The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20223135.tiffUSE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE: AMOUNT $ APPLICATION RECEIVED BY PROPERTY INFORMATION DATE RECEIVED: CASE # ASSIGNED: PLANNER ASSIGNED: Is the property currently in violation?nNo / Yes Violation Case Number: NA Parcel Number: 0 8 0 5 - 3 3 Site Address: Parcel #2 - 08053.3100005 Legal Description: See attached questionnaire -0 0 -0 0 6 14902 County Road 64, Greeley, CO 80631 Section: 33 , Township 6 N, Range 66 W Zoning District: Ag Acreage: 10.98 Within subdivision or townsite?❑No /ii Yes Name: NA Water (well permit # or water district tap #): Public, North Weld Water Dist., 1 Tap Sewer (On -site wastewater treatment system permit # or sewer account #): On -Site Septic Floodplain No / MYes Geological Hazard fil No / 11 Yes Airport Overlay v No / Yes PROJECT USR Use being applied for: Lumber wholesale facility Name of proposed business: 84 Lumber PROPERTY OWNER(S) (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Name: Pierce Hardy Limited Partnership Company: 84 Lumber Phone #: 724-228-8820 Email: guy.flament@84lumber.com Street Address: 1019 Route 519 City/State/Zip Code: Eighty Four, PA 15330 APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT (Authorization Form must be included if there is an Authorized Agent) Name: Guy Flament Company: 84 Lumber Phone #: 724-228-8820 Ext 1350 Email: guy_tlament@841umber.com Street Address: 1019 Route 519 City/State/Zip Code: Eighty Four, PA 15330 I (We) hereby depose and state under penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals, and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. All fee owners of the property must sign this application. If an Authorized Agent signs, an Authorization Form signed by all fee owners must be included with the application. If the fee owner is a corporation, evidence must be included indicatinc theasi nator:y has th_le ai authority to sign f. the cor...a.ti •,► 1 � j Si•1,ure r ..` - Print/ 2.1z/ z --Tater Date An , Date �w . �w r\ A1tr Print DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONNMENT 1555 NORTH 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, CO 80631 AUTHORIZATION FORM FOR BUILDING, PLANNING AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMITS AND SERVICES I, (We), Pierce Hardy Limited Partnership give permission to Guy Flament (Owner -- please print) (Applicant/Agent — please print) to apply for any Planning, Building or Health Department permits or services on our behalf, for the property located at: 14902 County Road 64, Greeley, CO 80631 Legal Description: See attached of Section 33 , Township 6 N, Range 66 11 'V Subdivision Name: Lot Block Property Owners Information: Phone: 724-228-8820 E-mail: guy.flament@84lumber.com Applicant/Agent Contact Information: Phone: 724-228-8820 Ext. 1350 E -Mail: guy.flament@84lumber.com Email correspondence to be sent to: Owner IL Applicant/Agent Both_ Postal service correspondence to be sent to: (choose only one) Owner _a_ Applicant/Agent Additional Info: it Or cc UCkx. Gtr, Owner Signature Owner Signature: iskSSIs\-- tird Pax Win sh p 1. Ll.,i Date: 2kt Ihc# P-ntn Date: PIERCE HARDY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Unanimous Written Consent of:the ie General .Partner' in Lieu of an Annual Meeting Apro , 20_94_ The .undersigned, ,being the: sole general partner (Ow: "General F artn r" of Pierce. Hardy LImited Partnership.. Pennsylvania limited p rttier hip . (the ."Partners p!), does hereby consent in wilting„ pursuant.to. all. pp! ible provisi ons' of the P enril ani a Uniform: Limited. Partnership Act of 20•16.,. *ended, .and. the Atriende d and Restated ree ent of Lrimited...Partn r hip dated.. ,Tanualy.� . ,29j0,. as . attended, to the; ..a o lion of tb . follb in ..rest lotions ancl to the *Partnership actions hereinafter set forth and direct that.they h t, .1n all re t ,. be deemed as valid . Partn orship actions as though such actions and resolutions .had been duly .approved; and authorized atan . Ual meeting. ofofthe...General Partner of.the Partnership, held as. of the date abo .. sot:ffrtf: 1. Election of Officcp :RESOLVED, that the following persons .are hereby Linanintously elected to serve. in the respective offices :set forth besidehoside.-ttieifnatn0 until the . next. Ana. meeting .of the General Partner and until their :st e s or are duly electedelectect and quali d: Margaret Hardy. Knox Frank Cicero PaUl. . Lentz Bethany L. Cypher .Jim Zannick Ed Baer 2. Ratification of Actions President Chief Operating. Officer Assistant .Vice President Assistant Vice: President Vice Pt . idl : . .Assistant. Vice. Frreiclent RESOLVED, that .011 other actions of the 'off rs *of the. Partnership taken by such persons on behalf of**he Paoaephip. sinceithe last .ahnual.seeting of the General. Partner be, .and hereby are, ratified. an.d approved avalid Partnership acts ens. The undersigned directs that this written consent shall, in :all .respects, be deemed to be in lieu of an annual ' meeting of the n ral Partner of the Partnership, and.allnotice ' 'requirements in connection herewith, whether by: statute or: other i e, hereby are waived. (Ct2;15450:1 ) IN WITNESS: WHEREOF, the -undersigned has duly executed this written consent, to be effective s of the date first above written. GENERAL PARTNER: Peter Jon.Co. By: a 10.1245450;1 ) LUMBER COMPANY February 2, 2022 Weld County Dept Planning Services 1555 N 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Proposed 84 Lumber Facility 14902 County Rd 64 Please find an item -by -item response to the Use by Special Review Planning questionnaire: 1. Explain the proposed use and business name. The proposed use of the property will be sales of building materials. The business name will be 84 Lumber. Most customers will be general contractors, though the facility will also be open to the general public. Inventory would be stored in the warehouse portion of the main building and materials less sensitive to weather will be stored in the open-air sheds as well as outside. The daily operations consist of walk-in customer sales, preparing orders for shipment, and loading and dispatching the delivery trucks. Material into the property will be delivered by rail cars as well as semi -trailers. Outgoing material will be shipped by way of 84 Lumber delivery trucks and semi tandem trucks. The remodel of the existing 18,324 sf building will consist of a new sales area, storage area and offices. Two 8,400 sf storage sheds will be constructed for lumber storage, and additional outside storage will be placed around the perimeter of the yard and within the yard All new storage areas, as well as existing gravel parking and other gravel areas, will be paved. Chain link fence with vinyl slats will be installed along Street and the western property line for security and screening. Chain link fence will be also installed along the railroad right of way. 2. Explain the need for the proposed use. After market analysis and due diligence, 84 Lumber wishes to repurpose the former recycling center into a building materials wholesaler. 3. Describe the current and previous use of the land. The property previously was used as a recycling transfer facility and is currently vacant. 4. Describe the proximity of the proposed use to residences. The use for this land abuts a residence found on the western edge of the property line. Storage areas will be established for the sale of building materials proposed usage in the vicinity of the dwelling that is nearby. 5. Describe the surrounding land uses of the site and how the proposed use is compatible with them. Land that abuts to the North, East, and the major portion of the South boundary is currently vacant. Land to the West of the property is used undeveloped and zoned A. Land to the West of the property border is used for residence and also zoned A. A portion of the Southern boundary line is zoned I-1. We, as a building materials wholesale store, would be compatible to all the uses of land currently surrounding it and would not impede. 6. Describe the hours and days of operation (i.e. Monday thru Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). Hours of operation for the 84 Lumber facility will be 7 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday and 8am to 12 pm on Saturday. 1019 Route 519 • Eighty Four, PA 15330 • 724-228-8820 LUMBER COMPANY 7. Describe the number of employees including full-time, part-time and contractors. If shift work is proposed, detail number of employees, schedule and duration of shifts. Approximately 10 full time and 5 part-time employees are expected at this facility; only one shift needed. 8. Describe the maximum number of users, patrons, members, buyers, or other visitors that the site will accommodate at any one time. Approximately 200 total people are expected to access the site daily, including truck drivers, contractors, customers, and employees. 9. List the types and maximum numbers of animals to be on the site at any one time (for dairies, livestock confinement operations, kennels, etc.). This question does not apply to the sale of building materials. 10. List the types and number of operating and processing equipment. Material into the property will be delivered by rail cars as well as semi -trailers. Outgoing material will be shipped by way of 84 Lumber delivery trucks and semi tandem trucks. Approximately 10-12 tractor trailers will access the site daily and 15-20 delivery trucks are expected throughout the day. Approximately 3-5 forklift vehicles will be stored at the facility. 11. List the types, number and uses of the existing and proposed structures. The proposed development will include the remodel of the existing 18,324 sf pre-engineered metal building that was a transfer recycling facility to a building materials sales building, construction of (2) 8,400 sf storage sheds, asphalt parking and storage areas. The main building will consist of a sales area, storage area and offices. A wall sign will be installed on the front and sides of the building. A business sign will also be installed on 0 Street. Pole lights will be installed around the perimeter of the outside storage area and wall/building lights will be installed on the prosed storage sheds. 12. Describe the size of any stockpile, storage or waste areas. Inventory would be stored in the warehouse portion of the main building and materials less sensitive to weather will be stored in the open-air sheds as well as outside. Two 8,400 sf storage sheds will be constructed for lumber storage, and additional outside storage will be placed around the perimeter of the yard and within the yard All new storage areas, as well as existing gravel parking and other gravel areas, will be paved. Chain link fence with vinyl slats will be installed along Street and the western property line for security and screening. Chain link fence will be also installed along the railroad right of way. 13. Describe the method and time schedule of removal or disposal of debris, junk and other wastes associated with the proposed use. Any refuse will be removed of in coordination with the local disposal facilities in a timely fashion. A dumpster will be located on site to facilitate said removal. 