P1 plots on or above 'A' line. rnbola: gravel" to group name. °PI plots below "A" line. N-SM well-graded sand with silt "lf Atterborg limits plot in shaded area, soil is et/-SC well-graded sand with clay a CL-ML, silty clay. '-SM poorly graded sand with silt • "SC poorly graded sand with clay w i i T ( i V w n..--ws w truss* .r F._ °..ten-'a)](LL'-l 55.7 •...' " �\ • b .0 -tea.' .r V- 1,.e 11 �� '* , fJ v.ns el _ 1D I.a.. ), O� E a P. O.; (u- al J. II z m i I I G •I -01 I • L 1D .. , I .MH 0114 OH I.` 4::=2.:441"...".."7' ML OR OL a 1a 1D 70 w w 70 50 70 Do DO 1m I IC UAUID LlM1T (11) lie r r a c a n LABORATORY TESTS SIGNIFICANCE AND PURPOSE TEST SIGNIFICANCE PURPOSE California Used to evaluate the potential strength of subgrade soil, Pavement Bearing subbase, and base course material, including recycled Thickness Ratio materials for use in road and airfield pavements. Design ansolidatiorr Used to develop an estimate of both the rate and amount of Foundation both differential and total settlement of a structure. Design Direct Used to determine the consolidated drained shear strength of Bearing Capacity, Shear soil or rock. Foundation Design & Slope Stability Dry Used to determine the in-place density of natural, inorganic, Index Property Density fine-grained soils. Soil Behavior Used to measure the expansive potential of fine-grained soil Foundation & Slab Expansion and to provide a basis for swell potential classification. Design Gradation Used for the quantitative determination of the distribution of Soil particle sizes in soil. Classification Liquid & Used as an integral part of engineering classification systems iastic Limit, to characterize the fine-grained fraction of soils, and to Soil Plasticity specify the fine-grained fraction of construction materials. Classification Index eability Used to determine the capacity of soil or rock to conduct a Groundwater liquid or gas. , Flow Analysis PH Used to determine the degree of acidity or alkalinity of a soil. Corrosion I Potential Resistivity Used to indicate the relative ability of a soil medium to carry Corrosion electrical currents. Potential Used to evaluate the potential strength of subgrade soil, Pavement R-Value subbase, and base course material, including recycled Thickness materials for use in road and airfield pavements. Design Soluble Used to determine the quantitative amount of soluble `« Corrosion Sulphate sulfates within a soil mass. Potential To obtain the approximate compressive strength of soils that Bearing Capacity Unconfined possess sufficient cohesion to permit testing in the Analysis compression unconfined state. for Foundations Water Used to determine the quantitative amount of water in a soil Index Property Content mass. Soil Behavior ---- m---_- lierr3con REPORT TERMINOLOGY (Based on ASTM D653) ,h'owable Sol The recommended maximum contact stress developed at the interface of the ?aring Capacity foundation element and the supporting material. Alluvium Soil, the constituents of which have been transported in suspension by flowing water and subsequently deposited by sedimentation. ggregate Base A layer of specified material placed on a subgrade or subbase usually beneath Course slabs or pavements. Backfill A specified material placed and compacted in a confined area. Bedrock A natural aggregate of mineral grains connected by strong and permanent cohesive forces. Usually requires drilling, wedging, blasting or other methods of extraordinary force for excavation. Bench A horizontal surface in a sloped deposit. sson (Drilled pier A concrete foundation element cast in a circular excavation which may have an or Shaft) enlarged base. Sometimes referred to as a cast-in-place pier or drilled shaft. Coefficient of A constant proportionality factor relating normal stress and the corresponding Friction shear stress at which sliding starts between the two surfaces. Colluvium Soil, the constituents of which have been deposited chiefly by gravity such as at the foot of a slope or cliff. Compaction The densification of a soil by means of mechanical manipulation. +/ire Slab-on- A concrete surface layer cast directly upon a base, subbase or subgrade, and 3rade typically used as a floor system. Differential Unequal settlement or heave between, or within foundation elements of a Movement structure. Earth Pressure The pressure or force exerted by soil on any boundary such as a foundation wall. ESAL Equivalent Single Axle Load, a criteria used to convert traffic to a uniform standard, (18,000 pound axle loads). Engineered Fill Specified material placed and compacted to specified density and/or moisture conditions under observations of a representative of a geotechnical engineer. "quivalent Fluid A hypothetical fluid having a unit weight such that it will produce a pressure against a lateral support presumed to be equivalent to that produced by the actual soil. This simplified approach is valid only when deformation conditions are such that the pressure increases linearly with depth and the wall friction is neglected. Existing Fill(or man-made fill) Materials deposited through the action of man prior to exploration of the site. Existing Grade The ground surface at the time of field exploration. lferrecon • REPORT TERMINOLOGY (Based on ASTM D653) ;pansive Potential The potential of a soil to expand (increase in volume) due to absorption of moisture. Finished Grade The final grade created as a part of the project. Footing A portion of the foundation of a structure that transmits loads directly to the • soil. Foundation The lower part of a structure that transmits the loads to the soil or bedrock. Frost Depth The depth of which the ground becomes frozen during the winter season. Grade Beam A foundation element or wall, typically constructed of reinforced concrete, used to span between other foundation elements such as drilled piers. Groundwater Subsurface water found in the zone of saturation of soils, or within fractures in bedrock. Heave Upward movement. Lithologic The characteristics which describe the composition and texture of soil and rock by observation. Native Grade The naturally occuring ground surface. Native Soil Naturally occurring on-site soil, sometimes referred to as natural soil. Yptimum Moisture The water content at which a soil can be compacted to a maximum dry unit es...Content weight by a given campactive effort. Sled Water Groundwater, usually of limited area maintained above a normal water elevation by the presence of an intervening relatively impervious continuing stratum. Scarify To mechanically loosen soil or break down existing soil structure. Settlement Downward movement. Skin Friction (Side The frictional resistance developed between soil and an element of structure Shear) such as a drilled pier or shaft. Soil (earth) Sediments or other unconsolidated accumulations of solid particles produced by the physical and chemical disintegration of rocks, and which may or may not contain organic matter. Strain The change in length per unit of length in a given direction. Stress The force per unit area acting within a soil mass. Strip To remove from present location. Subbase A layer of specified material in a pavement system between the subgrade and base course. Subgrade The soil prepared and compacted to support a structure, slab or pavement system. IFer'r'acon TABLE D 9 RECOMMENDED PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE POLICY FOR ASPHALT CO NCP.E TE PAVEMENTS ._��--- Recorsxnended r Di rtress I Recommended - Da`t`�ssF } 1. Type Seyerdy Maintena )Ce r� Sa�reFity s ti Low None Patching & Low None Alligator Full-Depth qty Cut Medium Full-Depth Medium Asphalt Concrete Cracking Asphalt Concrete Patching High Patch _ High _ Patch Low None Low None Bleeding Medium Surface Sanding Polished Medium Aggregate High Shallow AC Patch - High Fog Seal ,-Low None Low Shallow AC Patch Block Medium Clean & Potholes Medium Full-Depth Cracsdn9 Seal Asphalt Concrete High All Cracks High Patch Low None Low No Policy Bumps & Railroad Medium Shallow AC Patch Medium for Crossing Sags This Project High Full-Depth Patch High Low None Low None -ugation Medium Full-Depth Iartting Medium Shallow AC Patch Asphalt Concrete High Patch High Full-Depth Patch Low None Low None Medium Shallow AC Patch Shoving Medium Mill & DepressionShallow AC High Full-Depth Patch High Patch Low None Low None Edge Medium Seal Cracks lie Medium Shallow Cracking Cracking Asphalt Concrete High Full-Depth Patch High Patch Low Clean & Low None .bent Seal Reflection Medium All Cracks Swell Medium Shallow AC Patch High Shallow AC Patch High Full-Depth Patch Low None Low Fog Lane/Shoulder Medium Medium Seal Drop-Off Regrade & Raveili�g High Shoulder �! High ,.-`. Low 1 None -gitudinal & Clean & Transverse Medium Cracking Seal High All Cracks iFerracon a TABLE D2 CE POLICY RECOMMENDED PREVENTATIVE MAIN TENAN FOR JOINTED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS ``— Distress Distress Recommended Distress Distress Recommended Severity i111airrtEnancE r-.,,pe Severity I Maintenance Type Low None No Groove Surface Polished Severity or Blow-up Medium Full-Depth Agg Levels Overlay Concrete Patch/ Defined High Slab Replacement Low Seal Cracks No Severity None Corner Medium Pop�� Levels Break Full-Depth Concrete Patch Defined High _ • Low Seal Cracks No Underseal, Severity Seal cracks/joints Divided Medium Slab Pumping Levels Restore and Slab Defined High Replacement Load Transfer _ Low None Low Seal Cracks DurabirtY Medium Full-Depth Patch Punchout Medium Full-Depth Cracking Concrete High Slab Replacement High Patch Low None Low No Rairoad Policy Medium Medium for this Faulting - Grind Crossing High Project High Low None Scaling Low None Joint Map Cracking Medium Slab Replacement, Seas Medium Reseal Crazing Full-depth Patch, High 4 Joints High or Overlay Low Regrade and No LaneiShoulder Fill Shoulders Shrinkage Severity None Drop-off Medium to Match Cracks Levels High Lane Height Defined Low None Dear Cracking Low Clean & Longitudinal. Seal all Cracks Spoiling Medium Transverse and Medium (Comet) Partial-Depth Diagonal High Concrete Patch Cracks High Full-Depth Patch Low None Low None Large Patching Spoiling and Medium Medium Partial-Depth Patch Seal Cracks or (Joint) Uity Cuts High Replace Patch High Reconstruct Joint Low None Small Medium Replace Patching Patch High Arerracon r Margil Farms Preliminary Plat Preliminary Drainage Report April 2004 Revised February 2005 For: Olson Bros. 1208 Wagon Wheel Ct. Berthoud, CO 80513 From: Park Engineering 420 21st Avenue, Suite 101 Longmont, CO 80501 Engineer's Certification "I hereby certify that this report (plan) for the drainage design of Margil Farms was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) in accordance with the provisions of Town of Mead Storm Drainage Criteria for the owners thereof" >.., REG/8;1 i let? e" 1O waif ii 17-° ' % S-to-or Regist- �I r ofessional E, - State of ,ta..&: _ . No.•- ‘�SSl. Rl 1 Table of Contents Section 1 - General Location and Description 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Site Description 3 Section 2 -Drainage Basin and Sub-Basins 5 2.1 Main Basin Description 5 2.2 Sub-basin Descriptions 5 2.3 FEMA Floodplains 5 Section 3 -Drainage Facility Design 7 3.1 Overall Detention Requirements 7 3.2 Basin N 7 3.3 Basin NE 7 3.4 Basins CW& CC 7 3.5 Basin CE 7 3.6 Basin S 7 Section 4 -Drawing Contents 8 Section 5 - Conclusion 9 Section 6 -References 10 Appendix Detention Pond& Outlot D Swale Calculations Excerpt from Geotechnical Report Addendum to Drainage Report - Margil Farms, 2"°Flg(runoff criteria for total 453AC is the same as included at the end of this Addendum) Figures Vicinity Map 4 Overall Drainage Map 6 Map Pocket Drainage Plan, Future Ultimate Buildout Preliminary Drainage Plan, South Half Preliminary Drainage Plan,North Half /"• 2 Section 1 - General Location and Description 1.1 Introduction In general, the proposed improvements for the Margil Farms, Preliminary Plat (452.99AC) include grading, roadways, drainage facilities, and utility infrastructure for low and high density single-family homes. The next page shows a vicinity map for the project. This report describes the storm drainage design and conformance to applicable drainage criteria for the subdivision. The analysis includes a drainage plan with details of the drainage improvements. Supporting calculations and design criteria are contained in the appendix of this report. The drainage design concepts of this project are intended to be in alignment with the intentions, results, and conclusions outlined in the DRAFT DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN for the TOWN OF MEAD, completed by THE SEAR BROWN GROUP in FEBRUARY 1998 (hereafter referred to as the MEAD MASTER PLAN or MMP). In addition to the MEAD MASTER PLAN, the drainage criteria used for this project was the Town of Mead Storm Drainage Criteria, with references to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Other drainage reports that were utilized in this study were completed by Park Engineering Consultants (Margil Farms, 2°° Filing and the addendum to the report). 1.2 Site Description The Margil Farms, Preliminary Plat is located in the Town of Mead, in Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian and most of Section 34, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. A geotechnical description of the site can be seen found in the Appendix. The lot layout and general drainage patterns can be seen in the north and south Preliminary Drainage Plans located in the map pocket of this report. Some of the existing improvements shown on the south plan include a 54" RCP crossing of the Highland Lake Lateral, the detention pond (#4)and the pair of outlets (two 30" CMP & two 60" RCP underneath I-25). 3 r M , SITE \ ..