14. Include a timetable showing the periods of time required for the construction of the operation. The projected construction timetable for the new facility will begin in August of 2022 and conclude in December of the same year. 15. Describe the proposed and existing lot surface type and the square footage of each type (i.e. asphalt, gravel, landscaping, dirt, grass, buildings). The existing site consists of a 18,324 square foot pre-engineered metal building with a paved entrance. An existing gravel entrance is located on 59th Avenue. The parking lot is gravel as is the remaining areas around the 1019 Route 519 • Eighty Four, PA 15330 • 724-228-8820 LUMBER COMPANY building. The existing paved entrance is 12,000 square feet. The gravel parking and entry area is 79,000 square feet. New asphalt and concrete storage areas will be established, with an area of 166,000 square feet. 16. How many parking spaces are proposed? How many handicap -accessible parking spaces are proposed? There are 42 regulation and 3 handicapped parking spaces proposed, for a total of 45. 17. Describe the existing and proposed fencing and screening for the site including all parking and outdoor storage areas. A wire fence exists along the frontage of both 0 Street and 59tH Avenue. A wood screening fence exists beginning at the southeastern corner of Lot A and extends north along 59th Avenue and then west along 0 Street and connects to a wire fence and chain link fence at the entrance gate into the property. A chain link fence exists beginning at the southeastern corner of Lot A and runs west along the Railroad right of way and then north along Lot A and connects to the woo fence and wire fence at the entrance gate. A barbed wire fence exists beginning at the southwestern corner of Lot A and extends west to the western edge of Lot B. Chain link fence with vinyl slats will be installed along 0 Street and the western property line for screening. Chain link fence will be also installed along the railroad right of way. Parking for the conversion is designed for the proposed showroom, office, and warehouse space of the existing building. 18. Describe the existing and proposed landscaping for the site. Landscaping consists of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs along both 0 Street and 59th Avenue. The remainder of the property is mixed weeds, grass. Parking lot landscaping has been planned with the parking area. Weeds and overgrowth will be removed. Additional screening of the storage yard will be added along 0 Street using evergreen trees. 19. Describe reclamation procedures to be employed as stages of the operation are phased out or upon cessation of the Use by Special Review activity. This project consists of retooling the building currently located on the parcel that was once a recycling transfer facility into a building materials wholesale store (lumber specifically). Once this conversion is complete, there are no future phases planned for this facility or its functionality. 20. Describe the proposed fire protection measures. The existing building has a sprinkler system that will be utilized for our use. 21. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan per Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code. Our USR proposal has every intention to align with the Weld County Comprehensive Plans guiding principles found within Chapter 22. Although we are asking for a use other than agriculture, our lumber wholesale facility will not impede others right to farm, and we want to facilitate them in their goal to do so by providing our services to them. We understand and appreciate ours and our neighbors' rights to private property. We will not impose our operations upon others property and will implement landscaping and man-made screens to differentiate our land from others. We desire to promote economic growth within Weld County by providing our services in the wholesale lumber industry, providing the community members around us with quality building supplies and contributing to the area with our taxable revenue. We also are in an industry that is not harmful to the health and safety of the members of the community and respects the inhabitant's general welfare. 22. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the zone district in which it is located. (Intent statements can be found at the beginning of each zone district section in Article III of Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.) 1019 Route 519 • Eighty Four, PA 15330 • 724-228-8820 LUMBER COMPANY This property and structure had a previous USR, which allowed it to operate as a light industrial facility. We, as a lumber wholesale facility, do fall into the category of permitted uses in the agricultural zoned districts outside of subdivisions and historic townsites, as listed in section 23-3-40 of the Weld County Code. 23. Explain how this proposal will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area or adopted master plans of affected municipalities. Our proposed building materials wholesale facility, specializing in lumber, will be an asset to the community economically and logistically. Whether the current direction of the master plan is to grow, maintain, or improve, our lumber wholesale facility will provide the materials needed to achieve the goal. 24. Explain how this proposal impacts the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. Our privately owned building materials wholesale store (lumber specifically) will not affect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of Weld County. 25. Describe any irrigation features. If the proposed use is to be located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, explain your efforts to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The existing facility on the property currently has an irrigation system, which consists of a concrete trough box along 0 St. Although the property in question is located in the agricultural zone, we are applying for the approval and renewal of the light industrial special use that had been previously granted to this location. 26. Explain how this proposal complies with Article V and Article XI of Chapter 23 if the proposal is located within any Overlay Zoning District (Airport, Geologic Hazard, or Historic Townsites Overlay Districts) or a Special Flood Hazard Area identified by maps officially adopted by the County. This property is not located in any overlay districts as outlined by Weld County. This property also lies outside the flood hazard area per Weld County community panel no. 08123C1510E; effective date 1/20/2016. 27. Detail known State or Federal permits required for your proposed use(s) and the status of each permit. Provide a copy of any application or permit. A COR400000 stormwater discharge permit for construction activities will be required. A CODOT permit may be required for the existing entrance. Submission of both has not yet started. 1019 Route 519 • Eighty Four, PA 15330 • 724-228-8820 LUMBER COMPANY February 2, 2022 Weld County Dept Planning Services 1555 N 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Proposed 84 Lumber Facility 14902 County Rd 64 Please find an item -by -item response to the Use by Special Review Public Works questionnaire: 1. Describe the access location and applicable use types (i.e., agricultural, residential, commercial/industrial, and/or oil and gas) of all existing and proposed accesses to the parcel. Include the approximate distance each access is (or will be if proposed) from an intersecting county road. State that no existing access is present or that no new access is proposed, if applicable. There are two existing entrances to the parcel. We will not be eliminating any, nor will we be adding additional. The entrances at the parcel are as follows: -Existing, paved, commercial/industrial, daily use entrance on 0 St.; Approximately 480ft W of 59th Ave. -Existing, gravel, emergency fire, secondary use entrance on 59th Ave.; Approximately 360ft S of 0 St. 2. Describe any anticipated change(s) to an existing access, if applicable. No changes proposed. 3. Describe in detail any existing or proposed access gate including its location. Proposed 30ft gate to existing entrance off 0 St. Approximately 7ft tall, chain link, but will conform to all specifications as stipulated by Weld County ordinance. There is an existing gate at the 59th St entrance that closely resembles the description of the proposed gate; chain link, 7ft tall. 4. Describe the location of all existing accesses on adjacent parcels and on parcels located on the opposite side of the road. Include the approximate distance each access is from an intersecting county road. A neighboring residential dwelling on our parcels western boundary line has a driveway which accesses 0 St., located approximately 650ft W of the existing commercial/industrial entrance. 5. Describe any difficulties seeing oncoming traffic from an existing access and any anticipated difficulties seeing oncoming traffic from a proposed access. There is significant sight distance in each direction for both our commercial/industrial entrance on 0 St. and our secondary fire entrance on 59th St. 6. Describe any horizontal curve (using terms like mild curve, sharp curve, reverse curve, etc.) in the vicinity of an existing or proposed access. None at either access point. 7. Describe the topography (using terms like flat, slight hills, steep hills, etc.) of the road in the vicinity of an existing or proposed access. Relatively flat for each; 0 St. slops approximately 3 'A% and 59t11 St. slopes at approximately 5%. 1019 Route 519 • Eighty Four, PA 15330 • 724-228-8820 LUMBER COMPANY February 2, 2022 Weld County Dept Planning Services 1555 N 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Proposed 84 Lumber Facility 14902 County Rd 64 Please find an item -by -item response to the Use by Special Review Environmental Health questionnaire: 1. Discuss the existing and proposed potable water source. If utilizing a drinking water well, include either the well permit or well permit application that was submitted to the State Division of Water Resources. If utilizing a public water tap, include a letter from the Water District, a tali or meter number, or a copy of the water bill. Existing potable water is obtained through North Weld Water District from a 1" water line and tap. Water for the sprinkler system is obtained from (2) 20,000 sf underground storage tanks and a fire pump, which are filled by the 1" water from North Weld Water. An irrigation well currently provides irrigation water for Lots' A & B. The proposed conversion will continue to utilize this service. 2. Discuss the existing and proposed sewage disposal system. What type of sewage disposal system is on the property? If utilizing an existing on -site wastewater treatment system, provide the on -site wastewater treatment permit number. (If there is no on -site wastewater treatment permit due to the age of the existing on -site wastewater treatment system, apply for a on -site wastewater treatment permit through the Department of Public Health and Environment prior to submitting this application.) If a new on -site wastewater treatment system will be installed, please state "a new on -site wastewater treatment system is proposed." (Only propose portable toilets if the use is consistent with the Department of Public Health and Environment's portable toilet policy.) The property is currently served by an existing on -site septic system. The proposed conversion will continue to utilize this existing septic system, permit number SP -0900146. 