____ .r n....n. ,TRACT 2 (in Section 34) RRST RUG W.CR \\ TRACT 1 (in Section 3) / \ 'quy Bolinger &thicifki?-, sr` � 4 Ci / . - 2 3 N lt- &E4 W.GR. /.36\- 10 1 yBso aj c_Y -<-- Marie r W..GR #JC ; 0 _ "-Nit__u`"_, r S 'NJ ) 16 15 13 i. l el W.GK /32 J '--f -� 1- n i --- t, ,--, VICINITY MAP • • Section 2 - Drainage Basin and Sub-Basins 2.1 Main Basin Description The general flow to the site is to the south and east, with the exception of the northwest quarter of Section 34 flowing to the north. An overall picture of the basins is shown on the next page (as details in the USGS quad maps for Berthoud& Johnstown, Colorado. The design point in all of the sub-basins will have new or enlarged detention ponds to alleviate the quantity effects of storm water flow. 2.2 Sub-basin Descriptions There are six sub-basins shown in the drawings that are located at the end of this report. Basins N & NE flow to the north(in NW 'A of Section 34). Basins CW & CC will flow to the south to existing detention ponds adjacent to Margil Farms Filing 1. The runoff from Basin CE will travel to the south and be detained in a new detention pond located on the northwest corner of WCR 38 & I-25. Basin S will drain to the east (as described in the referenced Filing No. 2 report)to an existing pond that will be enlarged. The other basins (IC & SW) will flow into the Highland Lake Lateral and an existing detention pond respectively (see referenced addendum to Filing No. 2 report in the appendix). 2.3 FEMA Floodplains The site is located out of the FEMA 100-year floodplains. 5 E s / •�/ *� hJr�/ o/ (tip/ l \ 1 riliigb (/ce- / 43< / l .•,Grp. \----:syr __ ABM.�• \ •. 4926 • , —� 43.•-• 1888 /^�.. .' ` .' � '�� raglo V / 50'l ; • • . ( ...,,i; r 1 48 YJ \, c 1 21 i J //T �y //n .//2 r.,,____2] ,_;., , ,- _______-_, (-,•-• - 7-\\____\____Ay.t., , . g- ±-dtrj .,...1----,)_/ \ „-._r:; (77:7,0///22/ V•7_ -`I ' \ yl I(_\,+��--sop°//i ter/ `J\C7-,0// 1\•�j r__ J L / , rr l / z - N'( • \ �' /'? _ ,,,,,, ,,,;1,, 4942 • ,1 '\6 . • --tr --r\--,\--M) J / A:,-) ,- 6,-/r � ' _ 1 /' • �)° , r '° fir c/y,Ljdo, : ,\?.,‘Jc,;-,(L-,;--tri,--: „, ..._ .i cli_n.,,,:...::___ _ O ,i 0 , - ., . ,.. la. r. , if 6) / ,: ,..2 - ----L,=-, .2 8( \--\\ u, kr -..:_''-',,-`-‘ . 7 t, I r 1 _ r 1 �ovN "L� a \� 3m��;(;�("r�'�. -��- '\r � .I .O •\ � ---_•507---,.. N! ' Br o_`• I�^11• sos:•per ( crTz-. -1 'r _ _ -\ __- Slpp� • 4 V I /P: L. ‘,..... .c.,___Cfj: -----.. .-.----- , . / cP .• /' I --2y-' I r: •0 . iv ---_----1/4 -' 1 /OVN . soles .II \ r: (so 'A S _ Ii�M Of3_ a. v -5047 . ' p 7a $ I `�/� to..• ` Reservoir r la4 soso— 1 �— ' "pl i \ 1\ 1 ;\ � -C.-. V_I.-1. I \*".>-N—.7/ ——r— —soaG It.' _— — — + v ' sots . �i \,T. j . ! 075,6e O i ' "� _ I, c i� / 381 • o,o.—aw•oa,c.. as eprre v,.e,w.._.... e. �.I r 1 Section 3 - Drainage Facility Design 3.1 Overall Detention Requirements The approximate detention is required for the following basins Basin(sl 100 year(AC-ft) N 9.9 CW& CC existing CE 5.1 S 17.4 IC None (into irrigation channel) SW existing 3.2 Basin N The majority of the 187.3 acres represented here is single family housing. There is a significant amount of open space, thus, the runoff coefficients will be lower that the adjacent basins. The flow generated in this basin will drain to the north and be detained in a new detention pond that will be graded, not to encroach on the property to the north. An outlet structure will be designed (in the final drainage report) at 10-year historic rates. 3.3 Basin NE This is a small basin (1.8 Acres) of undeveloped land (wildgrass, sod)that will flow to the north undetained. 3.4 Basins CW& CC The three detention ponds in Margil Farms 1g Filing (Detention ponds 2, 6, & 7) were built to allow for the build out of the basins to the north. 3.5 Basin CE Basin CE (76.8 acres) is located west of I-25 and north of WCR 38. It will be a mix of residential and commercial land, thus, the runoff coefficient and impervious percentages are higher(see Detention Pond calculations in the Appendix). 3.6 Basin S The last developed basin for the preliminary plat is Basin S. About half of its acreage (113.5 AC) is platted as Margil Farms Filing No. 2 while the east half will be a variety of high density housing, commercial, and open space. The design for the future detention pond (as seen graphically in the Drainage Plan and worded in the Appendix) has been completed previously. 7 Section 4 - Drawing Contents In the map pocket of this drainage report are three drawings. The first is from the Park Engineering Consultants. September 28, 2000. Addendum to Drainage Report, Second Filing, Margil Farms,Mead, Colorado. The 24" culvert shown under CR 38 just west of the intersection with I-25 was an error. The true diameter of that culvert is 36" as shown on this revised drawing. The next two drawings represent the drainage patterns for the south and north half of Margil Farms Preliminary Plat. r 8 Section 5 - Conclusion The drainage concepts for this project are consistent with current policies and practices for storm drainage management and are in accord with the Town of Mead Storm Drainage Criteria and the Town of Mead Draft Drainage Master Plan. 9 APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Detention Pond & Outlot D Swale Calculations Excerpt from Geotechnical Report Addendum to Drainage Report - Margil Farms, 2nd Flg r Detention Pond & Outlot D Swale Calculations r #1 & 4 Pond Sizing 11/10/2004 r" Margil Farms Mead, CO COMPOSITE IMPERVIOUS AREA Detention BASIN BASINS ACREAGE I IGHTED Pond# (%) IMPERV. residential 26.40 27% 0.09 51 lots in 23.7 AC commercial 50.40 95% 0.62 4 CE TOTAL 76.80 %otal 0.72 VO UME RE UIRE Detention BASIN STORM AREA I V,� Vii Pond# (acres) (%) (acre-feet) (cubic feet) 1 N 100 187.30 33.00 9.93 432,434 4 CE - 100 76.80 71.63 5.08 221,279 100 V=A*(1.781-0.00212-3.56)/1000 10 V=A*(0.951 - 1.90)/1000 r r Detention Pond Outlot D swale at buildout Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel /^ Project Description Worksheet Outlot D swale Flow Element Trapezoidal Cha Method Manning's Formi Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.045 Channel Slope 020000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 4.00 H:V Right Side Slope 4.00 H:V Bottom Width 5.00 ft Discharge 73.00 cfs Results Depth 1.49 ft Flow Area 16.3 ft? Wetted Perim( 17.25 ft Top Width 16.89 ft Critical Depth 1.33 ft Critical Slope 0.031680 ft/ft Velocity 4.49 ft/s Velocity Head 0.31 ft Specific Enerf 1.80 ft Froude Numb 0.81 r" Flow Type Sutoritical Project Engineer Mr.David Mayeda c:\program filesthaestadVmw\nargil farms.fm2 Mr.David Mayeda FlowMaster v7.0[7.0005] 11/10/04 06:55:51 AM ®Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Excerpt from Geotechnical Report .= • ;c No. 1 e No. 2 . B No, 0 . No, 4 .0 © o, 5 O No, 6 Ne o, 9 • No, 8 No, 7 No, 8 No, 9 © 0 O No. 7 No, 6 No, 9 O No. 10 © No, I I ©No. 12 ©No, I N o No. 2 I ©c COUNTY WAG' 58 No, 22 i a �' L�f Igo, %,iD • ��— z • v, ,,,o Y No, 19L S<�t Y 0 M�At7 «�.� I z cc kY Li LAVAL Na 19 si 5„�T z P{-7 HJ s•No' Q No, 3 (1 V��CI I «n r ...D� 6'70, 18 No, I S"' CU" © •QTY C�Y t'/ ._��-:� TO, 17 CA") ID I - 91211-1-N212-25-94 ho, 16 LE J _`AY LENo, I w��""'No. 21 sF'') 5 No, 2O cchr : 9 I - 21 PRILLE.P 12-15/ 16-97 F, CURE 1 : SITE PLAN 1 D ON BROS LLC, MARGIL FARMS " - MEAD, COLORADO 1'CW, INC. PROJECT No. 219751O7 SCALE 1" _ 1000' .;� if erracon January 14, 1998 CONSULTANTS WESTERN,INC. P.O.Box 1744•1139 First Avenue Greeley.Colorado 8C602-1744 (970)351-0450 Fax(970)35J-3639 Hall Irwin Construction Company P.O. Box 659 Greeley, Colorado 80632 vs Attn: Mr. Adam Mack • Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Margit Farms Development 560 Acres t2 Weld County Road 38 and Interstate 25 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 21975107 Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. (Terracon) has completed a geotechnical engineering exploration for the proposed residential and commercial/industrial development project to be located at the southwest and northwest corner of Weld County Road 38 and Interstate 25 in Weld County, Colorado. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number 2197P104 dated November 24, 1997. A "preliminary Geotechnical engineering report" was prepared for the site in January 1995. For recommendations and findings r thereof, please refer to Terracon's Report No. 22945185 dated January 11, 1995. The results of our engineering study, including the boring location diagram, laboratory test results, test boring records, and the geotechnical recommendations need,ed to aid in the design and construction of foundations, pavement areas, and other earth connected phases of this project are attached. The recommendations contained in this geotechnical engineering report are based upon the available information provided. If the complexity of the project changes significantly from what is presented in this report, additional exploration activities and geotechnical engineering analyses and recommendations will be required. We recommend that final geotechnical studies be completed after building locations and structural loads are finalized, primarily in the commercial and industrial development portions of the site. The subsoils at the site consist of clay, silt, and sand layers underlain by the weathered sandstone /siltstone bedrock. The clay strata exhibit low expansive potenti?l and moderate bearing capacity characteristics. The sand strata exhibit non-expansive potential and low to • moderate bearing characteristics. It is Terracon's understanding the proposed structures are to be supported by a reinforced conventional-type spread footing foundation system. Based on the subsurface soils encountered, it is our opinion that the proposed foundation system is • suitable for the type of construction proposed and the anticipated foundation loads. Further r • details are provided in this report. Offices of The Terracon Companies.lr. Cu:technical.Environmental and Materials Engineers ZIA Arizona N Arkansas N 0,17:3-11 r IL•✓+ ■ Iltin,is r !dna N Vans gs N Minors: Montana N Nebraska N Fi=nch ■ flan t, ti-, ■ t3 N onii,L:I - Oklahoma N T=ang;see ■ Texas ■ Utah N l`llsc,rzir, N W7,m,,3 OUALITY ENGINEERING SINCE 1965 ADDENDUM TO DRAINAGE REPORT MARGIL FARMS, SECOND FILING MEAD, COLORADO September 28, 2000 e , ADDENDUM TO DRAINAGE REPORT MARGIL FARMS, SECOND FILING MEAD, COLORADO Prepared for: 247 LLC Gary Olson 1208 Wagon Wheel Court Berthoud, Colorado 80513 (970) 532-2948 Prepared by: PARK ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 420 21"Avenue Suite 101 Longmont, Colorado 80501 (303) 651-6626 September 28,2000 /'` PEC JOB#279-2 ADDENDUM MARGIL FARMS, SECOND FILING TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Region North of WCR 38 III. Region South of WCR 38 IV. Impacts on Highland Lateral Irrigation Ditch V. Conclusion APPENDIX Excerpts from Town of Mead Drainage Master Plan Calculation of Historic and Allowable Release (Future Ultimate Buildout) Calculation of Proposed Detention and Release (Future Ultimate Buildout) Additional Details and Calculations for Canal Crossing Culvert and East Detention Area Spillway: Correspondence with Owners of Highland Lateral Ditch Addendum to Drainage Report for Margil Farms, Second Filing, September 28, 2000 Page 1 of 8 ADDENDUM TO DRAINAGE REPORT MARGIL FARMS, SECOND FILING MEAD, COLORADO I. INTRODUCTION This is an addendum to the Margil Farms Second Filing Drainage Report,prepared by Park Engineering Consultants, May 22, 2000. This addendum is intended to demonstrate that the drainage facilities and overall concept of the Second Filing will also accommodate the development of the future filings. This addendum also demonstrates the feasibility of the Margil Farms overall drainage master plan for those areas of Margil Farms that are contained in Sub-basins 134 and 220 of the Town of Mead's Drainage Master Plan. These are the same areas that have runoff draining to the existing 60" culverts located under I-25 just south of WCR 38. These areas include the First (existing), Second, and some future filings of Margil Farms. Also addressed is the runoff from a small portion (approximately 16 acres) of the Second Filing that is contained within Mead Master Plan Sub-basin 130. This addendum does not discuss details of drainage for those areas of Margil Farms outside of Mead Master Plan Sub-basins 130, 134 or 220. Runoff from those areas drains either northward away from the Town of Mead, or drains westward as part of Mead Master Plan Sub-basin 218, and will therefore not affect either the Second Filing or any future filings that drain to the 60" culverts near the East Detention area. This addendum has been divided into two major sections. The first section addresses historic, existing, and future drainage patterns for the Margil Farms area north of WCR 38. The second section addresses the historic, existing, proposed Second Filing, and future drainage patterns for the Margil Farms area south of WCR 38. All development of the Margil Farms areas will comply with both the Town of Mead's Drainage Master Plan of July 1998 (hereafter referred to as the MMP) as well as the Town of Mead's storm drainage criteria. This addendum also discusses how the future development will impact the Highland Lateral irrigation ditch, which passes through the Second Filing site. Drainage concept plans, excerpts from the Mead Master Plan, and relevant calculations are included in the appendix of this addendum. Addendum to Drainage Report for Margil Farms, Second Filing, September 28, 2000 Page 2 of 8 r-� II. REGION NORTH OF WCR 38 Historic Conditions: The region of Margil Farms located north of WCR 38 that historically drains to the I-25 crossing culverts consists of Sub-basin 220 of the North I-25 Basin of the MMP. This area was historically