3. If storage or warehousing is proposed, what type of items will be stored? Inventory, such as various sizes of wood products and other building supplies, will be stored in the warehouse portion of the main building and materials less sensitive to weather will be stored in two 8,400 square foot open-air sheds, as well as in designated outside storage areas. 4. Describe where and how storage and/or stockpile of wastes, chemicals, and/or petroleum will occur on this site. Propane cylinders for forklift trucks will be provided. These 30 lb. cylinders (15-20 total) will be stored on a concrete pad within a loft x loft fenced in area. 5. If there will be fuel storage on site, indicate the gallons and the secondary containment. State the number of tanks and gallons per tank. Fuel will not be stored on site. 1019 Route 519 • Eighty Four, PA 15330 • 724-228-8820 LUMBER COMPANY 6. If there will be washing of vehicles or equipment on site, indicate how the wash water will be contained. There will be no washing of vehicles or equipment on site. 7. If there will be floor drains, indicate how the fluids will be contained. There are no floor drains proposed. 8. Indicate if there will be any air emissions (e.g. painting, oil storage, etc.). There will be no air emissions proposed from painting, oil storage, etc. due to those functions not taking place on the parcel. 9. Provide a design and operations plan if applicable (e.g. composting, landfills, etc.). This is not applicable to the parcel or our use of the site and facility. 10. Provide a nuisance management plan if applicable (e.g. dairies, feedlots, etc.). The proposed Lumber yard will have outside storage. Screening along 0 Street will be provided using a mix of existing and proposed evergreen trees & shrubs, existing wood fence, and proposed chain link fence with vinyl slats. Screening along 59th Avenue will be provided using a mix of existing evergreens trees & shrubs and an existing wood fence. Screening along the westerly property line will be provided using proposed evergreen trees. Any trash, debris., will be collected in an on -site dumpster. All existing gravel areas and proposed storage areas will be paved- dust will not be generated. 11. Additional information may be requested depending on type of land use requested. As noted. 1019 Route 519 • Eighty Four, PA 15330 • 724-228-8820 FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Business Name: Address: Business Owner: Home Address: 84 Lumber 1019 Route 519 Pierce Hardy Limited Partnership 1019 Route 519 Phone: 724-228-8820 City, state, zip: Eighty Four, PA 15330 Phone: 724-228-8820 City, state, zip: Eighty Four, PA 15330 List up to three persons in the order to be called in the event of an emergency: NAME Guy Flament TITLE Permit Coordinator PHONE ADDRESS 724-228-8820 Ext 1350 1019 Route 519 Eighty Four PA 15330 Jim Zaunick Project Engineer 724-228-8820 Ext 1380 1019 Route 519 Eighty Four PA 15330 Joel Wilder Director - Construction 724-228-8820 Ext 1350 1019 Route 519 Eighty Four PA 15330 Business Hours: 7AM-6PM 8AM-12PM UTILITY SHUT OFF LOCATIONS: Main Electrical: At pannel, inside building Days: Mon -Fri Sat Gas Shut Off: At meter, outside building Exterior Water Shutoff: At main line entrance, building exterior Interior Water Shutoff: At meter, inside building 7/29/2019 21 LUMBER COMPANY February 2, 2022 Weld County Dept Planning Services 1555 N 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Proposed 84 Lumber Facility 14902 County Rd 64 The owner of the pipelines that are present at this property is Kinder Morgan, Inc. Kinder Morgan, Inc. 1001 Louisiana St. Houston, TX 77002 1019 Route 519 • Eighty Four, PA 15330 • 724-228-8820 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Drainage Report 84 LUMBER 84 LUMBER ADDITIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE REPORT O STREET & 59T" AVENUE SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST, 6TH P.M. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared For: 84 Lumber Contact: James Zaunick 1019 Route 519 Eighty Four, PA 15330 Phone: (412) 997-0068 Prepared By: Uintah Engineering & Land Surveying, LLC Paul Hawkes, PE 85 South 200 East Vernal, UT 84078 Phone: (435) 789-1017 UINTAH ENGINEERING . LAND SURVEYING Uintah Engineering & Land Surveying, LLC 85 South 200 East, Vernal, Utah 84078 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i Certification of Compliance ii I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. General Location and Description 1 A. Location and Existing Conditions 1 B. Proposed Development 1 III. Drainage Basins and Subbasins 2 A. Major Basin Description 2 B. Off -site Drainage Basins 2 IV. Drainage Design Criteria 3 V. Drainage Facility Design 4 A. On -Site Drainage 4 B. Conveyance Calculations (Hydraulic Capacities) 4 C. Water Quality and Retention Pond 5 VI. Drainage Facility Maintenance 5 A. Special Maintenance Instructions 6 VII. Conclusion 6 VIII. Appendix 7 Appendix A — Vicinity Map 8 Appendix B — Drainage Plan 10 Appendix C — Flood Plain Map - FIRM Map Panel 12 Appendix D — Hydrologic Soil Group 14 Appendix E — NOAA Atlas 14 — Precipitation Values 19 Appendix F — Runoff Calculations 21 Appendix G — Detention Pond Calculations 54 Appendix H — Construction Plans 62 June 21, 2022 I Weld County Drainage Code Certificate of Compliance Weld County Case Number: Parcel Number: 080533100005 & 080533100005 Legal Description, Section/Township/Range: LOT A & LOT B, RECORDED EXCEMPTION M PTI O N NO. 0805-33-1- RE -449, PT NE4 NE4 Sec. 33, T6N, R66W, 6th PM Date: 06-21-2022 I Paul Hawkes, PE , Consultant Engineer for 84 LUMBER (Applicant), understand and acknowledge that the applicant is seeking land use approval of the case and parcel in the description above. I have designed or reviewed the design for the proposed land use set application. I hereby certify, on behalf of the applicant, that the design will meet all applicable drainage requir 0 t tt° County Code with the exception of the variance(s) described on the attached exhibits. This certificationuy t ' go rranty either expressed or implied. Engineer's Stamp: 9 p 42408 • h 100\p6-21-2022/�4� Engineer of Record Signature Variance Request (If Applicable) 1. Describe the hardship for which the variance is being requested. 2. List the design criteria of the Weld County Code of which a variance is being requested. 3. Describe the proposed alternative with engineering rationale which supports the intent of the Weld County Code. Demonstrate that granting of the variance will still adequately protect public health, safety, and general welfare and that there are no adverse impacts from stormwater runoff to the public rights -of -way and/or offsite properties as a result of the project. 1) The site drains to the southeast into an existing retention pond. The developments of both the railroad tracks on the south, and 59th Avenue on the east, have raised the grade several feet making it impossible for this site to surface drain. It is proposed to re -size and utilize the existing retention pond and retention pond's infrastructure to accommodate the increased runoff from the new site improvements. 2) The re -sized retention pond will retain 1.5 times the volume of runoff generated by the 100-yr 24 -hr storm (with 1 -ft of freeboard). The re -sized retention pond spillway will release the 100-yr runoff event from the site and off -site drainages. 3) This alternative is a request to re -size an existing approved retention pond. The retention pond volume calculations are included with this drainage report. Also included, is a copy of the ALTA survey and construction plans which shows the existing retention pond and surrounding ground topography. The re -sized retention pond and re -sized spillway will not only adequately facilitate the increased runoff from proposed additional site improvements but will continue the site's existing drainage plan without any impacts to the the surrounding properties and infrastructure. Public Works Director/Designee Review (If Applicable) Public Works Director/Designee Name Date of Signature Comments: Signature Approved ❑ Denied Department of Public Works Development Review 1111 H Street, Greeley, CO 80631 I Ph: 970-304-6496 www.weldgov.com/departments/public works/development_ review 08/02/2019 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to present the proposed storm drainage improvements for the 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Project. The additional site to be developed consists of an adjoining parcel of land to the west of the 84 Lumber property that was recently purchased by 84 Lumber (West -half). The proposed additional site development is expected to increase the impervious ground cover resulting in an increase in peak storm water runoff. This report examines the undeveloped flow patterns of on- and off -site drainage basins and the proposed storm water facilities designed to mitigate the downstream impact of increased storm water runoff. The contents of this report are prepared in accordance with the Weld County Code for a Drainage Report. II. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The project is located on an approximately combined 11 -acre parcel of land owned by 84 Lumber. The site is located within the Urbanizing Area of Weld County since it is within 1 -mile of the City of Greeley's boundary. Currently, the original 84 Lumber property (East -half) is developed with an existing building, parking lot with two accesses, landscaping, and utilities including a storm drain system and a retention pond. The East -half proposed additional site developments will be re -sizing the existing retention pond. The West -half is currently undeveloped and where the proposed additional site developments described below will take place. The site is southwest of the intersection of 0 Street and 59th Avenue, and north of an existing railroad track. An ALTA Survey which includes a USGS topo Vicinity Map is included with this report in Appendix A. This parcel is zoned Industrial and the existing land use is industrial. This site has existing storm drain infrastructure that routes the runoff to an existing Weld County approved retention pond. Currently, there is a new 0 Street and 59th Avenue Intersection Improvement Project that will affect the above -mentioned portions of rights -of -way. A copy of the drainage report for the 0 Street and 59th Avenue Intersection Improvement Project was obtained and the future improvements have been incorporated in our site drainage approach. The site is not within any mapped wetlands according to the current National Wetlands Inventory. IL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed additional site development consists of infrastructure to support a new railroad spur line, two new storage 8,400 SF sheds, and expanded storage yard. The area surrounding the new rail spur and proposed buildings will be surfaced with asphalt. Topsoil will be stripped and wasted in proposed landscaping areas. Proposed development will also include a storm drain system that will collect runoff from the proposed development and route it to the existing retention pond. The existing retention pond will be enlarged to accommodate the additional runoff. It was determined that the retention pond's spillway will also need to be enlarged to accommodate the additional runoff. The existing retention pond spillway will remain in place and be modified to the release the higher 100 -year flow rate from the site's drainage basin. Construction Plans are included with this report in Appendix H. June 21, 2022 1 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report III. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUBBASINS MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION The site's total drainage basin is approximately 13.88 acres. Approximately 8.73 acres of the total drainage basin is on -site drainage, and approximately 5.15 acres of the total drainage basin is off -site drainage (from the portions of the above mentioned right-of-ways the residential lots to the west). The site generally slopes 2% from the north to the south towards the existing railroad track. The north side of the railroad track is raised and routes the runoff to the southeast into the existing retention pond. Spillover flows from the retention pond flows to the southeast, across the railroad track and 59th Avenue. A Drainage Plan is included with this report in Appendix B. According to the FEMA FIRM, the site is outside of the 100 -year FEMA flood plain and within a FEMA designated area, Zone X for 'Area of Minimal Flood Hazard," FEMA FIRM Community Panel No. 08123C1510E. A FIRMette is included with this report in Appendix C. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the on- and off- site basins consist of approximately 16% Olney fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes and 84% Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. The Olney fine sandy loam consists of soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet and have a hydrologic soil group of B'. The Otero fine sandy loam consists of soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet and have a hydrologic soil group of 'A'. An NRCS Web Soil Survey report for this site is included with this report in Appendix D. OFF -SITE DRAINAGE BASINS The off -site drainage basins which include portions of the rights -of -way of 0 Street and 59th Avenue and portions of the residential lots to the west will be allowed to flow on -site and have been included in the total site's drainage basin design. The off -site drainage basins will sheet flow onto the site and into the on -site drainage basins. The off -site drainage basins affected by the 0 Street and 59th Avenue Intersection Improvement project have been updated and incorporated in this analysis. The off -site drainage basins are shown on the Drainage Plan in Appendix B. The Peak runoff flows for the off -site drainage basins have been provided in the table below. Table 1 - Off -site Drainage Basin Peak Runoff Flows. Basin Basin Size Peak Flow ID (Ac) 10-YR (cfs) Peak Flow 100-YR (cfs) Design Point OS -1 0.78 0.6 2.1 10 0S-2 0.12 0.2 0.4 11 OS -3 0.36 0.1 0.6 12 0S-4 1.51 1.4 4.3 13 0S-5 1.17 1.0 3.2 14 0S-6 0.12 0.0 0.2 15 0S-7 0.10 0.0 0.2 16 OS -8 0.27 0.1 0.4 17 OS -9 0.72 0.2 1.2 18 June 21, 2022 2 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA This report is prepared in compliance with the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1, 2, and 3; Weld County Code; and the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Based on this criterion, a 100 -year storm is used as the major storm event and a 10 -year storm is used as the minor storm event when evaluating existing and proposed drainage facilities. Runoff Calculations: For drainage basins less than 160 acres in area, the Rational Method was used to calculate the stormwater runoff. The time of concentration for the basins was estimated using the methods detailed within Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1, Ch. 5. Detailed hydrologic runoff calculations and time of concentration calculations are included with this report in Appendix F. Rainfall Data: Site rainfall depth information was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2, Precipitation -Frequency Atlas of the United States (2013). This data supersedes the default rainfall depth information provided in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. The current NOAA data was used for the determination of the point rainfall data. The NOAA data formed the basis of the inflow -duration -frequency (IDF) calculations for other storm frequencies and durations using Urban Drainage methods. Rainfall data is included with this report in Appendix E. Pipe and Culvert Sizing: Site storm infrastructure capacities have been evaluated using Manning's Equation and Hydraflow Express Storm Sewer software. Proposed storm drain pipes are sized to convey the 10 -year storm event while flowing at 80 percent of the pipe's capacity. Proposed storm drain pipes 100 -year HGL was evaluated to determine runoff depths at manhole lids and inlet grates. Existing storm drain pipes are verified to ensure that the 10 -year event is conveyed with a 100 -year evaluation. Erosion control devices will be provided at all culvert and swale outlets to protect against downstream erosion. Detailed hydraulic calculations for pipe and culvert sizing are included in this report in Appendix F. Drainage Channel Sizing: Drainage ditch capacities have been evaluated using Manning's Equation and Hydraflow software. Drainage channels are sized to convey the 10 -year event with a 100 -year evaluation. Drainage Channel calculations are also used to verify that the 100 -year runoff flows are being contained within the site and being routed according to the drainage plan. Detailed hydraulic calculations for the drainage channels are included with this report in Appendix F. Retention Pond Sizing: The retention pond volume has been determined using the UDFCD's Detention Design — UD-Detention v2.34 spreadsheet. The retention pond is sized to retain 1.5 times the 100 -year 24 hour stormwater runoff from the developed sites per the Weld County Code Sec 8-11-100 B (2). The retention pond does not outlet and will infiltrate or manually pump out the retained water within a 70 -hour period following a storm event. The required pond volume was calculated using UDFCD's Detention Design — UD-Detention v2.34 spreadsheet. An emergency spillway, in the form of a concrete weir and armored slope, is proposed to convey the 100 -year runoff flow rate under a plugged orifice condition and off -site 100 -year flows being routed through the retention basin. Detailed detention pond calculations are included with this report in Appendix G. Water Quality Pond Sizing: Since this is a retention pond design, no Water Quality volume will be utilized. June 21, 2022 3 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ON -SITE DRAINAGE The project's stormwater management will include using both the existing storm drain system for the east portion of the site and a proposed storm drain system for the west portion of the site. As mentioned above, the existing retention pond and spillway will be re -sized and used to store the 100 -year runoff volumes from the site's total developed drainage basin. The 100 -year event will flow through an enlarged spillway to prevent water from breaching the retention pond's crest. The site has been designed to divide up the runoff into sub -basins which are controlled by grate inlets in sump condition. There are 9 on -site drainage sub -basins labeled A through I. The following table presents a summary of the on -site drainage sub -basins. The on -site drainage basins are shown on the Drainage Plan in Appendix B. The Peak flows for the on -site drainage basins have been provided in the table below. Table 2 — On -Site Drainage Basin Calculations Basin Basin Size ID (Ac) Peak Flow 10-YR (cfs) Peak Flow 100-YR (cfs) Design Point A 0.92 2.4 5.0 1 B 0.43 1.4 2.8 2 C 1.10 3.3 6.7 3 D 1.37 3.5 7.3 4 E 0.43 1.2 2A 5 F 0.10 0.2 0.5 6 G 0.10 0.2 0.5 7 H 3.79 9.2 19.4 8 / 0.49 0.2 0.8 9 CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS (HYDRAULIC CAPACITIES) The conveyance structures will consist of both proposed and existing storm drain systems. The proposed storm drain system will collect runoff from the western 7 basins, Basins A through I. The basins will be collected into storm drain boxes and routed through the proposed storm drain system to the retention pond. The proposed storm drain structures were designed to accommodate the 10 -year storm event runoff flows. The 100 -year runoff flows were checked to verify that the 100 -year runoff flows will remain on -site and be routed to the retention pond. The hydraulic calculations for the conveyance structures are included with this report in Appendix F. The existing storm drain system will collect runoff from existing eastern basin, Basin H, Basin I, OS -1, and OS - 9 . This project will not further develop or improve the existing eastern basins, which are tributary to the existing storm drain system. The existing storm drain system consists of a 12" deep off -site diversion ditch which ties to a 24" RCP culvert that runs under the east access road to 59th Avenue. The 24" RCP is tied to a 36" RCP storm drain pipe that outflows into the retention pond. A portion of this existing storm drain system will be improved with the 0 Street and 59th Avenue Intersection Improvement Project. The improvement will consist of piping approximately 85' of the existing 12" deep off -site diversion ditch that routes around the northeast corner of the parking lot with a 12' HDPE pipe. For further details of this improvement, please refer to the "0 Street & 59th Avenue Intersection Improvement Drainage Report.' The existing storm drain system was checked to verify that June 21, 2022 4 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report it will accommodate the 10 -year storm event runoff flows. The 100 -year runoff flows were also checked to verify that the 100 -year runoff flows will remain on -site and be routed to the retention pond. The hydraulic calculations for the existing storm drain conveyance structures are included with this report in Appendix F. The retention pond storm drain pipe inlets will be armored with a rip -rap apron to dissipate energy and reduce erosion at the inlet location. Based on the flow and velocities, the rip -rap will consist of a Type M rip -rap (Dso — 12"). The apron will be 6 feet wide (or to a horizontal plane at 2 depth) by 6 feet long by 24' thick minimum. The rip -rap apron was sized according to Section 8.1.1 of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1 method. Refer to the construction plans in Appendix H for apron locations and Appendix F for rip -rap calculations. WATER QUALITY AND RETENTION POND Since this is a retention pond design, no water quality volume will be utilized. As stated above, the existing retention pond has been re -sized to detain the 100 -year runoff volume from the site's total developed drainage basin. Per Weld County requirements, the retention pond volume has been up -sized by 1.5 times the 100 - year 24 -hour event for the 84 Lumber property. A retention pond summary is provided in the table below. Table 3 - Retention Pond Summary Retention Pond Summary Drainage Area (acres) Impervious of Drainage Area Total Required Storage (ac -ft) Total Storage (ac -ft) 8.73 82.91 4.51 4.78 VI. DRAINAGE FACILITY MAINTENANCE The drainage structures shall be maintained and inspected by the owner of the facility regularly. The retention pond and storm drain system shall be maintained to ensure sediment, erosion, and debris do not build up and hinder the designed function of these structures. The following shall be ongoing inspection and maintenance items to be completed during the service life of the project. 