agricultural land. According to the MMP, the historic 10-year and 100-year runoff from this Sub-basin was 108 cfs and 371 cfs, respectively. However, because of the WCR 38 roadway embankment,there was a small amount of detention that occurred that historically limited this runoff to 30 cfs and 254 cfs respectively. Runoff from Sub-basin 220 was passed to the south side of WCR 38 via a 48" CMP culvert under WCR 38 located approximately 1,200' west of I-25, via an existing 24" culvert located approximately 300' west ofI-25, and via the I-25 borrow ditch below the WCR 38 overpass bridge. (Note: the MMP study show's only the 48" culvert under WCR 38, but not the 24" culvert.) Runoff that passed through the 48" culvert under WCR 38 or over the top of WCR 38 historically traveled southward to the Highland Lateral irrigation ditch. Runoff that passed through the 24" culvert or underneath the WCR 38 overpass bridge at I-25 was conveyed via swale along the I-25 ROW line to the Highland Lateral ditch at the location of the ditch's spillway. This spillway of the canal is located at the entrance to the ditch's box culvert under I-25. If the Highland Lateral • irrigation ditch was bankfull, then this runoff would essentially cross the ditch and then continue southward along the I-25 ROW to the existing 60" culverts located approximately 1000' south of WCR 38. Existing Conditions: As part of the construction of Margil Farms Filing 1, a detention area(Pond 231 of the Filing 1 drainage report) was constructed which detains runoff from the western portion of MMP Subbasin 220. To function as the outlet structure of this detention area, the 48" CMP culvert under WCR 38 located approximately 1,200' west of1-25 was extended northward with a 27" RCP,which now limits the 100-year release to 46 cfs. Runoff through this outlet pipe follows the historic flow path southward into the Highland Lateral ditch. The portion of MMP Subbasin 220 that is located to the east of this detention pond was not part of the First Filing construction and remains agricultural land. Runoff from this area continues to drain southward under WCR 38 via the existing 24"culvert located approximately 300' west ofI-25, and via the 1-25 borrow ditch below the WCR 38 overpass bridge. Proposed Development Conditions: Although the MMP shows only one detention area (Pond 590), upon ultimate buildout MMP Sub-basin 220 will be divided into two separate detention ponds. Together, the combined 100-year release (at ultimate buildout) from these two ponds north of WCR 38 Addendum to Drainage Report for Margil Farms, Second Filing, September 28, 2000 Page 3 of 8 will be 108 cfs or less, which is the existing 10-year runoff from Sub-basin 220 as calculated in the MMP. The first of these two ponds will be the existing detention area (Pond 231 of the Filing 1 drainage report) that was constructed as part of Margil Farms Filing I. As part of future construction, this pond may be enlarged to provide greater storage. Release from this detention area will be conveyed southward under WCR 38, then conveyed over or underneath the Mead Lateral canal via a future culvert, and then passed through the East detention area (Pond 580 of the MMP). Anticipated future release from this detention area is approximately 73 cfs. The second pond on the north side of WCR 38, which will be constructed as the area adjacent to I-25 is developed, will be located to the east of this first pond (Pond 231), and just west of I-25. Release from this future Northeast Detention Area will be conveyed southward under WCR 38 via the existing 24"culvert located approximately 300' west of I-25, and then either bypass or be passed through the East Detention Area(MMP Pond 580). Anticipated future release from this Northeast Detention Area is approximately 35 cfs. HI. REGION SOUTH OF WCR 38 Historic Conditions The area of Margil Farms south of WCR 38 consists of all of MMP Sub-basin134 and a portion of MMP Sub-basin 130. This area consists of approximately 148 acres of agricultural land. The Highland Lateral irrigation ditch is a large concrete-lined irrigation canal that runs through this area. According to the Mead Master Plan, the historic 10-year and 100-year runoff from Sub- basin 134 was 54 cfs and 185 cfs respectively. Runoff from Sub-basin 134 was combined with runoff from the area north of WCR 38 MMP (Sub-basin 220) and then passed eastward underneath I-25 via two 60" culverts. According to the MMP, because of the I-25 roadway embankment, there was a small amount of detention that occurred that historically limited the flow under I-25 (from the combined runoff of both Sub- basins 220 and Sub-basin 134) to 54 cfs and 296 cfs respectively. (Note: the Town's study show's only one of these two 60"culverts under I-25, so the actual historic flows under I-25 would have been greater than this.) For the portion of the Second Filing located within MMP Sub-basin 134, including both the residential area and the East Detention area, the historic 10-year runoff has been calculated as 43.4 cfs. reN For the portion of the Second Filing contained in MMP Sub-basin 130, approximately one-half of it is located on the north side of the Highland Lateral. Because this is a large Addendum to Drainage Report for Margil Farms, Second Filing, September 28, 2000 Page 4 of 8 concrete-lined canal with a depth of approximately 5 to 6 feet, and a top-width of approximately 16 to 24 feet, it is likely that a significant portion of the runoff located to the north of the canal was historically captured in the canal and conveyed to the canal's spillway located on the west side of I-25 at the entrance to the canal's box culvert under I-25. For the portion of MMP Sub-basin 130 located to the south of the canal, the historic 10-year runoff from this area has been calculated as 8 cfs. Calculations for this historic runoff from the Second Filing portions of MMP Sub-basins 134 and 130 are contained in the appendix of the previously submitted Drainage Report for Margil Farms, Second Filing, of May 22, 2000. Existing Conditions: Existing conditions south of WCR 38 are the same as the historic conditions, except that the runoff from the area north of WCR 38 (MMP Sub-basin 220) has been reduced because of the construction of the First Filing's detention area(Pond 231). Proposed Second Filing Development Conditions: South of WCR 38, the Margil Farms area consists of approximately 148 acres. Upon completion of the proposed Second Filing, the Second Filing area will consist of approximately 83 of these acres. Of the remaining land, approximately 11 acres will be used for the proposed east detention area, and approximately 54 acres will remain in its current condition until development in the distant future. For the approximately 54 acres to remain undeveloped at this time, runoff from these areas will continue to flow as it has historically. An exception to this is that approximately 7 acres of this undeveloped land (Second Filing Sub-basin F27)will drain to the proposed East Detention area via the proposed 48" culvert underneath the Highland Lateral irrigation ditch. For the undeveloped land at the southeastern corner of the parcel, runoff will follow its historic path to the existing drainage swale along the eastern property line, and then flow northward to the existing 60" culverts under I-25. For the undeveloped land at the northeastern corner of the parcel, runoff will follow its historic path to the Highland Lateral irrigation ditch. Once runoff enters the ditch it will either be conveyed in the canal beneath I-25, spill out of the canal at the canal's spillway located on the western side of I-25, or cross over the canal. If this runoff spills out of the canal at the spillway, it will travel southward in the existing swale along the east property line to the existing 60"culverts under I-25. In the event that the canal is already bankfull when runoff reaches it, runoff will pass over the canal and into the proposed East Detention Area. Should this runoff pass over the canal and into the Proposed East Detention Area,the detention area spillway has been designed to safely pass the flows through the detention area to the existing 60" culverts under I-25. Addendum to Drainage Report for Margil Farms, Second Filing, September 28, 2000 Page 5 of 8 Of the 83 acres of the proposed Second Filing, approximately 16 acres are located at the southwestern corner of the parcel, and south of the Highland Lateral. Runoff from this area will be detained in the proposed Southwest Detention Area and then released southward in its historical direction. The allowable 100-year release rate of 8 cfs from this detention area is based upon the calculated historic 10-year runoff for that portion of MMP Sub-basin 130 located to the south of the Highland Lateral. For the remaining 67 acres of the Second Filing located north of the Highland Lateral irrigation ditch, approximately 12 acres (Second Filing Sub-basins F20 and F22) will continue to drain in the historical direction directly into the Highland Lateral. The proposed flow rates and volumes for this runoff from the Second Filing into the canal have been calculated to be equal to or less than the historic rates. Please also refer to the September 26, 2000 letter report to the ditch company(included in this addendum's appendix) for greater details regarding this runoff into the canal from the Second Filing. For the remaining 55 acres of the Second Filing, runoff from this area will be conveyed eastward and underneath the Highland Lateral irrigation canal via a proposed 48"culvert to the proposed East Detention Area. In anticipation of future development,this 48" culvert has been designed to accept flows from both the Second Filing and a portion of the future filings. It is also anticipated that this 48"culvert may be lengthened as future filings are developed, in order to accommodate a future roadway in the vicinity of the culvert entrance. At this time, the owner's and engineer's preferred culvert entrance design is to have a swale of 5:1 or flatter longitudinal slope directing runoff into this culvert. This open culvert entrance configuration will have a lower cost and will allow greater flexibility for future extension of the pipe. Additional sketches have been included with this addendum appendix to illustrate the configuration of this proposed culvert entrance. Also, an alternate culvert entrance design that uses a grated area inlet has been included in this appendix. An easement for the proposed East Detention Area will be granted to the Town of Mead. The construction of the detention area will be the responsibility of the developer. The maintenance of the detention area will be the responsibility of the property owners' association. Upon completion of the Second Filing, the proposed detention area will consist of a 10'- high berm constructed across a large natural depression located on the west side of I-25, near the existing 60" culverts. The proposed berm has been designed to accommodate both the storage requirements of the Second Filing, as well as the storage requirements of the future ultimate build-out. For the requirements of the Second Filing,the berm will provide adequate detention storage even if no grading is done to the land west of the berm. For ultimate future buildout requirements, the land to the west of the berm will Addendum to Drainage Report for Margil Farms, Second Filing, September 28, 2000 Page 6 of 8 r need to be graded down to provide a flatter and deeper pond bottom, however the berm will remain sufficient. At the proposed location of the berm, using the existing grading located to the west of the berm as the bottom of the detention area, the required storage will be approximately 9.7 acre-fl, at a depth of approximately 7.3 feet, resulting in a high water elevation of approximately 5035.3. The corresponding 100-year release rate will be approximately 15.3 cfs. The total 100-year release from the Second Filing portion of MMP Sub-basin 134 consists of 15.3 cfs from the East Detention Area, plus 26.4 cfs of undetained runoff which enters the Highland Lateral, for a total 100-year release rate of 41.7 cfs, which is slightly less than the calculated historic 10-year release rate of 43.4 cfs. For the Second Filing release rate of 15.3 cfs from the East Detention area, the corresponding outlet for this flow is a single 15" orifice. In order to facilitate future expansion of the detention area, two 30"pipes will be installed through the detention berm, of which one will be fitted with a 15" orifice plate on its headwall, and the other pipe completely blocked with a plate on its headwall. The outlet pipes are designed to be in alignment with the existing 60" culverts under I-25. The spillway for the detention area is designed to pass the projected future (ultimate build-out) allowable 100-year release of 101 cfs, and consists of a 30' wide weir over the top of the berm. The detention area design allows sufficient distance to the east of the detention berm for the existing swales located along the eastern property line to convey runoff from non- Second Filing areas to the 60"culverts. Proposed Future Ultimate Build-out Conditions: Upon future ultimate build-out of the Margil Farms property south of WCR 38, the runoff flowing to the southwest will be the same as for the Second Filing, consisting of a 100- year release of 8 cfs from the Southwest Detention Area. The 12 acres of the Second Filing Subbasins F20 and F22 will continue to shed 26 cfs of undetained runoff directly into the Highland Lateral during the 100-year event. All of the remaining portion of the Margil Farms development south of WCR 38 will drain to the East Detention area, which will be expanded to accommodate the development. These future-developed