1. The retention pond, retention pond inlet, and retention pond spillway shall be inspected and cleared of any debris, sediment, weeds, trash, etc. Grades and slopes shall be maintained and any erosion or damage repaired. Keep grasses low and prevent the growth of native shrubs or noxious weeds. Maintenance may include re -grading and compacting, mowing, and spraying the area with an herbicide. Inspections and maintenance should be addressed yearly at a minimum and logged in an inspection and maintenance report. 2. All access road culverts shall be inspected and maintained and any debris, sediment, weeds, trash, etc. from inlet and outlets removed. Rip -rap aprons shall also be inspected and maintained of any erosion or sedimentation. Inspections and maintenance should be addressed annually at a minimum and logged in an inspection and maintenance report. 3. All storm drain systems shall be inspected and cleared of any debris, sediment, weeds, trash, etc. Grades and slopes on inlets and other storm drain systems shall be maintained and any erosion or June 21, 2022 5 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report damage repaired. Maintenance may include re -grading and compacting, mowing, and spraying the inlet areas with an herbicide. Cleaning sediment and debris from storm drain boxes. Inspections and maintenance should be addressed twice yearly (before snow and after snow melt) at a minimum and logged in an inspection and maintenance report. A.. SPECIAL MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS The owner shall make repairs to the retention pond, spillway, storm drain system, and any other drainage structures if damage occurs. Inspection reports should be prepared and maintained with the owner of the facility. The regular inspections and maintenance schedules above are a minimum and should be increased if needed. During construction all drainage structures shall be inspected monthly and after every storm event. If a 50 -year or larger storm event occurs, the retention pond should be inspected following that storm event to ensure that the pond and pond grades are stable. If the pond is not completely drained within 70 hours of any storm event, the pond shall be drained by either clearing obstructions from the outlet structure or manually pumping the pond. VII. CONCLUSION This report was prepared in compliance with the Weld County Code and the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volumes, 1, 2, and 3. The proposed drainage system for the improvements to the 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Project will provide retention for the 100 -year storm event to meet the requirements of Weld County. It is anticipated that no adverse storm water impacts will affect downstream property owners from the proposed development. This Drainage Report is being submitted to Weld County for review and approval. June 21, 2022 6 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report VIII. APPENDIX November 18, 2021 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report APPENDIX A - VICINITY MAP November 18, 2021 8 FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT E1 /16 COR. SEC 33, T6N, R67W, FOUND 2002 3.25" ALUM. OAF', LS7242, 175.06 (Meas. Found MAC Nail Found #4 Reber F LANDOWNER: KEITH GONZALES ETAL zazi 00 rS 11// Yellow Plastic Cap, LS7242 Existing 4712- - E ED= ina/Q012_- 15' Right of Access Easement Exemption 21 Existing Barbwire Fence (Typ.) SURVEYOR'S NOTES A) BEARINGS ARE REFERRED TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION BEARING S00.01'28"E (CPS OBSERVATION). PROJECT HAS GREELEY CONTROL NETWORK. 8) RECORDED EASEMENT, RIGHTS —OF —WAY AND THE LEGAL D FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, ORDER No. MARCH 23, 2021. C) PER TITLE COMMITMENT, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE B-2 EXCEPTIONS: Existing Speed Sign BEEN CHANGED TO CITY OF ESCRIPTION ARE SHOWN PER GLW2100526, EFFECTIVE DATED: 1. ANY FACTS, RIGHTS, INTERESTS OR CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS BUT WHICH COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY AN INSPECTION OF THE LAND DIR THAT MAY BE ASSERTED BY PERSONS IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND. 2. EASEMENTS, LIENS OR ENCUMBRANCES, OR CLAIMS THEREOF, NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 3. ANY ENCROACHMENTS, ENCUMBRANCES, VIOLATION, VARIATION, OR ADVERSE CIRCUMSTANCE AFFECTING THE TITLE THAT WOULD BE DISCLOSED BY AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE LAND SURVEY OF THE LAND AND NOT SHOWN BY 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. 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 THE VALUE THE ESTATE OR INTEREST OR MORTGAGE THEREON COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT. NOTE: THE ABOVE EXCEPTION WILL NOT APPEAR ON POLICIES WHERE CLOSING AND SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN PERFORMED BY THE COMPANY_ 6. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OF TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT THESE MATTERS ARE SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 7. ALL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, NOW OR HERETOFORE ASSESSED, DUE OR PAYABLE. NOTE: THIS TAX EXCEPTION WILL BE AMENDED AT POLICY UPON SATISFACTION AND EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES. B. ANY EXISTING LEASES OR TENANCIES, AND ANY AND ALL PARTIES CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER SAID LESSEES. 9. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO AS SET FORTH BELOW: RECORDING DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1889 RECORDING NO.: BOOK 86 PAGE 273 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) 10 EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT: GRANTED TO: COLORADO - WYOMING GAS CO. PURPOSE: OIL AND GAS PIPE LINES RECORDING DATE: JUNE 25, 1947 RECORDING NO.: BOOK 1206 PAGE 416 (BLANKET EASEMENT, NOT PLOTTABLE) 1 1 EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT: GRANTED TO: COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION PURPOSE: PIPEUNE AND APPURTENANCES RECORDING DATE: JULY 11, 1955 RECORDING NO.: BOOK 1424 PAGE 73 (BLANKET EASEMENT) 12. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS. RESERVATIONS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE WARRANTY DEED AS SET FORTH BELOW: RECORDING DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1956 RECORDING NO.: BOOK 1442 PAGE 122 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) 13. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS. RESERVATIONS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE WARRANTY DEED AS SET FORTH BELOW: RECORDING DATE: AUGUST 21, 1961 RECORDING NO.: BOOK 1592 PAGE 433 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) 14. AN OIL AND GAS LEASE FOR THE TERM THEREIN PROVIDED WITH CERTAIN COVENANTS. CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS, TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS, IF ANY, AS SET FORTH THEREIN. DATED: AUGUST 14, 1979 LESSOR: RUTH OPAL THOMPSON LESSEE: H.L. WILLETT RECORDING DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1979 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 1803279 AFFIDAVIT OF LEASE EXTENSION OR PRODUCTION: RECORDING DATE: JUNE 6, 1986 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 2056318 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) O CI o 4.976± Acres FARM LW To - LP to Existing Fiber Optic Line (Typ) O 11 0 to 66552 52' (440 -- Existing Overhead Power Line 50'X50' Commercial Driveway Easement Off Southerly 47,,T7Post Right—of—woy Line Exception #15 Wire Fence Existing Kinder (TYP.) Morgan Gas Line ---- EXIeting Gate Dedicated To City for Additional Right —of —Way, Doc. No. 3683459, Filed- March 26, 2010, Exception #25 Found MAG Nail cc:?:.g 13,11,110 rar CS 443 Existing ouard Fence W/ Gas Riser Existing Overhead Power Line (Ty,o) 15, EASEMENTS, NOTES, TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF RECORDED EXEMPTION NO. 0805 -33 -1 -RE 449: RECORDING DATE: JULY 25, 1980 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO, 1831230 (PARCEL BOUNDARY AS SHOWN) 16, TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE WARRANTY DEED AS SET FORTH BELOW: RECORDING DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1980 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 1837986 AND RE-RECORDED OCTOBER 21, 1980 AT RECEPTION N0.1839525 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) 17. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE IRRIGATION WELL AGREEMENT AS SET FORTH BELOW: RECORDING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1980 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 1840656 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) 18. THE FOLLOWING NOTICES PURSUANT TO C.R.S. SEC. 9-1.5-103 CONCERNING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER. THESE STATEMENTS AND GENERAL AND DO NOT NECESSARILY GIVE NOTICE OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WITHIN SUBJECT PROPERTY: RECORDING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1981 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 1870705 (BLANKET EASEMENT) RECORDING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1981 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 1870756 (NOT APART) RECORDING DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1981 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 1871004 (NOT APART) RECORDING DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1981 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO, 1874084 (BLANKET EASEMENT) RECORDING DATE: MARCH 9, 1983 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 1919757 (BLANKET EASEMENT) RECORDING DATE: JULY 20, 1984 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 1974810 (BLANKET EASEMENT) RECORDING DATE: AUGUST 31, 1984 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 1979784 (BLANKET EASEMENT) RECORDING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1984 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 1983584 (BLANKET EASEMENT) RECORDING DATE: APRIL 2, 1985 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 20043DD (BLANKET EASEMENT) RECORDING DATE: JUNE 26, 1986 RECORDING NO.: RECORDING DATE: RECORDING NO.: RECORDING DATE: RECORDING NO.: RECORDING DATE: RECORDING NO.: RECORDING DATE: RECORDING NO.: 19. AN OIL AND GAS CONDITIONS AND P THEREIN. DATED: LESSOR: LESSEE: RECORDING RECEPTION NO. MARCH 3, 1988 RECEPTION NO. DECEMBER 14, 1 RECEPTION NO. 2058722 (NOT APART) 2132709 (BLANKET EASEMENT) 988 2164975 (BLANKET EASEMENT) APRIL 10. 1989 RECEPTION NO. 2175917 (BLANKET EASEMENT) JANUARY 24, 1991 RECEPTION NO. 2239296 (NOT APART) LEASE FOR THE TERM THEREIN PROVIDED WITH CERTAIN COVENANTS, ROVISIONS, TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS, IF ANY, AS SET FORTH DATE: RECORDING NO.: JUNE 9, 1982 EDNA D. COLLINS AND DARRYL T. COLLINS BREEZE EXPLORATION AUGUST 6, 1982 RECEPTION NO. 1899814 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) AFFIDAVIT OF LEASE EXTENSION OR PRODUCTION: RECORDING DATE: JUNE 6, 1986 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 2056318 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) Existing its t•Fi • 70 70 N 4.7 0 STREET • Existing Cbainlink Found #4 Rebar W/ Yellow Plastic 'Cap, LS7242 • Stop Sign Existing Concrete Existing Storm Irrigation Box Drain Box Ex/Sting Fiber Optic Vault 518.84' (M) Ftiscteing Wood Existing Wood Fence (Typil rxisting -Existing Air Conditioner Unit Existing Septic Wash—Ouf Existing Truck Scale Existing Stop Light Post Lot A 6.000+ Acres 20. EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT: GRANTED TO: GRANTED TO: THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY PURPOSE: COMMUNICATION FACILITIES RECORDING DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1989 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 2200405 (AS SHOWN) 21. EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT: PURPOSE: DRIVEWAY EASEMENT RECORDING DATE: MAY 14, 2003 RECORDING NO: RECEPTION NO. 3062591(AS SHOWN) 22. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE LAND SURVEY PLAT AS SET FORTH BELOW: RECORDING DATE: OCTOBER 30, 2003 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 3121965 (PARCEL BOUNDARY AS SHOWN) 23. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION OF SURFACE DEVELOPMENT AS SET FORTH BELOW: RECORDING DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2007 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 3511023 (BLANKET EASEMENT) REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION (MINERAL ESTATE OWNER): RECORDING DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2007 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 3525268 (BLANKET EASEMENT) 24. RESERVATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PATENT: FROM: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO; DENVER PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RECORDING DATE: JANUARY 9, 2008 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 3528188 (BLANKET EASEMENT) WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS RECITES AS FOLLOWS: "ALL MINERAL LANDS' HEREIN RESERVED. 25 EASEMENTS, NOTES, TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF USR-1670: RECORDING DATE: MARCH 26, 2010 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 3683459 (LOT PARCEL, AS SHOWN) 26. ANY TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS BY REASON OF THE INCLUSION OF THE LAND IN THE NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT: RECORDING DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 3721790 (BLANKET EASEMENT) 27. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT AS SET FORTH BELOW RECORDING DATE: JULY 12, 2016 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 4218393 (BLANKET EASEMENT) AND RECORDING DATE: AUGUST 2, 2018 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 4420477 (BLANKET EASEMENT) • Existing Fiber Optic Line ayp) Existing Gas Line FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT NE COR. SEC 33, T6N, R67W, FOUND 2010 2.5" ALUM. CAP, LS38209, 0.6' BELOW GRADE :Existing Street Light :Existing Telephone Pedestal :Existing Power Pole? Existing 4" Vent Pipe Existing S' Electrical Cabinet Ex/Sting 1n Water Line IN Existing Concrete Pad Exist ng Fire Pump Shut -Off Existing I —Box Existing Electrical Meter Existing 1 Story Metal Building 78,000 SF 26' Building Height 2 Handicap Parking Stalls ----Existing Wood Existing Fence (Typ.) Gravel Drive Existing Edge of Gravel Existing Existing Gate Existing Manhole ----- Found #5 Rebar Drain Manhole W/ Yellow Plastic -Cop, PLS28285 4700 Existing R/p Rap Existing RCP Storm Drain Pipe 470.2 - Existing Railroad 'Crossing Lights O, GNP Yellow Plastic --Cap PLS28285 Existing _ Stop Sign Existing Water Valve LANDOWNER: HAROLD C. BLOCALAN Found #5 Rebar W/ Yellow Plastic Cop, PLS28285 Dedicated To City for Additional Right —of —Way Doc. No. .3685459, ROW Filed. March 26, 2010, CM Waterline 0. RAY TENNYSON ETAL a. O - T Wire Fence 28. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE MINERAL DEED AS SET FORTH BELOW: RECORDING DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 4241422 (NOT PLOTTABLE) AND JULY 12, 2018 RECORDING DATE: RECORDING NO: RECEPTION NO 4414698 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) AND RECORDING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2019 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 4452798 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) AND RECORDING DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2019 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO. 4464101 (NOT SURVEY RELATED) MINERAL AND ROYALTY RECORDING DATE: RECORDING NO.: (NOT SURVEY RELATED) RECORDING DATE: RECORDING NO.: (NOT SURVEY RELATED) DEED: OCTOBER 21, 2016 RECEPTION NO. 4246892 AND OCTOBER 27, 2016 RECEPTION NO. 4248889 500 761.36' (Meas.) vi Lb 7=4 - 'Existing Pipe Test Leads Existing Railroad Crossing Sign DediLated To City for Additional Right —of —Way Filed.. March 26; 2070 tion #25 cielp FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT N1/16 COR. SEC 33, 29. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BUT OMITTING T6N, R67W, FOUND ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, 2003 3.25" ALUM. CAP, PLS22098, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, SOURCE OF 0,5 BELOW GRADE INCOME, GENDER, GENDER IDENTITY, GENDER EXPRESSION, MEDICAL CONDITION OR GENETIC INFORMATION, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AS SET FORTH IN THE DOCUMENT: RECORDING DATE: MARCH 15, 2019 RECORDING NO.: RECEPTION NO 4473628 (AS SHOWN) • O O LEGEND OF SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS US PUBLIC LAND SURVEY SECTION CORNER US PUBLIC LAND SURVEY OUARTER SECTION CORNER MEASURED RECORD - USR-1670 RECORD — RECORDED EXEMPTION No. 0805-33-1—RE449 CORNER FOUND CORNER SET (5/8" REBAR W/ YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED #28285 LS) DIMENSION CORNER ONLY • EC AIR CONDITIONER UNIT 0 POWER POLE BOLLARD SEPTIC WASH CROSSING LIGHTS CLEANOUT CONCRETE IRRIGATION BOX m SIGN ELECTRICAL CABINET E STOP LIGHT POST E ELECTRICAL METER © STORM DRAIN MANHOLE FIBER OPTIC CABINET FIRE PUMP SWITCH Id GAS METER J -BOX LIGHT POLE O MANHOLE 1 PIPELINE TEST LEADS FO 0 TELEPHONE PEDESTAL VENT PIPE WATERLINE 1" IN rs-.4 WATER VALVE VICINITY MAP 0 STREET THIS PROJECT UTILITY NOTES The location of Utilities shown hereon am from observed evidence of above ground appurtenances only. aftr —C CALL 7-303-232-1991 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATION CENILI-2 WITH THE FOLLOWING: COUNTY WELD CITY GREELEY FLOOD NOTE: By graphic plotting only, this property is NOT in a Flood Hazard Zone(s) of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 08123C 1510 E of which bears an effective date of January 20, 2016 and is not in a Special Flood Hazard Area. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS LOTS A AND B, RECORDED EXEMPTION NO. 0805 -33 -1 -RE -449, ACCORDING TO THE MAP RECORDED JULY 25, 1980 IN RECEPTION No. 1831230, BEING A PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO. GROSS AREA = 10.976 ACRES. MORE OR LESS NOTES: ZONED I -L (INDUSTRIAL LOW IMPACT), SET BACK FOR BUILDINGS IS 150', PARKING LOTS ARE 40', BUILDING HEIGHT IS 50' FOR PRINCIPLE BUILDING AND 20' FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, REV:2 06-30-21 M.D. (UPDATE GAS LINES) ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY 84 LUthINABER, Landowners: Donald D. Fre' and Carole A. Frei Weld county County, Colorado/ Section 33, T6N, R66W, 6th P.M. Based upon Order No. 100-N0031909-010-TO2, Dated: March 23, 2021 of FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SURVEY CERTIFICATION ATTACHED TO AND A PART OF SURVEY PREPARED BY: UINTAH ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING DATED: MAY 4, 2021 AS PROJECT NO. 84L01-231-0001 This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS. and includes items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 ac. 20 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on 04/23/2021. Date of Plat or Map: 06/30/2021 CERTIFICATE I, LOREN K. SHANKS, A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE sTATli OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY 'FO FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AND PIERCE HARDY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP THAT THIS LAND SURVEY PLAT REFLECTS THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY DIRECI RESPONSIBILITY, SUPERVISION AND CHECKING IN ACCORDANCE, WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 38-51-106, CRS., AS AMENDED, AND IS 'IRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. in LAND SURVEY() 1 84 LUMBER 14902 WCR 64 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO SURVEYED BY: G.W. DRAWN BY: P.B. PROJECT: 84101-21-0001 FILE: L-805 04-23-21 05-04-21 SCALE: 1" = 50' SHEET: UELS, LLC Regional Office * 3313 35th Avenue, Suite B Evans, Co 80620 * (970) 506-1544 Corporate Office * 85 South 200 East Vernal, UT 84078 * (435) 789-1017 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report APPENDIX B - DRAINAGE PLAN November 18, 2021 10 119E uiNTAH a 10 E -F E Eu•sMB4 LUtd6ER'CWCMDai anal piss aims LAND SURVEYING CIVIL ENGINEERING AN -D LAND SURVEYING SERVICES 3313 35th Ave.. Ste. B. Evans. CO 80620 O: 970.506-1544 HQ: 435-789-1017 www.uinlahgraup.cam - SINCE 1964 - 0 STREET •-••\ ----------- _�i2 tea_--_�y�. AP— ITsar Tom` \ �� • • • • • • • • • Basin boundary lines outside 01 given site grading was Interpolated from 0 Street & 59th Ave Drainage Report & USGS Tope Quad • • • • OUTLET FIFE WTH FLARED END SECTION OOUTLET PIPE DETAIL NO SCALE • • • • • 1.17 02L LENGTH (SEE PLANS) PLAN VIEW ---- C' • • Nana RIPRAF ISEE FLAN FOR DIMENSIONS AND TYPE) MATCH FINISH GRADE SLOPE WOVEN GEOTE{TLE VOIEAFI HP370 OR EQUAL) SECT1ON A FUJ:SHED SURFACE N • 1 Oi- D • v, 1 vi INV EL 4704.1 N 260 to aisae`` lop EL 4707:0'1 ~c11m, --` BTM EL 47027''--.. ' P INV EL47041 E,x _ ~`---",10*------ 120 LF'of T5"ADS•Pipe IMP • Slope @ 0.5% AIL TRACE ! _ __ Top EL 4700 33 —BTM EL ' :1. E_47irf I 09 _ 4709'.3: --60 LF or 24' ADS Ppe Slope @ 0.6% / I —ff=LIPP-== VrP—tEr- r-_ 4 Tap EL 4708.0 ETM EL 47015' CF -1 Tap EL 4709 00 _ T 11 EL 4703 75, s, !8' ADS Pipe Slope 1 7% II; FL ;70.