areas that are located to the north of the Highland Lateral irrigation ditch will have runoff conveyed to the detention area via culverts either over or underneath the canal. Runoff from the future-developed areas located to the south of the Highland Lateral will enter the East Detention Area via a swale along the eastern property boundary. Addendum to Drainage Report for Margil Farms, Second Filing, September 28, 2000 Page 7 of 8 Upon the future ultimate build-out of the area south of WCR 38 the design release from the East Detention Area during the 100-year event will be 101 cfs. This 101 cfs consists of the 10-year historic release of 54 cfs from MMP Sub-basin 134, minus the 26 cfs of undetained runoff entering the Highland Lateral from the Second Filing, plus an anticipated pass-through flow of 73 cfs from Pond 231 located north of WCR 38. For this release of 101 cfs, the required detention volume is approximately 17.4 acre-fl. This volume is based upon using the Second Filing Berm design and the future grading plan for the bottom of the East Detention Area(a 2% bottom grade and 5:1 side slopes). The corresponding depth of detained stormwater will be approximately 7.1 feet, with a 100-year high-water-elevation of 5035.1. The outlet for the future conditions of the detention area consists of two 27" orifice plates on the 30"outlet pipes. IV. IMPACTS ON HIGHLAND LATERAL IRRIGATION DITCH At the time of this writing, correspondence is currently underway between the owners of the Highland Lateral ditch and the developer of Margil Farms. In a letter from the attorney representing the ditch company, the attorney stated that, "Final approval will be granted if the plans are acceptable and if the company is reimbursed" (reimbursed for legal and engineering review expenses). A copy of this correspondence is contained in this appendix. As stated in the Second Filing drainage report, the impact of the Second Filing on the Highland lateral will be to reduce the runoff into the canal. This will occur because a significant amount of land that previously drained into the canal will now be draining to the proposed East Detention Area via a culvert underneath the canal. Upon future ultimate buildout of the Margil Farms areas to both the north and south of WCR 38, even more land that previously drained into the Highland Lateral will instead drain into the proposed East Detention Area. This will be accomplished by the construction of additional culverts under or over the canal. V. CONCLUSION The proposed Second Filing drainage facilities can be added expanded and incorporated into a larger drainage system to accommodate the future development of all of the Margil Farms areas of Mead Master Plan Sub-basins 220 and 134. These are also the areas which have runoff draining to the 60" culverts located under 1-25 approximately 1000' south of WCR 38. Addendum to Drainage Report for Margil Farms, Second Filing, September 28, 2000 Page 8 of 8 n Upon future ultimate development, for those areas contained in MMP Sub-basin 220 (located north of WCR 38),the total 100-year runoff will be equal to or less than the historic 10-year rate of 108 cfs. For those Margil Farms areas located in MMP Sub-basin 134 (south of WCR 38), the total 100-year release from the future ultimate buildout will be equal to or less than the historic 10-year rate of 54 cfs. As these areas are developed, the Highland Lateral irrigation ditch will receive less stormwater runoff than it has historically. r v", EXCERPTS FROM TOWN OF MEAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN CO - �� U� wU (on -- ULO CJ rn) ticti ..-,,N, '!"i ''4177•47:-ViT n. 'l11!7 s'' z :4-1.:: ' • :t- ��7r Oe/ , 3`3-.. ; 1 : k : � " ' .�C.V 4 d / s4?� 3 rON si,Lit.i3 , ,'A1° W. ,S'SCAas..1,51.-:c �Ii ` rF it i°•wti'x., - r .. .s ••••,-• :,,,,,,, a •§p{a.' `�� ,mod zw .. 0 U if ;` ,� 4. 3• It Imo , +fit, t.f- }�{ .'��r;y`!i CO 14 wft.2: ff Z I!i � ea +v+ S' .if r -" f cr 4- - F � 3xs 'c � q a x r4, $ T - ; ,may x 'c F .} "` -!*., z. <.+ . Lo ' 'a`_ T U �' K • t• ^".S,s' -s � r T• a.s" - " � _ c sv •. 11‘47: .-• . }x- } f� F E.•x- ai y�s.y.'�`, a r Y t _'�xx 4y,( =' "'' ` O CO * 1 , ,, s , '*s sx \ t trk a '4z, 4,1 Nom-- U-ralt, IL/ .`'d ti ��tea,. ; - W �''� '{'� II II cibr CY . J �x, _Ta m s -�; 'i} }''h n'--R O 8 t 21 Ilix; ,.h,-' {g.. -'l ..r -r - • F i 7. 1,.' v ., �4,;9""! I(]} lr ///�I 1 4�. �E Jm��( � •„:•.401 4 E i"{` 54�. all y "yJ .' rV N n # `$ F P N `. . n;,�•• r 1.'€u9R :r (J�`�F-i ' lµ .,7:1; r Y'f �'Wc-� ,,, * .: "+t'RS'� ;c,„ a�`:k { •,. F 5 1 3 r, r--. , :•,1- 070141:1: sues `r�4 '-lr' .' -?4'; * y 4-",,t,-;-' .i'ct a U. ta kt,t,. :IF I�p !sdf a y� .2.--C.,--4!"--- AL t y o *t -::„...1/4„,,,1/4:41.:..,* ` c'3•ryE> r 00 .w I~`2` '��a x 3' *x 4a 4, A''}#a ", NAq-'-'&..•:: sg „g "�'s• '4�s a u �Esr yy�,,r v. le A� s -3° a w� \ kt r � r,�•� ��:z &4 rte. , . (�� N r �'L �.-. / o ..-t" ' # a •^? v'3a "p'% '0 2'�'a4rS' ₹5 3' J L.`_ O ni It ,;,4- :<yll s -n'�-s 3 z °`�` ^a ,,y--: Yy^� a{�" Y$ 1.2 fix E�or V t g¢ , h � 4 r . ya fi » = 1�F XC ,�{ �,Stt FL 3 J l'�c ce. i 3- a5z iX3? "� <.'S - 4x i t'^y i is r a.f k'l�'1 'FFt s^ s `K'A ,a'^! ,1�j ' 2' fl -{ s j+ .1 ✓b,•,x in 'lir F rsLL^. }S .f'..,- - °4sy i ` $ U V- Lu�, '" ..�y/�� ' s r'�3� dF ag.S�"+'+'' a.f y�y� L"'. rJ •d f.l �, `I k _tf.-+��+,��q ^^gy�pp:,,..._,,..4 .,,,,,,,,,,e, ..,„.......4„....,._ •�d •VS iZ iirt:.a., NC,C.. - --. '..a { s ,___,..„0..",...„,;,,,,,,��i" J s. i .y }+ C z r5 Op�.''a{b ° x j^Y a �i1 nti a I `. 9T ✓ !' #45v T` n 9 �. J.�fG� a1 .1 Aar � ! ]p 5 t, t µ tf �'� 4. a i i l� ;r„4.0.,-1.-044.4-4.--?„.--, -+ k' is• -Ji +Fn$.'-.sV.C '.�i . .� �1( ,.fi aLa a y7 spa {y.,1. P114;:::‘ ,,..r 5 f +; ..e../..14;" 5✓ry� $i.A "� r , C{ a ,. r % i QE` s "`it'�l.' f `st . j JJ"4'‘‘,5,1. 17i; ` [ ,� .',7A.-1.t�` y �'$41 1 � `as'^ , 1' •1 R • - ^ North 1-25 Basin 2 The North 1-25 Basin contains sub-basins 127 and 134 within the study area, and sub-basin 220 outside the study area. Flow from sub-basin 220 is tributary to sub-basin 134, and generally occurs as overland flow through irrigated and non-irrigated farmland. Runoff enters sub-basin 134 through a 48" CMP under County Road 38. This culvert is inadequate K to convey 100-year stormwater, and consequently overtops. The Mead Lateral ditch flows iti from southwest to northeast through the Basin. The basin outlets under Interstate 25, where ` it flows east through several small ponds and the St. Vrain Creek. Historic flows from each sub-basin, as well as combined flows at critical locations are presented in Table 4. * Table 4 North I-25 Basin - Existing Discharges Sub-basin Description Ll /Node Existing Discharge(cfs) 10 10-year 100-year 127 Sub-basin 127 26 101 —1 nial Sub-basin 134 --- 220 Sub-basin 220 * ®n tQ h ®108 ® 1�� „--..„--.. 580 Culvert under I-25 LL 29* Flows presented are basin runoff before the effects of detention at the County Road 38 culvert. r 1, Sub-basin127 I Sub-basin 127 is comprised of agricultural land. Runoff drains south to a 4'x8'RCBC under J Interstate 25. Culverts under the Great Western Railroad tracks are inadequate to convey rL 100-year storrnwater flow,and consequently, the railroad tracks are overtopped. The culvert U1,) under Interstate 25 is adequate to convey I00-year storm flows without overtopping. U e Sub-ba in 134 ]� VI 1..5_ 1 Sub-basin 134 contains agricultural land. Runoff generally drains southeast towards a 60" 1 RCP under Interstate 25. The Mead Lateral ditch flows from southwest to northeast through the sub-basin. Facilities are present to allow irrigation return flows to enter the ditch and be \ conveyed out of the sub-basin. The culvert under Interstate 25 is adequate to convey the V 100-year flood event without overtopping amount of detention storage pd a Interstate rgou f5.th In addition, it provides a small to reduce discharge out of the culvert. I— kil III. DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN FORMULATION The ultimate goal of drainage improvements within the study area and areas within their upstream drainage basins is to protect the Town of Mead from damaging effects of flood MEADMP2.RPT February 1998 20 DRAFT The Sear-Brown Group 2 le aao 0 goo—s- 8£ 'BO „°` ( sr s+ } — r i r Maw. r� -37n rte' . .,� .ts '.' 4'�. ♦. ys • ( r._ l .Y>3:-t :y > r .3"s y ea } •' �gl, mss. to ' 4, r „� r y`e• t- ..qt 'y '' ' . i� r a-,7. 1 �s� •y �. c v� C > ��y z CZ 4F 0 lit i x 1,, R► v .� „_, ``i• t:_ .. s 1 5..r.,.?" ..-4,,f_.,;' " ��S . .Y Af l w v,'� r .4� ° ' c p arc• ,a'' " '4` a F err1„ ` a `' 1' f'1 244 i'�"z ::22,,i.-45.7„, " ' i4`wa3a. s s } . v r f ,i,• _' L `a fl+�` , eS"`" r a r N i-S ' t�jam`.fix i V Y a " . a £ .-a 4a}.,i -5_ `z v'r iz ': t,...,2 ,g,.,' +E '. ^i«. t in' -� .. ,r- C x - eq� 4i. iti.,:::::,S. ,,.�yy. 4 -y j It ' yY1„# � � t x + 1�#" qq LY At'',1 1.'Y .C L1 �u - i,4y. .; '• T ] l �+ G T \ jam.:. b"E + 'ry e` .S x �1 3 R J f ` h .:.-- .r f l� "}+. r Lx �i y° i,Y #SrF '^ 4,-;4i } , 'i t' Ld, u ' to 4 �� c 'h^ ,, Y•"..q Y. TM} .."> . �"i5fJ �f .at -.✓ a` y�i"i7 Z /� a i -•"G ` ' 4'. i°s Jr - • `fa a-i-. _ - � Y �� q.' .'s i _ i .> 4? r. s e?- 3 a - 6�� 9 3.,.ty. t` •c r �L S i____ .T.T.- t 7 .`S.i` �% f1;2 `4r Z A x fa k a �Yy^}-F,3 r as" .E Yl �`- , ‘"'-7--;":/-4--; '- a T -. L-zt` Sni LFro 1: . �. NS/ Cos } rj� _ f r r is> WR _.[y ' i� ` t �' .t^y2 .� .r-4!,:,•::-.44'6,';n i; �.,,,, :4--.? C' 1*0 s g l' w ,: - ' •v a S}"T yr ' � L e. \{ .I- JAS w '>•< ..`..kt us r is 3 f5. n3�5y �:s S L.i: : 1 ( z r( a "��K� �_:.1•, i7 "a'4 .v '.e!' k„ R'�..zr F.�.y'. a .,-- i.' ! , - a..3: -..fi 'on ';=kt'.• S - e S_ .,i4 a k r r't ..: y F : `-a :I, 3 L t GaEY4 > 3 -• , i t ) 4 jF of .. Y -'3i T+ • - -: ^ a rY ,h- n' ,i_-s ra—� �' k y , -,-,44R.^ ,s , a iv j C t yY ��„ a --"V:' T '" y'+eei}r4 E v, 2 .afi, i1. c- : r" iv y r G- 1 a"'•.' s. 3;t as." "t • c }c. F ��pc S't i#'V ee F� - ti r s} 4 ,�.y�it,�r n `"., -w € 'tom.[ W` 1 Vie. w s> - c i -.x r rt --Hi r',-,,--"' - <* r �'- .3+ �'3. z .F' »� i i ry ' l +r t Y k yy, �'a v, "; is � .�a2"s ea�*Z 1 a i:''ha` ,i'%. 'Y r } ,�.•-i` >v i, < r .4fst i v rt. ;a- °r'... C z.,+. 'itvat s j Eaw Ic i qu"sv- ?� T$ Q '1 : ,RaE.ir 3'iw� t . `3: '�'•-S4:31 z ' .;-7-- ---.--;4';:.- i z ✓ •"s 7 a•� "N. T":. A., t h I -,r_ ra`' � V i �. h'Ps. *?a� z' i i "� -�a '�a. .a T.(. y j'K at♦ q4.]:•"':s4 �e ,Ai N 5 fi' i.Vt yt -r•.i'o- '' yF,, i"i • ,+• ` rr�3'ia x :7.4,. le,L 1` "E'S 4::I3 L"- .a ," E - F.1' ra ry,s. h x } hi' I^' -.!:.:,..":47.4F- f 'S i } s 'ts, S �'> Y�,r 14^si'Sy x ke G tc ,; yy}„ -.:1414 a r.Y ait � •; S fl�M.r,--+ 7. iJ'c- E`;Y c i„s s xi�ht i'{r�n_ o�?r _n :::. Ai iymf y_ � fr,.:i k . ;- ,#ttaa -� '•• vtiwvr} ir .sy '.a :- E 1'i 1 4eAV e. i,x."?ro.; —.a .".-" 3•S1rY ,1.1„-e a #' " _ > .�i i 'rq°'� tr -,: .-s+' n ��$ 4--' C'; ,....y gym - • �.1.,_ ..r...g ,.. �i p 'awr+� i i. ��Ww mJ 'a r �^ 4yRL .x„ +Y p, �t F r �1�`� '!�t^, i *fl syrn47s«s E 7 }�� x I g3'.f.t? ' . ' '' `z x:At:L tea' . "x'" e` �0e -t"•gi t ;' '. • Sub-basin 132 Sub-basin 132 is currently comprised of portions of Highland Estates and Lake Hollow4. It Estates developments as well as a small undeveloped parcel of agricultural land. Al! facilities were designed to convey the 100-year fully developed flows,and no improvements r. z. are proposed within the development. A tributary to the north branch of North Creek alsoIll flows through the sub-basin. When the small parcel of agricultural land is developed, its storm water runoff should be directed into the tributary to the north branch of North Creek. ` Sub-basin 133 Sub-basin 133 is currently comprised of portions of the Highland Estates developments. All facilities were designed to convey the 100-year fully developed flows,and no improvements are proposed within the development. A tributary to the north branch of North Creek also 11.1 flows through the sub-basin. North 1-25 Basin The north I-25 basins generally require little improvement. Sub-basin 220 is north of the S study area. Proposed development is primarily commercial and high-density residential. (V. Approximately 30 acre-feet of storage is anticipated in sub-basin 220 to release fully developed runoff a the 10-year historic rate of 109 cfs. One 24" RCP will need to be added to the existing 48" CMP to adequately convey this discharge under County Road 38. Table 8 summarizes fully developed flows from each sub-basin as well as discharges at key k locations. Cost of these improvements will be the responsibility of future developers. Q-- Table 8 North 1-25 Basin - Fully Developed Discharges 1 Sub-basin Description Fully Developed Discharge v /Node X (cfs) 10-year 100-year k\ 127 Sub-basin 127 35 111 134 Sub-basin 134 74 215 220 Sub-basin 220 616 1064 580 Culvert under I-25 104 249 Sub-basin 127 Sub-basin 127 covers the far eastern portion of the basin. The Comprehensive Development ,. • Plan classifies the sub-basin as very low, low and medium density development. The existing culvert under I-25 is adequate to detain and convey existing, as well as developed storm water flows. Therefore, no modifications will be needed to the existing culvert under MEADM12.RPT February 1998 36 DRAFT The Sear-Brown Group Interstate 25.Approximately one acre-foot of detention storage is anticipated within the sub- basin to ensure that flows through the culvert do not exceed existing 100-year discharges of 101 cfs. Culverts under CR 36 and the Great Western Railroad tracks should be installed as the area is developed to handle storm water. Developers should be responsible for these t, improvements. Sub-basin 1 4 Sub-basin 134 is currently comprised of undeveloped agricultural land. The Comprehensive Development Plan classifies the land as low-density residential development. The existing culvert under Interstate 25 is adequate to convey existing as well as developed storm water flows. But, approximately 1.6 acre-feet of detention storage will be required to ensure that fully developed discharges do not exceed 100-year existing discharge through the culvert. qk J Portions of the runoff from sub-basins 220 and 134 currently drain into the Mead Lateral irrigation ditch. It has been recommended that irrigation canals not be used for storm water J runoff. Therefore, a cross-drainage structure should be constructed across the ditch to convey upstream 100-year historic storm flows. Future developers should be responsible for ki these improvements. D. North Creek FEMA Approximate Floodplaink. North Creek from Interstate 25 through the North Creek residential development is classified indicates e a g y Management Agency(FEMA)floodplain. This designation e areiof the 100-year flood, but base flood elevations hazard factors have e not been determined by FEMA. The Town of Mead currently i ands in 11.1 the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),although Weld County is in the program. For communities which are in the NFIP, processes for proposed developments are stated within an ordinance, and a community floodplain administrator then applies provisions within the ordinance. Weld County has a"Flood Hazard Submittal Checklist"which must be filled out prior to approval of developments within Floodways of Floodprone Districts. A Flood Hazard Development Permit is then issued pending review of the application. 