= 5, CB -2 To E .r.:a.La BIM FL 4700 25' 162 LF of 18° ADS Pipe Slope @ 0.a% 2601 LF r+, 4' ADS Pine Slops @ 97°% MH TO EL 4707 50' 9 -EM EL 4700 00' A �P�.: LFof30 ADS Pipe' Slope @ 1.1% p1 PROP 1 SIGN PROP. SITED PROP. SI-(ED lo.2LF or :a' ADS Pipe Slope Chi 4% -1id1/ EL4702.0 tiv EL 4701.50 allanammiterit i Top EL 4707 20' '-- �- `•-"--.BTM EL 4699.501- biro --T I TYPE M RIF-RAP 6Vdx 6'L 24'D N`✓ EL 4700.00 60 !IF 0110' 4CS Pipe. Slope @ 2.5% SUMMARY RUNOFF TABLE DESIGN POINT BASIN AREA (Ac) RUNOFF 10-YR (cis) PEAK 100-YR (its) ! 9.92 2.4 5 0 2 U43 14 20 3 1 10 3.3 67 4 1 37 3.5 7 3 6 043 I2 24 6 0 IC 0.2 05 7 010 a.'_ 05 a 779 9' 19.4 9 U49 0.^_ 00 10 0.76 0.6 2.1 11 0 12 0.2 0.4 12 036 0.1 0.6 13 1 51 4 3 le '.I7 10 32 IS 9.15 0.0 7.2 16 010 0.0 C2 I7 0.27 0.1 0.4 18 072 0.2 12 Proposed Pavement from the 0 Street & 59th Avenue intersectiontreprovement Project —1— is —.�P.111 P_ .b41B1y�- OHPr Sa1P t / 2,72 \ 7.111 lot!! SYMBOL LEGEND A DESIGN POINT DRAINAGE BASIN DESIGNATION 10-YR WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT DRAINAGE BASIN AREA (ACRES) Basin boundary lines for 0 Street & 59th Avenue were interpolated nom 0 Street & 59th Ave Drainage Report easms onnn=1- hP -0 _ (iH2 Gliv_— — 0.. OHF l IdV EL4707 5' (Esorna:ed) EX. BUILDING RETENTION POND Deia:nea Vo•. 196.530 CF B m El 4698.00 Sp•Ilway E 4703.0' CrEst El: 4704.0' N 1 ` . (I�` Proposed r,-' HDPE Pipe IFrom I _ the OS tee! & 59th Avenue 1n.erse.ton imorovemenr isroled) — - Ex. 36' RCP Plpe T1 PE M RIP -RAPS 6Wx bLx 24'D Prop Concrele Spillway Total Length:460' Prop. SpitAway Length- 35.0' Crest El 4704.0' Spiliwzy B: 4703.0' Ex Spillway (To be Removed) 4701•- 4893 -ONO- I Mild NV EL 4706 8IEshmated) I I I I INV EL 4702. i; 4 I; Is N. LEGEND: iev DIRECTION OF PLOW ARROW 1011 -YEAR OUTFLOW DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY I Ex SD 81H -I Top EL 470620' z CS tn 'Nth 50' 25' 0' I" — 50' SCALE 84 LUMBAR so Q, A �O o Ebam c V M V en 7. x LI'llfflh ULtAtt AIiE PLAN LPr,ATE ARAINAGP PT AN a x - F c' UI wr..— ts Pi - ., SCALE: 1 " — 30' DRAWN BY: PH DATE DRAWN: 9-24-21 UELS FILE NO.: L - S 0 5 PROI. NO: 84L0 -21-0001 FILE:XXXXX V X X X 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report APPENDIX C - FLOOD PLAIN MAP - FIRM MAP PANEL November 18, 2021 12 National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette FEMA Legend 104°46'50"W 40°27'19"N 104°46'12"W 40°26'51"N 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Feet 1:6,000 SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone 4, V. 499 With BFE or Depth Zone AE, 40, AN, VF, AR Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS CD 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zone x Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes. Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x Effective LOM Rs Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer milli Levee, Dike, or Floodwall 20.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 1765 Water Surface Elevation 8 - - - - Coastal Transect vvve,59w1/2-#. Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary - - - - Coastal Transect Baseline - - - - Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 9/30/2021 at 5:01 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report APPENDIX D - HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP November 18, 2021 14 40° 27 10" N 40° 26' 59" N 4 4 4 4 518740 518790 518840 518890 518940 518990 519040 519090 519140 519190 519240 in 518740 518790 518840 valid at this scale. Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 518890 Map Scale: 1:2,490 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet 0 35 70 140 518940 Meters 210 Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTT/1 Zone 13N WGS84 518990 519040 519090 519140 519190 519240 104° 46' 22" W — E_ N 4 4 5_ 40° 27 10" N 40° 26'59"N ,b Natural Resources lain Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/27/2021 Page 1 of 4 10-40 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AO!) Area of Interest (A01) ) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D MAP INFORMATION C The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background ,; Aerial Photography Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 19, Jun 5, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales D 1:50,000 or larger. Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points O O O A A/D B B/D Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 -Aug 10, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. ,b Natural Resources lain Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/27/2021 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 46 Olney fine 0 to 1 sandy loam, percent slopes B 2.1 16.2% 51 Otero sandy loam, percent slopes 1 to 3 A 11.0 83.8% Totals for Area of Interest 13.1 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition e Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 9/27/2021 Page 3of4 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report APPENDIX E N OAA ATLAS 14 PRECIPITATION VALUES November 18, 2021 19 9/27/21, 4:11 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Location name: Greeley, Colorado, USA* Latitude: 40.4515°, Longitude: -104.7748° Elevation: 4710.28 ft** * source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps & aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Average recurrence interval (years) Duration I 2 ( 5 (I 10 I 100 I 200 J 500 I 1000 5 -min 0.242 (0.196-0.300) 0.291 (0.236-0.362) 0.388 (0.313-0.483) 0.483 (0.387-0.604) 0.635 (0.498-0.855) 0.769 (0.582-1.04) 0.918 (0.666-1.28) 1.09 (0.748-1.56) 1.33 (0.874-1.97) 1.53 (0.969-2.28) 10 -min 0.354 (0.288-0.439) 0.427 (0.346-0.530) 0.568 (0.459-0.707) 0.707 I (0.567-0.885) 0.929 (0.730-1.25) 1.13 (0.853-1.53) 1.34 (0.975-1.88) 1.59 (1.10-2.29) j ° 1.95 (1.28-2.88) 2.24 (1.42-3.34) 15 -min 0.432 (0.351-0.535)] 0.520 (0.422-0.646) 1.13 (0.890-1.53) 1.37 (1.04-1.87) 1.64 (1.19-2.29) 1 1.94 (1.34-2.79) 2.37 (1.56-3.52) 2.7307) 30 -min 0.580 (0.471-0.719) 0.697 (0.565-0.865) 0.927 (0.748-1.15) 1.15 (0.925-1.44) 1.52 (1.19-2.05) 1.84 (1.40-2.50) 2.20 (1.60-3.08) 2.61 (1.80-3.75) 3.20 i (2.10-4.74) 3.69 (2.34-5.49) 60 -min 0.720 (0.585-0.893) 0.856 (0.694-1.06) 1.13 (0.913-1.41) 1.41 (1.13-1.77) 1.87 (1.48-2.54) 2.29 (1.74-3.12) 2.75 (2.00-3.86) 3.28 (2.27-4.74) 4.06 (2.68-6.03) 4.71 (2.98-7.02) 2 -hr 0.860 (0.703-1.06) 1.01 (0.828-1.25) 1.34 (1.09-1.65) y 1.67 (1.35-2.07) 2.22 (1.77-3.00) 2.73 I (2.09-3.70) y 3.96 (2.76-5.66) 4.93 (3.28-7.25) 5.74 (3.67-8.45) 3 -hr 0.942 (0.773-1.15) 1.10 (0.902-1.35) 1.44 (1.18-1.77) 1.80 (1.46-2.22) 2.41 (1.93-3.24) 2.96 (2.28-4.00) 3.60 (2.66-4.98) 4.32 (3.04-6.15) 5.40 (3.62-7.90) 6.31 (4.06-9.22) 6 -hr 1.08 (0.895-1.31) 1.28 (1.06-1.56) 1.68 (1.38-2.05) 2.09 (1.71-2.56) 2.76 (2.22-3.65) 3.36 (2.60-4.47) 4.04 I (3.00-5.51) 4.80 (3.40-6.74) 5.93 (4.00-8.56) 6.87 (4.46-9.93) 12 -hr 1.27 (1.06-1.53) 1.52 (1.26-1.83) 1.98 (1.64-2.39) 2.42 (1.99-2.94) 3.12 (2.51-4.04) 3.73 (2.90-4.87) 4.39 (3.28-5.90) 5.13 (3.65-7.09) 6.20 (4.22-8.82) 7.08 (4.65-10.1) 24 -hr 1.52 (1.27-1.81) 1.79 (1.49-2.13) 2.28 (1.90-2.73) 2.74 (2.27-3.30) 3.47 (2.80-4.42) 4.09 (3.20-5.27) 4.76 (3.58-6.31) 5.50 (3.95-7.51) 6.58 (4.52-9.23) 7.45 (4.95-10.5) 2 -day 1.76 (1.48-2.08) 2.07 i (1.74-2.44) 2.62 (2.20-3.11) 3.12 (2.60-3.72) 3.87 (3.14-4.86) 4.50 (3.54-5.72) 5.17 (3.92-6.75) 5.90 (4.27-7.93) 6.93 (4.80-9.59) 7.76 (5.20-10.8) i 3 -day 1.92 (1.63-2.26) 2.23 (1.89-2.63) 2.79 (2.35-3.30) 3.30 (2.76-3.91) 4.06 (3.30-5.06) 4.69 (3.71-5.92) 5.37 (4.09-6.96) 1 6.11 (4.44-8.15) 7.15 (4.98-9.82) 1 7.99 (5.39-11.1) 4 -day 2.04 (1.74-2.40) 2.37 (2.01-2.78) 2.94 (2.48-3.46) 3.45 (2.90-4.08) 4.22 (3.45-5.24) 4.87 (3.86-6.11) 5.55 (4.24-7.16) 6.29 (4.59-8.35) 7.33 (5.13-10.0) 8.16 (5.54-11.3) 7 -day 2.31 (1.98-2.69) ' 2.71 (2.31-3.15) 3.37 (2.87-3.94) 3.95 (3.33-4.63) i 4.77 (3.90-5.83) 5.43 (4.33-6.73) 6.11 (4.69-7.78) 6.83 (5.01-8.94) 7.81 i (5.50-10.5) 8.58 (5.87-11.7) j 10 -day 2.55 (2.19-2.96) 3.00 (2.57-3.48) 3.74 (3.19-4.35) 4.36 (3.70-5.10) 5.23 (4.28-6.32) 5.90 (4.71-7.25) 6.59 (5.07-8.30) 7.28 (5.37-9.45) 8.22 (5.81-11.0) 8.93 (6.15-12.2) 20 -day 3.27 (2.82-3.75) 3.80 (3.28-4.37) 4.65 (4.00-5.36) 5.35 (4.57-6.20) 6.30 (5.18-7.51) 7.02 (5.64-8.49) 7.72 (5.99-9.60) 8.43 (6.26-10.8) 9.34 (6.67-12.3) 10.0 (6.98-13.5) 30 -day 3.84 (3.33-4.39) 4.43 (3.83-5.06) 5.37 (4.63-6.16) y 6.13 (5.26-7.06) 7.15 (5.90-8.46) 7.92 I (6.39-9.52) 8.67 (6.76-10.7) 9.41 (7.03-11.9) 10.4 i (7.43-13.5) 11.1 7.74-14.7)i 45 -day 4.51 (3.93-5.13) 5.19 (4.52-5.91) 6.27 (5.44-7.16) 7.14 (6.15-8.18) 8.29 (6.86-9.73) 9.13 (7.40-10.9) 9.95 (7.79-12.2) 10.7 (8.07-13.5) 11.8 (8.49-15.2) 12.5 (8.80-16.5) 60 -day 5.05 (4.41-5.72) 5.83 (5.08-6.61) 7.06 (6.13-8.02) 8.03 (6.94-9.16)J 9.31 (7.73-10.9)n7 11.1 (8.74-13.5) 12.0 (9.02-15.0) 13.8 (9.77-18.2) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top PF graphical https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=40.4515&Ion=-104.7748&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/4 9/27/21, 4:11 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server cs 4J a C O .0 RF e a lad) cu —o szi .ms's C a 14 4 14 12 10 E y 1 FADS -based depth -duration -frequency (DDF) curves Latitude: 40.4515% Longitude: -104.7748G c c 6 LA C eS 5 10 25 50 100 200 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 C irc r I Duration I N Ai oil 4 Average recurrence interval (years) • >, C V /I1 ) 3 MI IIru t A rat Fa re; r 6 �C1'�� L, 1 N 1 f l T!' LO 500 1000 Created {GAIT}: Mon Sep 27 22:10:06 2021 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Average recurrence interval (years) Min 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 ffib Duration 5Mn 1 Ornln 15 -min 30 -mm 6 0411 In 2 -Er 3 -ht 5 -hr 12 -hi - 24 -hi - 2 -day 3 -day 4 -day 7 -day 1a -day a 20 -day 3O -day 45 -day 60aday . https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?Iat=40.4515&Ion=-104.7748&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 2/4 9/27/21, 4:11 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server 0.4km I 0.2mi IE Large scale terrain 2 y L 0.6km 0.4m i Large scale map U C+. t k. Count/ Road 60 EC C C r coiinty 3km I ' I 2mi a N 47th A If e W 4th 51 6-, 41 10 z Os W -ieih.St-- #M 13thSI 'I t Large scale aerial https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?Iat=40.4515&Ion=-104.7748&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 3/4 9/27/21, 4:11 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov Disclaimer https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=40.4515&Ion=-104.7748&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 4/4 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report APPENDIX F - RUNOFF CALCULATIONS 1. Drainage Basin Runoff Calculations 2. Conveyance Hydraulic Calculations 3. Rip -Rap Calculations November 18, 2021 21 ,t UIN"TAH I Iii.