0 FEMA is not involved in local assessments of impacts within A zone areas (Metzler, 1997). I,9 However, for communities which are in the NFIP, development proposals within any A zone area would need to be submitted to the floodplain administrator with plans showing dimensions and elevations of existing and proposed structures, drainage facilities, etc. The floodplain administrator would then make a decision as to whether the structures "adversely affects"the flood carrying capacity of the area of special flood hazard. This implies that base ci lb and developed flow conditions should be modeled. If a map revision is being requested, the applicant is required to apply to FEMA. Future drainage design shall consider all applicable FEMA regulations and requirements related to North Creek. X VI. CONCLUSIONS r The proposed improvements are intended to improve storm drainage handling within the Town of Mead as the Town develops and expands. Proposed detention facilities should be MEADMP2.RPT 37 February 1998 DRAFT The Sear-Drown Group I MEAD MASTE Ft- ,4/J coo 7.--Oo 9- .. w _ O �t010002 • NO � D3 CD r- : N17NM 03 pN COI2r. d' � j - . O U 0- c c O o a ODw L c 0 0\ nnco7 * OOd. con 00 * * , 0 ° 3O � Qv d' , .- �- n ncpn00hp00 �- N000000000 OLv v w co I c O 2 N 0 , 0 c O O o - L T " 0 .o a0 d m v — .' = .n > L o O w 0 E 0d' OOo 00 0000 — coon c� � -U O j a� �w � �� M � �� QQQQQQQQ � �� _ o a o04._ CAO) O O 0) ZoO _rnmrncnrnr. 00r�\\\\\\\\o 0 - °' 6 c c > d•<f d'�� 'Dui •F�d• d:OOpZZZZZZZZO o n� �, LO v� .N -�' � y O V w` L 3 U c C N C 'D O L c c a) n O 0 O o) 't000 00 ootoo ._ O0n O U N O U g c O^ apd• NO) N Q On 00 N O N •ct Y- CO O) OD Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q N 112 V O W U c +' of c > a � oomm ozoo _mommolmooz\\\\\\\o °� v c U L a� o L >� � rnrnrnrn (Do � �d �d u;� <Fui f<t* fui,�Zzzzzzzzo c 3 o c o o s >O 0 n co O CT -c O 3 , 0- 0 co, O O J L 0 0 0 tIJ COMpg 0 U 46 g c1 g 0 " 6 z L. ›,.., m0 42 N N n d' pO,Op F: cm to O n f� O n n O) n 0 - _ c O y 0 0.7c y - OI `. N N,.- -N `t c0 N , cry ,- N d' N ro ccoo ONi n d- c j w a..-... o0 ,9,N n O U L aci U c c Ep o rn 0 o o -0 _c o n , 0 o ai � ` c nU co L y W a y-. > CO a N O O •- a .' c c ] L c L ` aXi a o �... arcvo • coo E N 0 0 CO > O U O � pNn .n �lrOjM � DONn � ON •- r) NO) d, co ND d• Nn d .�; O o Ino oU0 ... d O E 0,.... j I � � '- d• I: n ^ ON � � ^ � ^ C � O 0 o _ p y y •� tei e� > 0 ›. 4' 1 w N - o o � � o v EOL m n L. � • w; �` o �u0i o o j c c0 E 01 N 4:::) h O O n+� n c n CO 0 c 00 cL i_ C 0 — L a' v •- •mU N .�- .N- O N MI--- vii 0 au) 0 pO++ jw c O Q/ N O h CA O to .t N - d- .� > O L d U O U 0 q o d ° 00 Nooun N Z * NZ000concoco00coN O yL "' O '- - +U2 0_ I a) ON .- .-r- ONNpn .- OOZN E m L L w c O (n O '- P - r F � N N � �N � � O .�- pN C C O 'O d � .� O �. 0 y o 0 0 0 D .f F ' oo �n ° +� "- +- ao0coc0 :�, O p o - d'N �_, coo ap C L 'L L O 0 0 C a a N O o y y o 3µ o0 °-:c• o a o q o > 'v o o C X d 0 L y o of w � w. 0 ow .L+ a o 2 a I Co .-. a oc0.o nn M n .^ I— ay.O. v `� v �-' H d> E �� O 0. o Z C3 ill N N CDD 0) G3p N 00 cn cA 00 N n N O n C> NI- co r•- 03 O .- C3 0 L7 n 0 0 n 0 In in Al (n in en ^O N . ,, cA __ __ co co c0 10 I. n Z r 2 C a a 0 c o o o o a) v O 0 co O * ^\1' ,�I U a co c4 N. ,\ v L c 0C 03 c)m c 0 'U Aq +% 3U m tr N � UO3 aicc CL v O i h o � a o aa)i-4. axiom as �► � x x 1� � � � v 0 ° - °io m °� oN 0 01 c n N '= vN a N U ! No I I U U O co CO W N CO $ CO o +_ .t N .5 .L co 0 5 r$-..CC O Ot O) OO) 0' 3 0'r o) , 3 0) 3d •; O) O. 3 3 W J or 0 ccccc 0 0 00 O 0 1 0 0 I o o 0 I O o 0 0 0 j) Q W O) _c .CttL OLit— C O * O N= O (Lc 0 O z CO 0000c) OO 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z a v av n av n acv ¢ ¢ t o0oOo0ovoa) va) Oa) -CI 0Ooa) my CC X U z z z z z CC z < z l < K z W < o z z a a < 0 0 E °' rn r. to EL H nnNao � o ao � � � in � tn - � coaoao + ■ w XUv N .— n Nn NON . c..., coup NNr .- t!) . • * O O 0 N co M O .O. f4 v) a) o E c> :R. g m U C E 0) * OOOMOicr r rOOtf 0 •— coOrnN00 oo 0 Etj OM .- a0 .- 00 CO 0) OOn o - M0tA co r-- co 0) .- a' 0 N .- co m u) to co o ton to coo) o to 0) O) n co n0coo a) x3� 0) 0) 0) 0) O) 00�0;00) 0) OO) O) O) O) oOO * O L... ��atriui.tri'�4-.rtri��dtuii trid=tri �� N v °o x c 0 Li O o o i O 0 ,O 0) '.t000MOlO rOOtf0 .- cDOnN00 U 0 ++ O > sfNO) NtA O),0 cO ,.N � � t00) gD 0) ON c O 0w COO to to coon,co co O) 0 to O) 0i n co r- ono ,-.1- -65 o app 0t 0) 00 10) 00) rn0) o) 000O) 0 0 *��ssfa uitritri Nra trio srtriviuisrl:tri > ar O' > U a N 7 E NO Oa) I T �L.� O c Q y 0 0 0 n n co 't to 0)i0) caul 'to 0) co c° n n C O W o H�U' N � � N � u) N�OM t)00 � � c�ON � MONN � .01- .t+ Q U > Q I Oy Q C O , 'co r n d 0 J r 0V UCO 0 * F y d otoOU') ocoo00o) II) cOtotocONtoNtoCO E O O ) c0 � O O .-- O N u)to cD t0 n M `.t u 0m IL d m a u) u) tn intotou)nu" co co c0 conn NNNN co co co O � z o O I`a 0) F M a CALCULATION OF HISTORIC AND ALLOWABLE RELEASE (FUTURE ULTIMATE BUILDOUT) VI I--- v\ x h -Z 2w01_ . r. m 1, VI J C z AC p( V 3 p( K J A J \9 > i1 -2 1 T ` ' o _klii 4 p tov iL • Tr .; J I _I >' v I I K O t'`L1 J LL CI AI >n o tn Z<----- J1 Wi cl a; 2 \is Vz w In F K co +z O II Fl ~ � P4H � aL2IIc ‘1) t Lu c-c 00 - n t' N 111 '4C.. LL AL Pe LL r J ? vi/ S Z - I = �1 1s� V W .Lw C1 J rm. 01 cc pa 90I 7 3 1-'_ 9. 2AL a a1.1 I- 1 >7 F14WVt ► �• 2 p v` is tiCA- k—.., �1 J ) M J_ `�S P 1-0 kit• Vti A 4- "i 3 lib CO 4 Ill en -i{ r1 cw0� —≥i I J N0-21J /''w ll J /I li -t v 3 1 n LO 1- w I 90 o y y'1 - O J 11 J co `C 0 ti 2 v z ~ 4 Z V }- !43 o VI nevi ct � � ± v4w v, tb 0 � k1Jc 3v1Z g U r CALCULATION OF PROPOSED DETENTION AND RELEASE (FUTURE ULTIMATE BUILDOUT) a:a Wi s 1§ e /rte ti • _ .r ..T _ . --_ \ - - - - uI .. a. ilA et ifs: If- yap QA t g it Ihg .. Pe --- - .. e gall „ �411 �$t fr :., c s ; i ----) 52 ti*I' I /kill" allitrene.ar.a . . ••- r jsir ,\;\. t,\\,:� m c� -c.`� �� L'- \ ,\ ---.1__ — ..- el' "3J! N Q 1J i / /-----' - -I....— t t v FW ; .: ...9 Ii.. V ti �' Nor_ _ is , � ? z � cR J ' ' y vi la i M Pt U w "' v) V 3 w A ' z oC U — • J 3 z � 3 Q A � v; taut. 1 I O M • V V 0 II M , 3 g + M / Boll 1 1— —n1 • v-,211 , � CJ. Z — T i„ y ,--AN OO F WZ ypd L � �� ly�F v ` A) v V le J;7,n Z MI Q M >� N vi rl V 0 lu N- IS 79N 2\ t ' 11 WA ' V \ C x. - ` vlry� ?S �0 \ 4 tavl 1 t V' B LL i ° v �j 1 M � r Q Z z ac Zr-- 1X 0 V\ N J I / � 9 ti4 \e I \ j 4cN\12/1IO2 �aU,id ‘ t\ 7 / U � V /U I J \_� �,\ _ \' I`` 00 Sc IEMArIC o f U LT/MATE i M FUTURE tul Lbbour ; d loo - YR ReLE,&sE v Fit° M /AA-R C-.IL FA-R 1S l I-tiO E, S 3 1_ _ M>a-k6i ` 01145 Oh 9- zo- er-D -- _ 14.0. �3t ;8 �»Rrr�bt5r ?tot /'1 w�R •t 73 35 cFt ,A4 - /17p POND8O, 5Y-2L"Z8 w', :w F�rLiREt LikE r Pipe- Zr— Q' S , 'Fzs� pes ¢iM otaF arc P MA-K RrsEA≤ E Art_ La .acp Fi.or.ti &Imp S -'&-BA-si,v 22b VI U1.- . = 1O S =Fs . OF c (0 8 FS As- somE W W LIS W xxa N VIVI 0o� Y DA-7" 3S c-Es cAN >DASs T rfau !'/1/41.E EXIST. 7 y 't Goa 1.. ✓ERr w. of rt;a 3 v o .Z - 2 s F�-okc� tI n n De-re-17o EA- - �CIS LFFAVrS to 9 - 3s_ (ray - '73¢Fs w!'( (6_14 c-*' E l�E t_E/ESF 3 b r12o ti Po ND S c(O (fo uD 231 o f T I viAJ�, 1) Assume 7-4-E2Eroi e 7't.-A-r A- MA- ��// I X1/�tJm o f 1 3 C.Fs WILL PASS "TI,RU E EA-s7- )utENr'ou A-r? EA-� Qfr41LE- ;SF or#ER 3ScF� v,/ I BYPASS 'T G r = r1 Are_er- . 1D s\ 4if 73 c.Fs v rLc .,-.) -rte -714-E- A-L L o w 4-3 L E RE LEASE F I2-o o/-1 r-' c /t 2 t:A PO YR sa t) rick- of IA) re_ 3 6 • -LoW P e A, FLC*sc` ritetThi. S , o f uJ cit. 3 S S i c Fs — 2 to c:rfs '� ( �Sn to-YR 4 -YR i NT,1 = 28 c- Fs - ct j� L: 0NDE-rhlN� 4bb 73 'r 28 = loI &Fs MA-x . >4t- ric. , p, ,-cD Ca DE-7- AR E.4 (Poop s $ o °FMMP)^ r - 0 a fr DE7 'p./rtor� i lye of Q = IorcF USE A- S/1J6tE Yd," ?) Pr oR c2. - £ 7 " PIPES READILY SttJCE 27" IS NoT R-✓kst. 4 L € ski F PEP DR Spa≥ ,4 L Pta 1 tart 2— PIPE-se r O CO O N N a O aO CO CI OD Lj 60000 O * 0 C N let we INhrto U 0 0 0 0 0 an a0 in N CO CO U 07 CO r— Ov 00000 t y _ N O N Co O O O O N f0 1-- O ntcl U• M O O O O O a ca 6 ter r coO N get E a 0 y �p 1 en m y n m in CO m m n o io aO o wi of Cl) co R �n r N O r c FiiW N N . it• D v O C `L O CO o 0 AO s R E E a) cco c CZ o o D o c > 0 L .O L i0 N O. Et cn o a�i � o "J tU LL + N O/C + N E. W O o W o + aC LL c , " c v OA 7-,eic m 0 m C c C Q O _o of . to , o of E Q� Q = w �° C da 0 T=. U O W n. ›.:1 " . 0 m E 5 = ao U co o c no a E Q to E o y . cn E ys y o 3 .. o 'O N .. .0 N -a to • o 0 L r W W ZD O- O 0 — o a O y m E c c E o ( y 11 = J O c E w m m o . ;O E w y ,A U a �/� Z c O a C L.' D 11 CZ ° a 0 E 0 a) VI J 0P 0 c c co La n = U W o E -0 - LOm F.. Z2 to- W W O .a v y o F— 0 _Jm dw LL 0 • U C (� L N Co I . N C C . 0 a y a a Q a s 0 r O ~ re a .0 v air =i aUi aci 0 -0 2 U c o c=i c o CO n ,rte C� —Ill- L 0 0 J = 0 CU d co c j .- O N c n N () Once a7 co O w O. a N N CO o U F— a` am � BOULDER COUNTY STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL FIGURE 803 RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DENSITY vs IMPERVIOUS AREA 50 I I TEST AREA LOCATIONS O ARAPAHOE COUNTY O Ir ❑ LITTLETON 40 w O O a a I- 30 ❑ U Q - w a r^,. 0 5 20 cc w a ❑ 10 LOW DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY • 0 1 2 3 4 5 HOUSING DENSITY-UNITS PER ACRE WRC ENG. REFERENCE: USDCM, DRCOG Revised' 5-1-84 ea 2 o 2 1- N ct v w 1— o e w I- n J `` I Via J \ N 7 A to to P° N \ LL �- W LA co 1S ‘ \ -- S a 0 p r / \\ Q N 2 ` J Ti \ %�1 M 4f.,, 3 a z. tr Q-Vael .71 i r/c, /(\ 00 -JJ re vt I- l f" x r Cr z2WLL � 3ro Q OWE 0 F in q p_ d' 0 N F_ I1- F- I`v. A J - W �L "'i . J 2 - a ,A. el J kJ J Ca k 7 0 3 •L VA i J J tp a1 ti o- p�0 ° Z J 0. '�_ J J M � 3 w u1 � � bt oo d �� vi o w ' 3 W w 2 a - •0 3 2 < jU_ II a2 ± ckA a F. C 1- vi 0 F- 2 1- h 10/" M V1 ] o 0 2_ 7 11_.I X 4.- li q.4b 3 A (3 k W cQ - AC til Li-V Q F 3 C] " . u; 3 N aa" [(/� P N N I W Filename=MARFUTR_DAT(MODSWMM input file for Margil Farms future ultimate buildout) Page 1 of 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 WATERSHED 1 Margill Farms Second Filing + Future Filings that drain to East Det Area Park Engineering Consultants/KNA; Modified from MEADSWPR.DAT 9/20/2000 73 5.0 1 * ####################### WATERSHED DATA ################################## * * * For Discharge Node 904 - North I-25 Basins * 135 982 222 592 * ######################## CONVEYANCE ELEMENT DATA ####################### * * For Discharge Node 904 - North I-25 Basins 0 582 906 4 2 .01 100. .0001 0. 0. 0.013 .01 0. 0. 5.4 74. 16.9 98. 22.1 110. 1 585 982 0 1 20. 1700. 0.021 8. 8. 0.050 10. 0 592 585 3 2 .01 100. .0001 0. 0. 0.013 .01 0. 0. 1. 73. 40. 73. 1 982 582 0 3 * * ############################ END OF CONVEYANCE DATA ###################### 0 2 1 582 592 ENDPROGRAM Filename=MARFUTR.0UT(MODSWMM output file for Margil Farms future ultimate buildout: Future Grading of East Detention Area) Page 1 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION PC.1 DEVELOPED BY METCALF + EDDY, INC. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES ENGINEEERS, INC. (SEPTEMBER 1970) • UPDATED BY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (JUNE 1973) HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEPTEMBER 1974) es"` BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION (MARCH 1985, JULY 1985) TAPE OR DISK ASSIGNMENTS JIN(1) JIN(2) JIN(3) JIN(4) JIN(5) JIN(6) JIN(7) JIN(8) JIN(9) JIN(10) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JOUT(1) JOUT(2) JOUT(3) JOUT(4) JOUT(5) JOUT(6) JOUT(7) JOUT(8) JOUT(9) JOUT(10) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NSCRAT(1) NSCRAT(2) NSCRAT(3) NSCRAT(4) NSCRAT(5) 3 4 0 0 0 WATERSHED PROGRAM CALLED Filename=MARF[TIR.oUT(MODSWMM output file for Margil Farms future ultimate buildout: Future Grading of East Detention Area.) r-. Page2of7 *** ENTRY MADE TO RUNOFF MODEL *** Margill Farms Second Filing + Future Filings that drain to East Det Area Park Engineering Consultants/KNA; Modified from MEADSWPR.DAT 9/20/2000 NUMBER OF TIME STEPS 73 INTEGRATION TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES) , 5.00 25.0 PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH Margill Farms Second Filing + Future Filings that drain to East Det Area Park Engineering Consultants/KNA; Modified from MPArSWPR.DAT 9/20/2000 HYDROGRAPHS FROM CUHPE/PC ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 2 SUBCATCHMENTS TIME(HR/MIN) 135 222 0 0. .0 .0 '~ 0 5. .0 .0 0 10. 1.1 .2 0 15. 14.7 3.4 0 20. 48.4 13.1 0 25. 114.3 33.9 0 30. 307.2 88.5 0 35. 485.3 162.3 0 40. 436.3 195.0 0 45. 345.1 184.6 0 50. 271.1 164.0 0 55. 212.1 143.8 1 0. 168.8 125.1 1 5. 144.6 110.2 1 10. 114.8 95.8 1 15. 75.1 78.9 1 20. 51.9 62.6 1 25. 35.4 49.2 1 30. 26.5 38.0 1 35. 21.7 27.1 1 40. 19.1 20.6 1 45. 17.6 16.8 1 50. 16.8 14.2 1 55. 16.6 12.4 2 0. 16.5 11.2 2 5. 13.3 9.6 2 10. 7.3 7.1 2 15. 4.1 5.1 2 20. 2.2 3.6 2 25. .0 2.7 2 30. .0 1.9 Filename=MARFUTR.OUT (MODSWMM output file for Margil Farms future ultimate buildout: Future Grading of East Detention Area) !", Page 3 of 7 Margill Farms Second Filing + Future Filings that drain to East Det Area Park Engineering Consultants/KNA; Modified from MEADSWPR.DAT 9/20/2000 WIDTH INVERT SIDE SLOPES OVERBANK/SURCHARGE GUTTER GUTTER NDP NP OR DIAM LENGTH SLOPE HORIZ TO VERT MANNING DEPTH JK NUMBER CONNECTION (FT) (FT) (FT/FT) L R N (FT) 582 906 4 2 PIPE .0 100. .0001 .0 .0 .013 .01 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 .0 5.4 74.0 16.9 98.0 22.1 110.0 585 982 0 1 CHANNEL 20.0 1700. .0210 8.0 8.0 .050 10.00 1 592 585 3 2 PIPE .0 100. c-.... .0001 .0 .0 .013 .01 0 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN ACRE-FEET VS SPILLWAY OUTFLOW .0 . 0 1. 0 73.0 40.0 73.0 982 582 0 3 .0 0. .0010 .0 .0 .001 10.00 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF GUTTERS/PIPES, 4 Margill Farms Second Filing + Future Filings that drain to East Det Area Park Engineering Consultants/KNA; Modified from MEADSWPR.DAT 9/20/2000 ARRANGEMENT OF SUBCATCHMENTS AND GUTTERS/PIPES GUTTER TRIBUTARY GUTTER/PIPE TRIBUTARY SUBAREA D.A. (AC) _ 582 982 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179.6 585 592 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.0 592 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.0 Margill Farms Second Filing + Future Filings that drain to East Det Area Park Engineering Consultants/KNA; Modified from MEADSWPR.DAT 9/20/2000 Filename=MARFUTR.OUT (MODSWMM output file for Margil Farms future ultimate buildout: Future Grading of East Detention Area.) r Page 4 of 7 HYDROGRAPHS ARE LISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING 2 CONVEYANCE ELEMENTS THE UPPER NUMBER IS DISCHARGE IN CFS THE LOWER NUMBER IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASES: ( ) DENOTES DEPTH ABOVE INVERT IN FEET (S) DENOTES STORAGE IN AC-FT FOR DETENTION DAM. DISCHARGE INCLUDES SPILLWAY OUTFLOW. (I) DENOTES GUTTER INFLOW IN CFS FROM SPECIFIED INFLOW HYDROGRAPH (D) DENOTES DISCHARGE IN CFS DIVERTED FROM THIS GUTTER (O) DENOTES STORAGE IN AC-FT FOR SURCHARGED GUTTER TIME(HR/MIN) 582 592 0 5. .0 .0 .00( ) .00( ) 0 10. .0 .0 .00(S) .00(S) 0 15. . 8 .8 .06(S) . 01 (S) 0 20. 3.5 3.8 .26(8) .05 (5) 0 25. 10.6 11.7 .77 (S) .16(S) 0 30. 29.0 31.6 2. 12 (S) .43 (S) 0 35. 63.6 69.3 4.64 (S) .95 (S) 0 40. 78.5 73.0 7.58 (S) 1.69(S) 0 45. 83.8 73.0 10.09(S) 2.49 (S) 0 50. 87.9 73.0 12.07 (5) 3.19 (5) 0 55. 91.1 73.0 13.60(5) 3.75(S) 1 0. 93.6 73.0 14.77(5) 4.17 (S) 1 5. 95.5 _ 73.0 15.70(S) 4 .48 (5) 1 10. 97.0 73.0 16.43(S) 4.68 (S) 1 15. 98.0 73.0 16.91 (5) 4.78 (S) 1 20. 98.6 73.0 17.18 (5) 4.77 (S) 1 25. 98.9 - 73.0 17.30 (S) 4.65 (S) („0-. 1 30. 99.0 73.0 17.33 (S) 4.45 (S) 1 35. 99.0 73.0 17.32 (5) 4.17 (S) Filename=MARFUTR.OUT(MODSWMM output file for Margil Farms future ultimate buildout: Future Grading of East Detention Area.) Page 5 of 7 1 40. 98.9 73.0 17.28 (S) 3.83(S) 1 45. 98.8 73.0 17.23 (S) 3.46(S) 1 50. 98.6 73.0 17.17(S) 3.06(S) 1 55. 98.5 73.0 17.11(5) 2.65(5) 2 0. 98.3 73.0 17.05(S) 2.23 (S) 2 5. 98.2 73.0 16.98 (5) 1.80(S) 2 10. 97.9 73.0 16.88 (5) 1.35(S) 2 15. 97.7 66.6 16.74 (5) .91 (S) 2 20. 97.3 41.6 16.54 (S) .57(S) 2 25. 96.6 26.2 16.25(S) .36(S) 2 30. 95.8 16.6 15.86(5) .23 (S) 2 35. 94.9 10.7 15.40(5) .15 (S) 2 40. 93.8 6.4 14.89(5) .09 (S) 2 45. 92.7 3.8 14.35 (S) .05(S) 2 50. 91.5 2.3 13.79(5) .03(S) 2 55. 90.3 1.4 13.21 (S) .02 (S) 3 0. 89. 1 .8 12.63(5) .01 (S) 3 5. 87. 9 .5 12.05(3) .01 (S) 3 10. 86.7 .3 11.47 (5) .00(S) 3 15. 85.5 .2 10.89(S) .00 (S) 3 20. 84.3 .1 10.32 (5) .00 (S) 3 25. 83.1 .1 9.76(5) .00(S) 3 30. 81.9 .0 9.20(S) .00 (S) 3 35. 80. 8 .0 8. 64 (S) .00(S) 3 40. 79.6 .0 8.09(S) .00(S) ,.-. 3 45. 78.5 .0 7.56(S) .00(S) 3 50. 77.4 .0 7.02 (S) .00(S) Filename=MARFUTR.0UT (M0DSWMM.output file for Margil Farms future ultimate buildout: Future Grading of East Detention Area) r"\ Page6of7 ' 3 55. 76.3 .0 6.50(5) .00 (S) 4 0. 75.2 .0 5.98 (S) .00(S) 4 5. 74.1 .0 5.47 (S) .00(S) 4 10. 68.2 .0 4.98 (S) .00(S) 4 15. 62.1 .0 4.53(S) .00(S) 4 20. 56.5 .0 4.12(S) .00(S) 4 25. 51.4 .0 3.75(S) .00( ) 4 30. 46.8 .0 3.42(5) .00 ( ) 4 35. 42.6 .0 3.11(S) .00 ( ) 4 40. 38.8 .0 2.83(S) .00( ) 4 45. 35.3 .0 2.58 (S) .00( ) 4 50. 32.1 .0 2.35 (S) .00( ) 4 55. 29.3 .0 2.13(S) .00( ) 5 0. 26.6 .0 1.94 (S) .00( ) 5 5. 24.2 .0 1.77 (S) .00( ) 5 10. 22.1 .0 1.61 (S) .00( ) 5 15. 20.1 .0 1.47 (S) .00( ) 5 20. 18.3 .0 1.33 (S) .00( ) 5 25. 16.6 .0 1.21(S) .00( ) 5 30. 15.1 .0 1.10 (S) .00( ) 5 35. 13.8 .0 1.01 (S) .00( ) 5 40. 12.5 .0 .92 (5) .00 ( ) 5 45. 11.4 .0 .83 (S) .00 ( ) 5 50. 10.4 .0 .76(S) .00 ( ) 5 55. 9.5 .0 .69(S) .00( ) 6 0. 8.6 .0 .63(5) .00( ) 6 5. 7.8 .0 .57 (S) .00( ) Filename =MARFUTR.OUT (MODSWMM output file.for Margil Farms future ultimate buildout: Future Grading of East Detention Area.) p Page 7 of 7 Margill Farms Second Filing + Future Filings that drain to East Det Area Park Engineering Consultants/KNA; Modified from MEADSWPR.DAT 9/20/2000 *** PEAK FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENTION DAMS *** *** NOTE :S IMPLIES A SURCHARGED ELEMENT AND :D IMPLIES A SURCHARGED DETENTION FACILITY CONVEYANCE PEAK STAGE STORAGE TIME ELEMENT:TYPE (CFS) (FT) (AC-FT) (HR/MIN) FVTo RE ?vlL_Dour of 582:2 99.0 .0 17.3:D 1 30. ;.EST DuremnoN 585:1 73.0 . 8 1 45. AgE.4 1/4,11 -r 0 592:2 73.0 .0 4.8:D 1 15. , 906:3 99.0 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 30. 2- OJT LET PIPES . 982:3 509.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. r^` ENDPROGRAMPROGRAM CALLED r• N 0 o E o 2 e O N M V " a V ' R e7 N > V O O r Y) - e0- en- N N C)) oNE a O N N C N .-. m E t n co N N U) O) n U) h E J ci N O 0) in v- h CO 0) O (p C r V (O V o 4 Ui co U > v Q C N (j O N- ' co. N 0) O (O r (0 W m a O O r (V a v in h (0 t0 CD Q N Ct J C C O U) X 0 -� E -a-, O O O O O 0) O O \ Q > d .- r N N r O O r N U L. [n J y C W a W Q 0 0 Q ��//�� LLI 'p 'co a 0 O O Co O O r O O O V/ Qr N N N M N C) M C) C) C) i0 0 W 20 r O D Q J a ea 0 cc W N z Q re « o z Z = o a O O > > w W v. F- LL 0 H Ill N W Z � ) re re ZWWa j w } m O F- r IL I' I" O 0 3 O ZD WwQ r - o H W c0OJ N DWa >< EAST t E-r el-) T t AREA . Gi DU-) C, -FD7Z ;I✓r-on IJt_rim A-TE - , 0, LboO "- Z • \ \ j C.‘e' i<rr _rg' t/ "II i„I - c'r•rer{a 0 , rll J / 4. . 1` - '- i - ._-•-• ;: / , /- --i , .:-.t \ r-- L. / 1 /J U D / 3O- ND/4°P 4-/ / r' Jo" EY r i / 27� oRrFlce PcA re - A r / / ./.....-C-1 '.+1 EA D� I \ oN NERD �E cP T ' � + �� r♦ wV 12.0 IL 09 'NV. r✓ _ 2 — —_= -- M1C �`_ —__, 0 CI 0 in VP Lk J -CI (0a� a m 0) -1 4O IA 0 7 r^ =R 7 c a o z o _ O V N --.I w J 5 N 'O AI ?C a q JC 3 N m O O a N y N m w O n - 0gazesmai ≤ W O Cii; a m S m m C D ' C a 515 .55 N a m N 3 OT r0 m m Q - 0 a m J a n a -1. 0 ‘50) c c J d cn p 0 m f%1 3 N CICI 3 S - O Ol N 3 /v J Vv � Ts 7 EJ Wiz -I2 m N aJ M Ma) CIO O N41 am m a 0 �mta (mom a, m3 mm ' mar aN p -.. n ' and j m � J en mm _i ' ^ aw -5ro -ivi_, d3 N No 0 a w T (a� m ? m o _ m N 7 d m d,3 m m J v .CN. •' 7 �" a� ' a m c S O c m aa a 7 Z a > T, Faun w °' m mOcio- a - 3293a �_" F 0000to o0 Ct rt `G p m.0 a m w m m O- J m d _ N mm O F -5- 8 -8 O O N 7 0 0 n 0 N O J' '." N m C ! d N O c v .x m oa NJO 0. p ' _pvm� � � � �_p .6s1 Gt v Fm co Q < mp � 3 m3 � SNm � ao � `° mm � 3 3 � v � m � f° m $ mm � 3 � acm ;lip dJ m0 -i v y i% m CD Ca � oQ -, 000) ° o0a0) 3ma3m c -. m0 - -I (��\ POI a O iJ ' N CI J 7 w o3 m O f��/ O• N `Gi. W O d d S. a co m 3 N aT <D O Gl N t � 3No` Jw ca0- iv m3J vm o c2 �� m o - m C J �. o Sd m V N mO O `G a — -, ix 3 . O H m Q D m w m N J Jto VI " m 0 m J O O O m C d m 0 n N N C/ mm0 ≤ NC �, d at!. � � v JV .JN.. F. m � V mm t CD o s n � 1 0 3 J a ° m 371027- 2. -e070)RI a o 0 m m c o G m � vm no C °' mo7 °i O.° ^ IDy0m � Fc Ja0 N p j j V J > m' m G m j N J 7 N •-• O . mJ d m N m m a S a "C p O v cr o m 5 y O p m J o m (p a i m Id N m C ` m O j Q c app' d N O j"C t `3G n O J N N caul T J N CD N N -� N 3 p m c?, m S Ca N 5 - m N 4f p co O C n .+ m d 0 '� o � rJ � � �vmm a " m3yam ^ o ' _ 3mm to n mnmo mm W a ^ mm oama3mmm mm � ^' o ° m or m m - -I fi Dam Cross Section at Maximum Embankment Height 2 m v 3 Downstream Maximum Normal Water aN Spillway Freeboard S i Z lope Width Level at Spillway Crest f i E o a vh I Upstream © 1 E= g= ca © j Slope — _ _III. 17 V H I I Adjust for slope • m m of natural terrain fh CD Centerline of Dam CO NOTES 0 Statutory Height is measured at centerline of the dam according to 37-87-105 C.R.S. 0 Height of livestock Water Tanks and Erosion Control Dams is measured at the upstream toe of the dam. 0 Slopes are expressed as a ratio of the horizontal(H)distance to the vertical distance(V). Typically,the Downstream Slope is 2:1 and the Upstream Slope is 3:1. n ADDITIONAL DETAILS AND CALCULATIONS FOR CANAL CROSSING CULVERT AND EAST DETENTION AREA SPILLWAY 4/J I 4124 ! c_. p_MS — 5 Econ > t n1 fah ii v-i) ULVE-72. T LJNDettZ C-- Nr• A Cw/ OPEN L NT7Z.4-N e E ©'pTI o m Qlva 917cps UlttEN Seco,l 4-5 LW 6, ) evEcoPEb ...,,,,,,n y F I,-V W L!I W W_,..1 W_ Y]NYI 0OO O .-n h _rie i "IV ": Ili flrind LA Clete. 11 N A ,,5, T 0;„ -2 (— N H w w �y F, 4) `q Q Vl g ;.< k & A / r 10 cL v / Lb \ ." / Le / v k\ 2:1 L , " N P { v Q t7 J \ 4 a s W g 4, - o kJ -I O � * W N t t -- I '1 O I / (3 tli _. An I `7a _ o � � I , � I w ��:. d J / .I y w Qii--a Y M M 44fl6I ` �it72R5 SEco jD fl CItJZ KNk 9/2f/rt) • w Z 0 21 w N N N W I A INiwuWi N N Ncoo 1n00Cr r- O I 2 -�� l rni"; J 0. 2 t h 2IlU •I >\ j2 I- W 9 fl L I G -7*t!� CP1 '7 V V ,/t1 —"ref J 7.. arm sf».7-V a7;ra ars�ld� u -Y s,Sad/^" d2d0,04ta_ 0 I t Q^ 90 6Nn°3'5' /L$7X' —t- 7I �' • 11 p O o 0 h i /�j� /�'f"Mi/ -caw) 1L11..) i 25 re> I //�� W, Box INLET I C._ LiLVEz 'r OxtheZ fit- e 12 (1_NTRRsvcE OPritn%) �Ff"11 . �Clav = 97 e-F5 %.1N-EIJ SEca.., b F. <-1sJ (, bEv&LcpeC CS i0-O = J30 cF5 +/— wive EfJ curt] RE FI LIN EIS DEvEcoeed 2 0 H in—. 2 N F1� W W W 1 VIN N c O O w -n A don a tint a 41 ai) a A N IU v-, pdL3 vix 4 . iliz 0..... „ r3/4, , ; , i , I —)7‘ °\c.. \ \ , Li , (CJ. I k. 7—D LU 4 eta i- - T "C r-----> ' —6- J J \ , pc e a . h 14 <\ 'C K z t) slit 1.01t Q 4.1W vi " V. 41h A1I- 33 x V / * ' / y / N /_ / 1,1 Lel IA a M MIA- G'L T�1-PM Ee-®N15 1 u4J Cz I KJk- `1 LS 1. rvt.c7' To G VEz -r vubER. Cknm-L eRio-o = °17cas SEcouD r ILANc, 13o cFs f/- FuroRE DEV. N in in jEr£RMWE WEALD PEW') OVER diA.4rE . f H H W W Yi W VI' tinny, coo Q = G L ill' wE'tR Ft-otA-t aao Cbo7 TYPE 1D , I NLe r Hrr 14-4-c D;MENS[okis 3S „X68 ' .\ ( 3ssb€ %A.M. n5) (la cDor WEIR. l-£NGML _ 2(35' r68) WNiEr 17, 21 cQ = c 3lz 7 13 O = (13)(1'7 a)6H?l 0 USE p2 ' DEPRESS /0,Q o')ER ro P of GT-*TE H-cuJEvER) -rO i4Nroc,t4 IM-711-5 �l. ocKA- 6 E 1)o1P- & J Tii`E 6p., rE Dr Ei✓/nl r� f ` itit �-,u £r ,cis ecDob ILi lY`-) Ab- D °' EA'Si DErF ", TtDti �oriD CPI !. 1•QA-Y Max A t-LouiA-B E TEtEASt FizoM b ET eNrr AJ PD IM lot cFS ' In) (o-t -1' EVENT(UC lMt?TE lose-flour) �Nr ME ," Cr"-- r r e ' i ,c- Dote N or sPeciP" ILA ' LY i4DDkESs SPILL- •-) \' REQ✓ IZEni! Er.1T5) l3uT co. percas •Dp_ L 7k_IFJA- E G-RITERkA . WI -H s"� LIRE Ar- ` ' b ISYCSC * PI Cpb CepN-r-7tc bIsr� rcr r<< ] oE .5 (VD i SPEcr AID') k CS rm5\ SPILL- V./ 'ti 7 IrOJ1Ret4EIJ TS _ (eDir. Use REPO R€ SP? t_Lkvcr G.*P '-crTY = MA-K A-t-Leut)A-BLT ID-o - YTZ RELE4SE a 1O! crs L.)5-E TRrt-PEaa,DA- c_ wEtT2 pvEZ Top of D ryI _Fog_ A. we , wl y ;( . 5;➢t.5) C 3 , 3 6, 7 Cb) N 3/Z y. r USE fir- - 1 IE- b b = _ /o / _ sO , oi 3 ,367 3 ,367 Age/e- P-A45 C G O N b / LIIJ L I O7 Z D - co r 4 W 2 4 1 V .-- W W W y W W W N ill N 000 n00 J N .-NO J vav d c4 c•14 S `^ NNN 7 Y' ly 3- I!.) \ /1 i "N M ) r Q h 1- w� /-% on' / t Z. ,di 2w 2k I / 'red c:[ r P.- K { • E ° w w o 111 Z t P O w �!ii wi- pL Y PI A tiJ ` \ W W z a. JU tin oo J 1 w �• �Z �1 1-. 1/41 \^ Jo �ti' M -ZW � 0 o h v K Qg } 11 w0 . 3 ; j - W O Ui O it 11 1 r g § w \ C ) I- 3 W �� -a \ CC -6z , 2 f � R 6 z z 2 z -SG °� a « & Li a t ® \ \ ( ° ® kk § k CM 0 ID § Im th § _Jul 2 3m � _ 2 q \ } e ® 2I ) ). ) / \ fig J r E 2CL k CL CL2 a c 43 \2 ci E Cr) f K ® "3 k a2- J 2 .b \ c. j} � R $ - . W} 2A \� / tZ0 } * / z o J § k » ) w - - I k } � \ f { [ ) § \ /_ . aCL in }o B ± ui° . ° _ % a } § � Y] _ \ \ -I $ J 10 . = o2I am = •=Z co 4w rl 00 0 E } / \ § § a �� f CORRESPONDENCE WITH OWNERS OF HIGHLAND LATERAL DITCH PPARK ENGINEERING _ CONSULTANTS September 25, 2000 Lind, Lawrence& Ottenhoff, LLP. The Law Building- 1011 Eleventh Avenue P.O. Box 326 Greeley, CO. 80632 Re: Margil Farms Second Filing To Mr. Kenneth F. Lind: In response to your letter of September 19, 2000 regarding the runoff from the proposed Margil Farms Second Filing development, enclosed are the calculations you requested, as well as additional description of the project design as it pertains to the Highland Lateral. The enclosed calculations show that there will be no increase in either runoff peak flow rates or runoff volumes into the Highland Lateral due to the construction of this project. Regarding the calculation of the historic and proposed runoff into the canal, two different calculation methods were used. To calculate the peak runoff flow rates,the "rational method" was used. To calculate the runoff volumes, the "Colorado Unit Hydrograph Procedure (CUHP)" was used. Below is the comparison of historic vs. developed runoff that enters the canal from the Second Filing area for the 2, 10, and 100-year events. Peak Flows from the Second Filing area (calculated by the rational method): Historic Conditions Developed Conditions Q2 =4CFS Q2 =4CFS Q10 =27 CFS Q10 = 11 CFS Q100 = 97 CFS Q100 =26 CFS Runoff Volumes from the Second Filing area (calculated by the CUHP method): Historic Conditions Developed Conditions VI 0 =2.6 ACRE-FT V 10 = 0.7 ACRE-FT V100 = 9.7 ACRE-FT V100= 1.8 ACRE-FT The significant decrease in runoff happens because a large portion of the Second Filing area that previously drained into the Highland Lateral will now drain into the east detention pond located next to I-25. Of the 76.6 acres that historically drained into the canal from the area of the Second Filing(Basin FBI), only 11.9 acres (Sub-basins F20 and F22)will drain into the canal after the completion of the Second Filing. 420 21st Ave. Suite 101 • Longmont, CO 80501 • (303) 651-6626 • FAX (303) 651-0331 E-mail dpark98@aol.com /', Regarding the locations where the runoff will enter the ditch, the existing field inlet pans will be used. These concrete pans are located frequently along the edge of the ditch and the proposed development grading will direct the runoff from Sub-basins F20 and F22 to these pans. Because the ditch is concrete-lined throughout the proposed project, and because the existing field inlet pans are integrally built into this concrete lining, no erosion problems are expected. We acknowledge that the developer will receive a statement from Farmers Extension Ditch Company pertaining to legal and engineering expenses. For your reference, in addition to the calculations, also enclosed are a copy of our first letter(dated September 7, 2000), another copy of the drawing sent with that letter, and a copy of your September 19, 2000 letter. We request that you respond to this letter by returning it to us at your earliest convenience. You may respond by filling out the boxes and lines below. Thank you for your help. Please call with questions. Respectfully Submitted, Donald W. Park,P.E. Project Manager Cc: Gary Olson The Highland Lake Lateral Ditch Co. The Farmers Extension Ditch Co File 2792002 ❑ Take No Exception C Take No Exception with Comments. 0 Take Exception with Comments. Respondent (Title) Date • LIND, LAWRENCE & OTTENHOFF LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE LAW BUILDING 1011 ELEVENTH AVENUE P.O.BOX 326 GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 GEORGE H.OTTENHOFF KENNETH F.LINO TELEPHONE KIM R.LAWRENCE (970)353.2323 (970)356-9160 P.ANDREW JONES DAVID T.MCCALL TE (970)LECOPIER 356.1111 September 19, 2000 �J Park Engineering Consultants V 420 21st Avenue, Suite 101 Longmont, CO 80501 Attention: Donald W. Park, P.E. Re: Margil Farms, Farmers Extension Ditch and Highland Lake Lateral Dear Mr. Park: Your letter and map dated September 7, 2000 has been referred to this office for review and comment. At this time we would request that you provide all engineering calculations to determine the historic conditions and development conditions for the 2, 10 and 100 year events. We presume that these calculations or a supplemental letter will also detail the amount of flow in a specific time period. The main concern of ditch companies in addition to total flows is the amount of flow over a period of time. Additionally, we need to know if the storm water runoff from areas F-20 and F-22 will enter the ditch at the historic locations or if there will be grading resulting in runoff to enter the ditch at new locations. Additional information is also needed to determine what is being proposed to control erosion of ditch banks and structures for water entering the ditch from F-20 and F-22. As soon as we receive additional information, our clients will be in a position to better respond. Please be aware that the ditch company will not accept flows of water in either greater volume or velocity than historic flows. Furthermore, it will be the developer's responsibility to provide construction detail such that any flows do not cause damage to the ditch. Additionally, the developer is responsible for all legal and engineering expenses incurred by the ditch company to review plans. Please advise the developer that he will F:IKFLIEXTIRR IGLPARK ENGINEERING LTR Park Engineering Consultants September 20, 2000 Page 2 receive a statement from Farmers Extension Ditch Company pertaining to all such legal and engineering expenses. Final approval will be granted if the plans are acceptable and if the company is reimbursed. Very truly yours, LIND, LAW ft E TTENHOFF LLP Kenneth . Lind Ok KFL/cg pc: Warren Stroh oLZ Town of Mead /'- F:1KFUEXTI R R I GIPAR K.E N G I N E E R I NG.LTR PARK ENGINEERING ra,• . CONSULTANTS September 7, 2000 The Highland Lake Lateral Ditch Co. 4322 Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado 80504 �(J The Farmers Extension Ditch Co. 4301 Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado S0504 Re: Margil Farms Second Filing To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed a copy of our drainage map that shows the drainage concepts for the above referenced Project. Based on our drainage study for this Project, we present the following summary for your review. 1. The Mareil Farms Second Filing boundary, shown on the attached map, has two distinct drainage basins. One drainage basin is identified as FH1 which is 76.6 acres. Basin FH1 historically drains storm runoff into the Highland Lateral. The second basin is identified as FH2 which is 16.4 acres. This basin historically drains storm runoff away from the Highland Lateral in a southwesterly direction. Therefore, basin FH2 does not have any affect on the Highland Lateral. 2. The drainage concept for drainage basin FH1 is to collect the storm water runoff and convey the runoff along streets, swales and in pipes to a low point next to the Highland Lateral. The storm water runoff would then be passed under the Highland Lateral to a detention pond next to I-25. 3. The portion of the storm water runoff from drainage basin FH1 which cannot be collected will continue to release into the Highland Lateral. This portion is identified as F20 and F22 which accounts for approximately 11.9 acres. Once the Project is developed, this area will represent back yards, open space bordering the Lateral and a couple of estate lots. Therefore, most of this storm water runoff that release back to the Lateral will be from grassed areas. 4. Based on our drainage calculations, the storm water runoff that enters the Highland Lateral will be less than historic conditions once the Project is developed. When comparing to different storm events it can be seen that the Project actually reduces the amount of storm runoff releasing into the Lateral. The followng is the runoff comparisons for the 2, 10 and 100 year events. Historic Conditions Developed Conditions Q2 = 4CFS Q2 = 4CFS Q10 = 27 CFS Q10 = 11 CFS QI00 = 97 CFS Q100 = 26CFS 420 21st Ave. Suite 101 • Longmont, CO 80501 • (303) 651-6626 • FAX (303) 651-0331 E-mail dpark98@aol.com In conclusion, by making the required drainage improvements for this Project, the storm water runoff that is released into the Highland Lateral will be reduced. The storm water runoff that does release back to the Lateral will be filtered as it travels through the grass areas of the lots. We request that you respond to this letter by returning it to us at your earliest convenience. You may respond by filling out the boxes and lines below. Thank you for your help. Please call with questions. Respectful) ' ted, Donald W. Park, P.E. `� v Project Manager Cc: Gary Olson File 2792002 0 Take No Exception 0 Take No Exception with Comments. D Take Exception with Comments. Respondent (Title) Date CanaISUM.XLS ✓-s • HISTORIC AND DEVELOPED RUNOFF TO CANAL PEAK FLOW AND VOLUME SUMMARY MARGIL FARMS, SECOND FILING 09/23/2000 KNA HISTORIC PROPOSED CONDITIONS DEVELOPED CONDITIONS PEAK FLOWS (AS CALCULATED BY RATIONAL METHOD) 2-YEAR RUNOFF (CFS) 4 4 10-YEAR RUNOFF(CFS) 27 11 100-YEAR RUNOFF (CFS) 97 26 PEAK FLOWS (AS CALCULATED BY CUHP METHOD) 2-YEAR RUNOFF (CFS) 10-YEAR RUNOFF(CFS) 40 8 100-YEAR RUNOFF (CFS) 139 23 RUNOFF VOLUMES (AS CALCULATED BY CUHP METHOD) 2-YEAR VOLUME (ACRE-FT) * * 10-YEAR VOLUME (ACRE-FT) 2.6 0.7 100-YEAR VOLUME (ACRE-FT) 9.7 1.8 * Rainfall data source for CUHP method is from Mead Master Plan--2-year rainfall data not available. >1 C erN OCD WWw �� V lig 0 co ' V I N Cc N p a 0, N t0 V! N O O C ri ma N �N..' O u� h o a o. d N O L �' ¢ H co m E � x N 00 . cc O� CL U v r Ni t') la n •tcrN co C 0� N N O N W a R CO 1—• •y 7 M M x'01 C a V CO O cp L U . Tm N 0 > QneCn O. ` u 0 0 6 6 6 6 La co ce) v 2 la E w o uX O W f=„ d N f0 0 .a X N .d V L IL co A CO m CO CO o m L O CD -� c r ,- co 4— .O a 3 `� " u U C as O o uu U) F- S .` o .� u `o //� a co o o .`v/ O K > d L tn. Z L N O }. L .{-ii a ll LL CI N >. R R co a- > . Q _ Z p p J+ N V D N o N p O E d Z L t N 1• O N a LL. 0 O < 00 O LL Z Q ++ E O Z N N u • d c rn C i `.° E = o Zo � v � coo Rm Z J L. 0 W lL J o U CC O LL co m to o ,it Y L+ 0 cu cc W (LL. O co C =al cti u.. N J .5. N O R N IL O co O a. v L C_ O c N ` t=L G1 D 0 Dv w' N I C1 R ≤ x o c E c a .` D �j c C > u R o L R lL L >." m iv V L '1 o O Q < O = 0 m x � g en «n a�i � c i--1 d �'- V Q O R �- « m = COn c t la a CO 0 (i) 0) Z = V O ct p FR- IL c Q Q O O c 7 T o E 2 < I J y c c t0 a O ° O R N E co . ♦ s J f- K J y 2 C.-) • C7 u • a . '- N �' O in )() C T N N 7 W te J O C N U x � CO O)co c O V 07 N m K a 0 O ►_- H E M M M w n -J a 2 t • O O w N WI tof C 0) g ` a O O G >- m LL LL 10 N Q) O) O) O . E Z in A u •-- r- •- J J x C V a a< a I I,)u. J rn 4 v v w 01 y N O a Qa Z a 0 O 0 U c a a L. L. > A 10 07 Od 01 0) T LL N Cc O I- O Z 1._ LL O LL o CI =-1 Zm - 1-- N LL 0 J (0 OA c W 7 2 01 CO LL ,^ N K k. vI 6 O o 1`v C LL N ea 9 a u- m . OJ o R' Q2 0 co a aE c r . To dF c E_ co N �. � C el a7 o f o F E c _ O O U w c I - PI CO N o F. E v ao co ll O v o a s I H n o O CO CO O w aN l� r� d .6 m 1 > 0 c 0 d O.ca U > r O e N a a N a O J Dc —a) Iw co > Cr Q 15 -2 Z E 0 W � = - Q N to N as II W oc N C �>p d ' ' - c U a7 N .b A O O U J V/ O Q > > 0 d O O nY vo I "' E E u a _ OO m ai //� '� o` 'c� `° M a00 0 O V F : a) N 1— Z Z : C w. r Z ~ E N Q 0 al _ E Qtr. ml co U M N c o O U) eo LL Z > .-. O N O Z COZ C O N vJ Z CO N W Q J C Z m z a O O O O O Y m O W U O U Wo au) 0 O O Q O R 0 0 N W J d N N W ` / _t c LL LL 2 _ W0 N F- D < r 00 CO 00 tO CI Oh CO CO CO N CI tO CO to to CO Co a N V in (J 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 O O O O Lc) OOr 00 ill O NC) h r N 7 t') O) N7 r 0 CI M 0 U O O O O O O O O p p p in co U,in Mt7 03 U) 03 r•-• () co n. O N C�) N co 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O UM O O t0 r 0 0) N CO N 7 O 0- 01 CO 'SON NN N O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O N X rtoN Co as 2 o s): r N r n v )n v �? U v e- O tfi [O O N N 6 dp uuj r R a C/) a Q CO ^m J N �/�/// N N LL o o o ` _ E n m o R U J N N O .�- N T N C t4 O N LI- + LL U C E O n N N } Q N 0. y o 0 .. IL LL. 0 oTth N W i D co) C O lL y L -.1%' V) .../ W 0 Q cr " in z J LL U o I- Q U W Co N r N /O K R 0 N LLN. r1 CL T- LL .o LNL N + T J H 0 O O cc U I— (4,4RG, l t- KAM- q - zZ- o-o X m ps p_ v i o v s to e rs O F 4-k EA- Po R ocr- DEveLo / eb ?e o / T'o Gt'NA- L- 4-Rr/f- St-iBaA- sril rip t FZ = (o ,s # 5, q = ti• 9AG ZES .4c tE5 O F Moosess 50BSt'SI/'J 0 : as, TOV$ ES yr s H-'DUSK f .+wy n;n f' S 'a LOTS) 'o0 Fzz;;7 S /r VTJ >h-S1N r 33 (/z — Lprs I __ 16 .5 fiousEs 4HN tnr L = Z ( 0scJ s§ 1 ouSes FERZ ,& e . 2 ( Noosrs/r, ; ( - 7(0 1J-ouses/i} cZ- CORI:ESP°IJlCS T = 23 -A-.(ED Upon) Fie 603 of ut_bE1Coo.ur7 ,7D) 'Dntrn*e M 4/'JLM L I Filename= CANAL.CHI (Input of CUI-IP data for calculation of historic vs. proposed runoff and volume into canal) �-. Page l of 1 si 1 Town of Mead - Master Storm Drainage Plan 01 10 YEAR .03 .06 .14 .26 .43 .21 .10 .07 .07 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .04 .03 01 10 YEAR .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 02 100 YEAR .03 .08 .12 .22 .38 .68 .38 .22 .17 .14 . 11 .11 .11 .05 .05 .03 .03 02 100 YEAR .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 711 2 05.1 001FH1 Historic into canal 0 .1197.46 .25 2.0000.01542. .4 .1 4.500.00180.600 0.00 0.00 711 2 05.2 002Basins F20+F21, developed .019 .44 .32 23.000.01534. .4 .1 4.500.00180.600 E r Filename= CANAL.CHO (output of CUHP calculations for historic vs. proposed runoff into canal) Page 1 of 7 1 U.D.F.C.D. CUHP RUNOFF ANALYSIS EXECUTED ON DATE 9/22/2000 AT TIME 18:43 CUHPF/PC (i.e., Ver. F) LAST UPDATED February 7, 1997 PRINT OPTION NUMBER SELECTED FOR THIS BASIN IS 7 Rainfall Data Source: Town of Mead - Master Storm Drainage Plan BASIN ID: 1 -- BASIN COMMENT: FH1 Historic into canal 0 AREA LENGTH OF BASIN DIST TO CENTROID IMPERV. AREA SLOPE UNIT DURATION (SQMI) (MI) (MI) (PCT) (FT/FT) (MIN) . 12 .46 .25 2.00 .0150 5.00 COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT (REFLECTING TIME TO PEAK) (RELATED TO PEAK RATE OF RUNOFF) .156 .243 THIS BASIN USES TRADITIONAL DRAINAGE PRACTICES FRACTION OF PERVIOUS FRACTION OF IMPERVIOUS AREA RECEIVING AREA DIRECTLY CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS DRAINAGE TO DRAINAGE SYSTEM ( DEFAULT ) ( DEFAULT ) R= .06 D= .04 CALCULATED UNIT HYDROGRAPH TIME TO PEAK TIME OF CONCENTRATION PFAK RATE OF RUNOFF UNIT HYDROGRAPH PEAK VOLUME OF RUNOFF (MIN) (MIN) (CFS/SQMI) (CFS) (AF) 10.40 42.00 1179.62 141.20 6.38 /0-\ *** NOTE : THE TIME TO PEAK IS CALCULATED BASED ON THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION PROVIDED BY THE USER, REPLACING THE ONE COMPUTED BY CUHPF (TP= 11.56) WIDTH AT 50 = 25. MIN. WIDTH AT 75 = 13. MIN. K50 = .25 K75 = .33 RAINFALL LOSSES INPUT W/ BASIN DATA Filename= CANAL.CHO (output of CUHP calculations for historic vs. proposed runoff into canal) Page 2 of 7 /", INFILTRATION = 4.50 IN./HR. DECAY = .00180/SECOND FNINFL = .60 IN./HR. TIME UNIT TIME UNIT TIME UNIT HYDROGRAPH HYDROGRAPH HYDROGRAPH 0. 0. 35. 58. 70. 5. 89. 17. 40. 49. 75. 14. 10. 141. 45. 41. 80. 12. 15. 122. 50. 34. 85. 10. 20. 103. 55. 29. 90. 25. 8. 86. 60. 24. 95. 0. 30. 70. 65. 20. 0. 0. 1 BASIN ID: 1 -- BASIN COMMENT: FH1 Historic into canal 0 **** STORM NO. = 1 **** DATE OR RETURN PERIOD = 10 YEAR INCREMENT TOTAL* STORM** I INCREMENT TOTAL* STORM** I TIME RAINFALL EXCESS HYDROGRAPH I TIME RAINFALL EXCESS HYDROGRAPH I (MIN. ) (IN) PRECIP (CFS) I (MIN. ) (IN) PRECIP (CFS) I I 1 0. .00 .000 0. I 65. .06 .011 22. 5. .03 .000 0. I 70. .06 .011 20. I 10. . 06 .000 0. I 75. .06 .011 19. I 15. .14 .000 0. I 80. .04 .000 16. I 20. .26 .000 0. I 85. .03 .000 14. I 25. .43 . 131 12. I 90. .03 .000 11. I 30. .21 . .144 31. I 95. .03 .000 10. I 35. .10 .041 40. I 100. .03 .000 e. I 40. .07 .015 38. I 105. .03 .000 /^7. I 45. . 07 .018 35. I 110. .03 .000 6. I Filename=CANAL.CHO (output of CUHP calculations for historic vs. proposed runoff into canal) Page 3 of 7 r 50. .06 .009 31. I 115. .03 4. I .000 55. .06 .010 27. I 120. .02 .000 2. I 2. 60. .06 .010 24. I 125. .00 .000 I * LESS ANY WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME ** INCLUDES ANY WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME RELEASE FLOW — +/ roRi(-- lZUNOFF /N To art AM- (.... C(47_ YR TOTAL PRECIP. = 2.00 EXCESS PRECIP. = .412 INCHES VOLUME OF EXCESS PRECIP = 2.63 ACRE-FEET PEAK Q = 40. CFS TIME OF PEAK = 35. MIN. INFILT.= 4.50 IN/HR DECAY = .00180 FNINF = .60 IN/HR MAX.PERV.RET.= .40 IN. MAX.IMP.RET.= .10 IN. - 1 BASIN ID: 1 -- BASIN COMMENT: FH1 Historic into canal 0 **** STORM NO. = 2 **** DATE OR RETURN PERIOD = 100 YEAR r INCREMENT TOTAL* STORM** I INCREMENT TOTAL* STORM** I TIME RAINFALL EXCESS HYDROGRAPH I TIME RAINFALL EXCESS HYDROGRAPH I (MIN. ) (IN) PRECIP (CFS) I (MIN. ) (IN) PRECIP (CFS) I I I 0. .00 .000 0. I 70. .05 .001 90. I 5. . 03 .000 0. I 75. .05 .001 76. I 10. . 08 .000 0. I 80. .03 .000 63. I 15. . 12 .000 0. I 85. .03 .000 53. I 20. .22 .000 0. I 90. .03 .000 44. I 25. .38 .034 3. I 95. .03 .000 37. I 30. .68 . 614 59. I 100. .03 .000 31. I 35. .38 .321 119. I 105. .03 .000 /".26. I 40. .22 . 165 139. I 110. .03 .000 22. I Filename= CANAL.CHO (output ofCUHP calculations for historic vs. proposed runoff into canal) Page 4 of 7 45. .17 .118 139. ( 115. .03 .000 18. I 50. .14 .089 133. I 120. .03 .000 11. I 55. .11 .060 122. I 125. .00 .000 7. I 60. . 11 .060 111. I 130. .00 .000 5. 65. .11 .061 102. I 135. .00 .000 3. I * LESS ANY WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME ** INCLUDES ANY WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME RELEASE FLOW 15T07Z( L 7.--VrJ0.f c -t-O G,4 tim. L.419 - . Er(Airy TOTAL RECIP. = 3.12 EXCESS PRECIP. = 1.524 INC S VOLUME OF EXCESS PRECIP = 9.73 ACRE-FEET PEAK Q = 139. CFS TIME OF PEAK = 45. MIN. INFILT.= 4.50 IN/HR DECAY = .00180 FNINF = .60 IN/HR MAX.PERV.RET.= .40 IN. MAX.IMP.RET.= .10 IN. 1 U.D.F.C.D. CUHP RUNOFF ANALYSIS EXECUTED ON DATE 9/22/2000 AT TIME 18:43 CUHPF/PC (i.e., Ver. F) LAST UPDATED February 7, 1997 PRINT OPTION NUMBER SELECTED FOR THIS BASIN IS 7 Town of Mead - Master Storm Drainage Plan BASIN ID: 2 -- BASIN COMMENT: Basins F20+F21, developed AREA LENGTH OF BASIN DIST TO CENTROID IMPERV. AREA SLOPE UNIT DURATION (SQMI) (MI) (MI) (PCT) (FT/FT) (MIN) .02 .44 .32 23.00 .0150 5.00 COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT (REFLECTING TIME TO PEAK) (RELATED TO PEAK RATE OF RUNOFF) .107 .187 THIS BASIN USES TRADITIONAL DRAINAGE PRACTICES FRACTION OF PERVIOUS FRACTION OF IMPERVIOUS AREA RECEIVING AREA DIRECTLY CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS DRAINAGE TO DRAINAGE SYSTEM ( DEFAULT ) ( DEFAULT ) R= .13 D= .46 CALCULATED UNIT HYDROGRAPH • Filename= CANAL.CHO(output of CLTHP calculations for historic vs. proposed runoff into canal) Page 5 of 7 TIME TO PEAK TIME OF CONCENTRATION PEAK RATE OF RUNOFF UNIT HYDROGRAPH PEAK VOLUME OF RUNOFF (AF) (MIN) (MIN) (CFS/SQMI) (CFS) 8.86 34.00 1129.82 21.47 1.01 *** NOTE : THE TIME TO PEAK IS CALCULATED BASED ON THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION PROVIDED BY THE USER, REPLACING THE ONE .COMPUTED BY CUHPF (TP= 9.34) WIDTH AT 50 = 27. MIN. WIDTH AT 75 = 14. MIN. K50 = .20 K75 = .27 RAINFALL LOSSES INPUT W/ BASIN DATA MAX. PERVIOUS RET. = .40 IN. MAX. IMPERVIOUS RET. = .10 IN. INFILTRATION = 4.50 IN./HR. DECAY = .00180/SECOND FNINFL = .60 IN./HR. �. TIME UNIT TIME UNIT I TIME UNIT HYDROGRAPH HYDROGRAPH I HYDROGRAPH I I I I 0. 0. 35. 10. I 70. 8. 5. 16. 40. 10. I 75. 8. 10. 21. 45. 10. I 80. 8. 15. 16. 50. 9. I 85. 7. 20. 16. 55. 9. I 90. 0. 25. 13. 60. 9. I 0. 0. 30. 11. 65. 8. I 0. 0. I 1 - BASIN ID: 2 -- BASIN COMMENT: Basins F20+F21, developed **** STORM NO. = 1 **** DATE OR RETURN PERIOD = 10 YFAR INCREMENT TOTAL* STORM** I INCREMENT TOTAL* STORM** I TIME RAINFALL EXCESS HYDROGRAPH I TIME RAINFALL EXCESS HYDROGRAPH I (MIN. ) (IN) PRECIP (CFS) I (MIN. ) (IN) PRECIP (CFS) I I /"", I 0. .00 .000 0. I 65. .06 .021 7. I Filename= CANAL.CHO (output of CUHP calculations for historic vs. proposed runoff into canal) Page 6 of 7 5. .03 .000 0. I 70. .06 .021 7. I 10. .06 .000 0. 1 75. .06 .021 7. I 7. 15. .14 .013 0. I 80. .04 .008 I 6. 20. .26 .049 1. I 85. .03 .005 I 6. 25. .43 .208 5. I 90. .03 .005 I 30. .21 .156 8. I 95. .03 .005 6. 1 35. .10 .053 8. 1 100. .03 .005 6. 1 40. .07 .026 8. I 105. .03 .005 5. I 45. .07 .028 8. I 110. .03 .005 4. I 50. .06 .019 7. I 115. .03 .005 2. 1 55. .06 .020 7. I 120. .02 .002 2. 1 60. .06 .020 7. I 125. .00 .000 2. I * LESS ANY WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME ** INCLUDES ANY WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME RELEASE FLOW p6YELonen gunlo //t-i-ro C4N,4L TOTAL PRECIP. = 2.00 EXCESS PRECIP. = . 697 INCHES do _,1,�J\ VOLUME OF EXCESS PRECIP = .71 ACRE-FEET Pm .K 0 = 8 . CFS TIME OF PEAK = 35. MIN. INFILT.= 4.50 IN/HR DECAY = .00180 FNINF = . 60 IN/HR MAX.PERV.RET.= .40 IN. MAX.IMP.RET.= .10 IN. 1 BASIN ID: 2 -- BASIN COMMENT: Basins F20+F21, developed **** STORM NO. = 2 **** DATE OR RETURN PERIOD = 100 YEAR INCREMENT TOTAL* STORM** I INCREMENT TOTAL* STORM** 1 TIME RAINFALL EXCESS HYDROGRAPH I TIME RAINFALL EXCESS HYDROGRAPH I (MIN. ) (IN) PRECIP (CFS) I (MIN. ) (IN) PRECIP (CFS) I I r 0. . 00 .000 0. I 70. .05 .011 19. I Filename=CANAL.CHO (output of CUHP calculations for historic vs. proposed runoff into canal) Page 7 of 7 r 5. .03 .000 0. I 75. .05 .011 18. I 10. .08 .001 0. I 80. .03 .005 17. I 15. . 12 .012 0. I 85. .03 . 005 17. 20. .22 .033 1. I 90. .03 .005 16. I 25. .38 .128 3. I 95. .03 .005 16. I 30. .68 .621 13. I 100. .03 .005 15. I 35. .38 .330 21. I 105. .03 . 005 14. I 40. .22 .175 22. I 110. .03 .005 13. I 45. . 17 .127 23. I 115. .03 .005 8. I 50. . 14 .098 22. I 120. .03 .005 6. I 55. .11 .069 21. I 125. .00 . 000 4. I 60. .11 .070 20. I 130. .00 .000 65. .11 .070 20. I 135. .00 .000 2. I * LESS ANY WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME ***INCLUDES ANY WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME RELEASE FLOW DE.- V &LO7ED RJnIOFt- INTO c. AtJA_L. TOTAL PRECIP. = 3. 12 EXCESS PRECIP. = 1.796 INCHES VOLUME OF EXCESS PRECIP = 1.82 ACRE-FEET (IDO -`{k PEAK Q = 23. CFS TIME OF PEAK = 45. MIN. J INFILT.= 4.50 IN/HR DECAY = .00180 FNINF = . 60 IN/HR MAX.PERV.RET.= .40 IN. MAX.IMP.RET.= .10 IN. 1 U.D.F.C.D. CUHPF RUNOFF ANALYSIS EXECUTED ON DATE AT TIME CUHPF/PC VERSION 1.0 MODIFIED IN Feb. 1997 TO WRITE OUTPUT FILE OF STORM HYDROGRAPHS FOR SUBSEQUENT USE WITH MULTI-PLAN RIVER ROUTING ROUTINES OF HEC-1 Town of Mead - Master Storm Drainage Plan NO HYDROGRAPH VALUES WERE WRITTEN TO AN OUTPUT FILE FOR THIS RUN OF CUHPF. if • 1 • • ra_ _._ =- -I— =_____.=—_ . _____-_ _ -� =.19.0' _: ._- -- - ___ --_• - 1- ---_._. _—_ — ▪ __ __ _- -i - -- _ -,-n-,-_:=n- -_— —— — t!-- =.-747=7.—t-:_=7—n--▪ .._— -- _ _ -_—__— al nt-.7=-_ — _-=- -_ ..:_- i CI - — w == f_ __ - -__ —_===__---- _=7.- - -— ___ —_—__ -_ __=_—_ } w r. - -- — __-- ------ ....=•-_-=-_-__:__--_ > :ms=s.-o;=-� _ -- ----__- __ - cc — --- -- — — CO D ---- (--= w 0 -- -- _ __— ____:••=•.:L--_ H - 1— — _ _— —..-_._. _ .-_——_---- Z - • ____ ...- - _ - _. _•G — = ___ _ --- _- -- -72--1 00-YEAR- __ _I 50-YEARi= w _----- --=TIME COQ, Fi1TRoTIO : ' s I1.7=-1 -5.--: — Z - --- l t rC dlb J Lr 1'-= _ = O i— I DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF TABLE 3`=1 (42) RECOMMENDED•RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS AND PERCENT IMPERVIOUS LANG USE OR PERCENT FREQUENCY SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS IMPERVIOUS 2 5 10 100 Business: Commercial Areas 95 .87 .87 .88 .89 Neighborhood Areas 70 .60 .65 . 70 .80 Residential : Single-Family * .40 .45 .50 .60 Multi-Unit (detached) 50 .45 .50 .60 .70 Multi-Unit (attached) 70 .60 .65 .70 .80 1/2 Acre Lot or Larger * .30 .35 .40 .60 Apartments 70 .65 .70 . 70 .80 Industrial : Light Areas 80 .71 .72 . 76 .82 Heavy Acres 90 .80 • .80 .85 .90 Parks , Cemetaries: 7 . 10 . 18 .25 .45 Playgrounds: 13 . 15 .20 .30 .50 Schools: 50 .45 : .50 .60 .70 Railroad Yard Areas 20 .20 .25 .35 .45 Undeveloped Areas: Historic Flow Analysis- 2 (See "Lawns") Greenbelts, Agricultural Offsite Flow Analysis 45 .43 .47 .55 .65 (when land use not defined) Streets: Paved 100 .87 .88 .90 .93 Gravel (Packed) 40 .40 .45 .50 .60 Drive and Walks: 96 .87 87 .88 .89 Roofs : 90 .80 .85 .90 .90 Lawns , Sandy Soil 0 .00 .01 .05 .20 Lawns , Clayey Soil 0 .05 .15 .25 .50 r NOTE: These Rational Formula coefficients may not be valid for large basins. *See Figure 2-1 for percent impervious. 11-1-90 URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF 50 . i_3 0 i�_. — - Ir it 1-• 20 I I_ _ I col w F ° I A 1 10 �, Z -..�' �J -_ I vI k U - _ _ O > O d — O Q -W': O= CP 'tIP- co 5 -- __>o r I�� i - vJ q-ICI o t yI : - ___ _43 3 _I .tS y I I I o —. F 4, t- hl o 44T: /ItIL44 Y -- �1 1 I 2 3 5 10 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND FIGURE 3 - 2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. • • it MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELOPED" LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. r: REFERENCE: -Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds' Technical Release Ho 55, USDA, SCS Jon. 1975. 5-1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT LARGE MAPS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CLERK TO THE BOARD'S OFFICE, IN THE PUBLIC REVIEW FILE. Apr-07-04 12:52P PARK ENGINEERING 1 P.02 s'- To d Cenitleu4 TOWN OF MEAD by Ammar or Annexation Map Land Surveying Standards Name of Annexation: AA ALGAL Fflirat.5 $otkfmtaM4surveyoradatr+t5 a. MSrLIA' ft . 2.2 SW., ♦`Doe 4 h/ Reins Y'Y-s (4gA 1. Am*.dnnkg et tire bamdade or Me lad owed. ee oar Yawn.by�teewro prof it and AXIOM*delrbs-rAway awl lW aorvel yctt recorded 'ry'� 4-2.04- ei,,,ytr. p nnwich ands recorded dglsefeety and easements were alt fined. plat,one same a NI dimenslens taeaory to Mobsifi,tamdades kr eelik(The dmasens must I.shown tore • coming monument used W 1M Reid surrey.not.boudwy sum down eras or wart a W,the dimensions '7 �'j/) to got from Os canal lino or monument to the panel must be shown.Danro b he both ends MM*wMd l7/✓W\ line mat beahow s) 4 A slashsa try the mRraf sdwml land surveyor that the minty was panned by such surveyor a ado 4-q-D� F t�/t suar a nwanebte chenim 4 o4 l! 7�W;Vim` ch eawey 5. A.tetaoM by the pelciofonal land surveyor ego how bearings,fined,were determined e. Ad•eedpeon of sit monuments,both found end set,ankh nuakthe baadwlk after property end ofi t warol moilaiw s hsed le Canned the sewy.Mmnwmins asus es aattion canes w control mananwes.R you are sunning down a p o a peraliny a pe.themaaawds st bath ands aftlr line tentA-1-Oc be shown.Itmust *heel onthe aporplaiuleun rnent foundorseL) 7. A etetane Tit WM*saae at represented.*bastion cilia drawing,ends bar-type a gradiod sale 4a-D4_ 61244 4, a Anenhanew. I. Awllten (ydeemlW which shall baud*bas shell not be a reed to a reference to the awe end owe nnbaMlra atithe wson.ttownnl+a fans and frkafia m.idon or.sfabMed subdivision.Tick and lot mbar...row peer nagged.f describing this lands eaeblded by the general land once or bureau of ,J"-. 4-4.IA.66y, lend nwnegane d(Raps*desorption is to be Mewl in upper owe type) 44.M% 0 10. Any connoting boundaryevidence.Ties to end deesadptaw of at ceasing dowers are shown. 4^7-04- /fja�y.tlnt 11. Location mop.itenim un one and oneenall mils ratios of the propriety with principal road,labeled 04 4'1- (X( v 12 Mankato blade-based an one Iowa standard caacws for annexation inapt e--1-COI , 113. The r6e kereesod sal et the professional land ware.Mlles of dralbpeeo.date or droning and �O� r�� 19. All calculations oharebeendeWN checked aminamopfor any snort tavapmtlmo,the sum oflotpea �{1V1 rumple the tad ling%Me- S Coma eesrdoda M m e been made a d what is brad a the held o ideation with a promote y fled owner��'046‘441recordation.Comer,-eaatleas have to baled an asectos,%sealoo and aliquot tamers of a section. 18. Dimensions ofle4 and sop of the et are tow pawed Insidethe let,dimensions at Morns or penrna. of polygons are to be placed oulelde1h*block a peypon.Vann of rondo.and esanMs veto tot rat between the raw.Ines Wan possible.amnions must Pep indicate the terminus pent a each end. 4$04 candela ay be prsesrded in tabular emn,et rah fwd rdnhwwon Ines. • 17. Al in and medws we to be torso enough to clearly legible et the state drawn.Paragraph hod.legal ,/ [/�/� descriptions .,di L ens to he in 12 W.pawn AubCADm Roman Simples.Hell etice MW a 4-1-D* g i War MS 18. An ASCAD''drawing®e(Release 12 or higher)ofthe nap,and as lad as used.on 3war }-� A formatted disk e to be prowaed.A�fee or the legal dascdpllon on 3W IBM fomhied lore Isar 'fbe provided(Word Perna et AMMICA - 1. Dab checklist is sePbed e be completed byM a•yeyee a win ded ided wisher anneMM 2. The completed check let Plebe mmksbed in flee ant °1'p- 3. .msllflromeb 10 Seto C.1.8.PM-108. sheep. Midst Use Only Reviewed by Dee: LARGE MAPS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CLERK TO THE BOARD'S OFFICE, IN THE PUBLIC REVIEW FILE. Hello