—�e.,ll f t ills —..S :Fr C'� '.i. �i�' I "^'!1, Weld Comity Engineering & Construction Criteria Table 5-3 Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Vahtes UDFCD Vol. 1- Table 6-3 Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Values % Impervious WEIGHTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS Undeveloped Areas Historic Flow Analysis Greenbelts, Agricultural 2% 2% Streets Off -site flow analysis (Land Use Not Defined) Paved Gravel Recycled Asphalts Developed Areas Concrete Driveways 45% 100% 40% 75% 90% Sidewalks Roofs 90% 90% MISC. Single - Family Res. 0.75-2.5 Acres 20% Parks Pond Area Berms/ Cut/Fill Slopes/ Landscaping 10% 100% 2% 6/23/2022 Basin Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Total Area (Ac) Percent Imperv. A 0.71 0.09 0.12 0.92 86.41% B 0.25 0.18 0.43 95.81% C 0.97 0.06 0.07 1.10 93.22% 1 D 1.05 0.18 0.14 1.37 88.67% E 0.22 0.19 0.02 0.43 91.02% F 0.08 0.02 0.10 80.40% G 0.08 0.02 0.10 80.40% H 1.66 0.12 0.48 1.01 0.52 3.79 84.97% I 0.01 0.48 0.49 4.00% OS -1 0.09 0.69 0.78 13.31% OS -2 0.07 0.05 0.12 59.17% OS -3 0.36 0.36 2.00% OS -4 1.44 0.07 1.51 19.17% OS -5 0.99 0.18 1.17 17.23% OS -6 0.12 0.12 2.00% OS -7 0.10 0.10 2.00% OS -8 0.27 0.27 2.00% OS -9 0.72 0.72 2.00% WHOLE BASIN 5.19 0.37 0.12 0.81 2.43 1.01 3.95 13.88 57.17% 13.88 USDCM Vol 1 - Section 6.0 Runoff Page 1 "Ns UINTAAJFI 6/23/2022 WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT VERSUS WATERSHED IMPERVIOUSNESS METHOD AS DETAILED IN URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL VOL. 1 (COLORADO) CA = KA + (1.31i 3 - 1.4412+ 1.135i - 0.12) for CA > or = 0, otherwise CA=0 CB = (CA + CCD)/2 CCD = KcD + (0.858i 3 - 0.786i 2 + 0.7741 + 0.04) i = % imperviousness/100 expressed as a decimal KA = Correction factor for Type A soils KCD = Correction factor for Type C and Type D soils (RO-6) (RO-7) Correction Factors, KA & Ken Soil Type Storm Return Period 2 -Year 5 -Year 10-Yr 100 -Year A 0.00 -0.081 + 0.09 -0.14i + 0.17 -0.25i + 0,32 C or D 0.00 -0.10i +0.11 -0.18i + 0.21 -0.391 + 0.46 Basin ID % Imperv. i Soil Type h Correction Factors, KA & KCD Runoff Coefficients, C Basin Area (Ac) Total Area (Ac) , Weighted RunoffCoeficients, C Soil Type 2 -Year 5 -Year 10 -Year 100 -Year % 5 -Year 10 -Year 100 -Year 2 -Year 5 -Year 10 -Year 100 -Year A 86.41% 0.86 A B C or D 0.02 - 0.02 0.05 - 0.05 0.10 - 0.12 0.63 0.65 0.68 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.68 0.70 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.80 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.92 V 0.63 0.65 0.68 0.73 100% B 95.81% 0.96 A B C or D 0.01 - 0.01 0.04 - 0.04 0.08 - 0.09 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.80 0.81 0.83 0.88 100% C 93.22% 0.93 A B C or D 0.02 - 0.02 0.04 - 0.04 0.09 - 0.10 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.83 1.10 0.85 0.00 0.87 0.00 1.10 0.75 0.76 0.79 0.83 100% D 88.67% A 0.89 B C or D 0.02 - 0.02 0.05 - 0.05 0.10 - 0.11 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.71 0.74 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.82 1.37 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.77 100% E 91.02% 0.91 A B C or D 0.01 - 0.02 0.04 - 0.05 0.09 - 0.11 0./1 0.72 0.74 0./3 0.74 0.76 0. /5 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.85 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.80 100% F 80.40% 0.80 A B C or D 0.03 - 0.03 0.06 - 0.07 0.12 - 0.15 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.60 0.63 0.67 0.66 0.70 0.75 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.66 100% G 80.40% 0.80 A B C or D 0.03 - 0.03 0.06 - 0.07 0.12 - 0.15 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.60 0.63 0.67 0.66 0.70 0.75 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.54 0.57 0.60 100blo 0.66 H 84.97% 0.85 A 0.02 B - C or D 0.03 0.05 - 0.06 0.11 0.61 - 0.63 0.13 0.66 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.72 0.75 0.79 3.79 0.00 0.00 3.79 0.61 0.63 0.66 0.72 100% I 4.00% 0.04 A B C or D 0.09 - 0.11 0.16 - 0.20 0.31 - 0.44 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.18 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.23 0.37 0.51 0.49 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.23 100% OS -1 13.31% 0.13 A B C or D 0.08 - 0.10 0.15 - 0.19 0.29 - 0.41 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.09 0.16 0.23 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.30 0.42 0.54 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.07 0.16 0.24 0.42 100% OS -2 59.17% 0.59 A B C or D 0.04 - 0.05 0.09 - 0.10 0.17 - 0.23 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.36 0.41 0.45 0.41 0.45 0.50 0.49 0.56 0.63 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.32 0.36 0.41 100% 0.49 OS -3 2.00% 0.02 A B C or D 0.09 - 0.11 0.17 - 0.21 0.32 - 0.45 0.000.000.07 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.16 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.36 0.51 0.36 0.00 0.00 036 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.22 1013% OS -4 19.17% 0.19 A B C or D 0.07 - 0.09 0.I4 - 0.18 0.2/ - 0.39 0.05 0.11 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.26 0.20 0.27 0.34 033 0.44 0.55 0.15 1.36 0.00 1.51 0.10 0.19 0.26 0.43 10% 90% OS -5 17.23% 0.17 A B C or D 0.08 - 0.09 0.15 - 0.18 0.28 - 0.39 0.04 0.10 0.15 0.12 0.18 0.25 0.19 0.26 0.33 0.32 0.43 0.55 0.23 0.94 0.00 1.17 0.09 0.17 0.24 0.41 20% 80% OS -6 2.00% 0.02 A B CorD 0.09 - 0.11 0.1 / - 0.21 0.32 - 0.45 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.0 / 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.36 0.51 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.22 100% OS -7 2.00% 0.02 A B CorD 0.09 - 0.11 0.17 - 0.21 0.32 - 0.45 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.36 0.51 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.22 100% OS -8 2.00% 0.02 A B CorD 0.09 - 0.11 0.1 / - 0.21 0.32 - 0.45 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.36 0.51 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.07 100% 0.22 OS -9 2.00% 0.02 A B C or D 0.09 - 0.11 0.17 - 0.21 0.32 - 0.45 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.36 0.51 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.22 100% WHOLE BASIN 57.17% 0.57 A B C or D 0.04 - 0.05 0.09 - 0.11 0.18 - 0.24 0.30 0.34 0.39 0.35 0.39 0.39 0.44 0.44 0.49 0.48 0.55 0.62 11.66 2 22 0.00 13.88 0.31 0.35 0.40 0.49 84% 16% USDCM Vol 1 - Section 6.0 Runoff Page 2 U I NTAH Lr�rr.or;= .; ,r -b• -r; , i o. -it) p�.a•. -r� .. STANDARD FORM SF -2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION METHOD AS DETAILED IN URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL VOL. 1 (COLORADO) NRCS Conveyance Factors, K Heavy Meadow 2.50 Short Grass Pasture & Lawns Tillage/Field 5.00 Nearly Bare Ground 7.00 Grassed Waterway 15.00 10.00 Paved Area & Shallow Gutter 20.00 Is the basin Urban or Non -Urban? Urban 6/23/2022 Sub -Basin Data Non Initial/Overland -Urban - Eqn 6-3 Time T(i) Non -Urban - Eqn 6-4 Travel Time T(t) Non -Urban Urbanized Basin T(c) Final T(c) (min) Check Flow Length (Overland) Design Point Drainage Basin Area (Ac) C(10) Length (ft) Slope (%) T(i) min Length (ft) Slope (%) Coeff. (K) Velocity (fps) T(t) (min) Comp. T(c) Total Length L/180+10 1 A 0.92 0.68 130 3.4 5.8 180 1.0 20.00 2.00 1.5 7.3 310 11.7 10.0 OK 2 B 0.43 0.83 240 1.0 7.4 0 1.0 20.00 2.00 0.0 7.4 240 11.3 10.0 OK 3 C 1.10 0.79 300 1.0 9.8 74 1.0 20.00 2.00 0.6 10.4 374 12.1 10.4 OK 4 D 1.37 0.71 300 0.5 15.2 37 1.0 20.00 2.00 0.3 15.5 337 11.9 11.9 OK 5 E 0.43 0.75 267 0.5 13.0 0 1.0 20.00 2.00 0.0 13.0 267 11.5 11.5 OK 6 F 0.10 0.60 48 1.0 6.3 0 1.0 20.00 2.00 0.0 6.3 48 10.3 10.0 OK 7 G 0.10 0.60 41 1.0 5.8 0 1.1) 20.00 2.00 0.0 5.8 41 10.2 10.0 OK 8 H 3.79 0.66 175 0.5 13.2 0 0.5 20.00 1.41 0.0 13.2 175 11.0 11.0 OK 9 I 0.49 0.09 300 1.5 27.7 50 1.5 20.00 2.45 0.3 28.0 350 11.9 11.9 OK 10 OS -1 0.78 0.24 300 1.8 22.2 520 1.8 10.00 1.34 6.5 28.6 820 14.6 14.6 OK 11 OS -2 0.12 0.41 60 1.8 8.0 0 1.0 7.00 0.70 0.0 8.0 60 10.3 10.0 OK 12 OS -3 0.36 0.07 55 1.0 13.8 0 1.0 7.00 0.70 0.0 13.8 55 103 10.3 OK 13 OS -4 1.51 0.26 300 1.0 26.2 190 1A) 7.00 0.70 4.5 30.7 490 12.7 12.7 OK 14 OS -5 1.17 0.24 300 1.0 26.8 287 1A) 7.00 0.70 6.8 33.6 587 13.3 13.3 OK 15 OS -6 0.12 0.07 54 0.3 21.6 0 0.3 7.00 0.35 0.0 21.6 54 103 10.3 OK 16 OS -7 0.10 0.07 58 0.3 22.4 0 0.3 7.00 0.35 0.0 22.4 58 10.3 10.3 OK 17 OS -8 0.27 0.07 50 0.3 20.8 0 0.3 7.00 0.35 0.0 20.8 50 10.3 10.3 OK 18 OS -9 0.72 0.00 50 0.3 22.2 0 0.3 7.00 0.35 0.0 22.2 50 10.3 10.3 OK WHOLE BASIN 13.88 0.35 300 1 23.3 520 1 20 2.00 4.3 27.6 820 14.6 14.6 OK USDCM Vol 1 - Section 6.0 Runoff Page 3 11101.01t, U I NTAII ENGtNEERtNu & LAND SURVEYING STANDARD FORM SF -3 10-YR RUNOFF - RATIONAL METHOD METHOD AS DETAILED IN URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL VOL. 1 (COLORADO) 10-Yr Rainfall Depth -Duration -Frequency (1 -hr) = 6/23/2022 Design Storm: 10 Year DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF I REMARKS BASIN INFORMATION Design Point Drainage Basin Area (Ac) Runoff Coeff. T(c) (min) C x A I (in/hr) Q (cfs) T(c) Sum I Q (min) C x A (in/hr) (cfs) 1 A 0.92 0.68 10.0 0.62 3.81 2.4 20.0 0.67 2.77 1.9 A+2 2 B 0.43 0.83 10.0 0.36 3.81 1.4 20.2 1.03 2.76 2.8 A+B+2 3 C 1.10 0.79 10.4 0.87 3.76 3.3 21.4 4.06 2.67 10.8 A -F+2-8 4 D 1.37 0.71 11.9 0.98 3.56 3.5 22.2 1.00 2.62 2.6 D+3 5 E 0.43 0.75 11.5 0.32 3.61 1.2 24.7 1.00 2.47 2.5 E+4+5 6 F 0.10 0.60 10.0 0.06 3.81 0.2 25.0 2.08 2.46 5.1 D+E+F+3+4+5+6 7 G 0.10 0.60 10.0 0.06 3.81 0.2 25.1 2.14 2.45 5.2 D+E+F+G+3+4+5+6+7 8 H 3.79 0.66 11.0 2.50 3.67 9.2 9 I 0.49 0.09 11.9 0.04 3.55 0.2 14.6 0.23 3.25 0.7 1+1 10 OS -1 0.78 0.24 14.6 0.19 3.25 0.6 11 OS -2 0.12 0.41 10.0 0.05 3.81 0.2 12 OS -3 0.36 0.07 10.3 0.02 3.77 0.1 13 OS -4 1.51 0.26 12.7 0.40 3.45 1.4 14 OS -5 1.17 0.24 13.3 0.29 3.39 1.0 15 OS -6 0.12 0.07 10.3 0.01 3.77 0.0 16 OS -7 0.10 0.07 10.3 0.01 3.77 0.0 17 OS -8 0.27 0.07 10.3 0.02 3.77 0.1 18 OS -9 0.72 0.07 10.3 0.05 3.77 0.2 WHOLE BASIN 13.88 0.40 14.6 5.56 3.25 18.1 .*Overall site estimate for check, not routed through storm drain USDCM Vol 1 - Section 6.0 Runoff Page 4 11101.01t, U I NTAII ENGtNEERtNu & LAND SURVEYING STANDARD FORM SF -3 100-YR RUNOFF - RATIONAL METHOD METHOD AS DETAILED IN URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL VOL. 1 (COLORADO) 100-Yr Rainfall Depth -Duration -Frequency (1 -hr) = in/hr 6/23/2022 Design Storm: 100 Year DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF REMARKS BASIN INFORMATION Design Point Drainage Basin Area (Ac) Runoff Coeff. T(c) (min) C x A I (in/hr) Q (cfs) T(c) Sum I Q (min) C x A (in/hr) (cfs) 1 A 0.92 0.73 10.0 0.67 7.44 5.0 20.0 0.73 5.41 4.0 A+2 2 B 0.43 0.88 10.0 0.38 7.44 2.8 20.2 1.11 5.37 6.0 A+B+2 3 C 1.10 0.83 10.4 0.92 7.33 6.7 21.4 4.86 5.21 25.3 A -F+2-8 4 D 1.37 0.77 11.9 1.05 6.93 7.3 22.2 1.13 5.12 5.8 D+3 5 E 0.43 0.80 11.5 0.34 7.03 2.4 24.7 1.47 4.82 7.1 E+4+5 6 F 0.10 0.66 10.0 0.07 7.44 0.5 25.0 2.69 4.79 12.9 D+E+F+3+4+5+6 7 G 0.10 0.66 10.0 0.07 7.44 0.5 25.1 2.78 4.78 13.3 D+E+F+G+3+4+5+6+7 8 H 3.79 0.72 11.0 2.71 7.17 19.4 9 I 0.49 0.23 11.9 0.11 6.92 0.8 14.6 0.44 6.33 2.8 1+1 10 OS -1 0.78 0.42 14.6 0.33 6.33 2.1 11 OS -2 0.12 0.49 10.0 0.06 7.44 0.4 12 OS -3 0.36 0.22 10.3 0.08 7.35 0.6 13 OS -4 1.51 0.43 12.7 0.64 6.73 4.3 14 OS -5 1.17 0.41 13.3 0.48 6.61 3.2 15 OS -6 0.12 0.22 10.3 0.03 7.35 0.2 16 OS -7 0.10 0.22 10.3 0.02 7.35 0.2 17 OS -8 0.27 0.22 10.3 0.06 7.36 0.4 18 OS -9 0.72 0.22 10.3 0.16 7.36 1.2 WHOLE BASIN 13.88 0.49 14.6 6.82 6.33 43.2 *Overall site estimate for check, not routed through storm drain USDCM Vol 1 - Section 6.0 Runoff Page 5 at a s S. aaa a a a a a a a a . ` — a a r a a.'a a A �� a a r a a a a I a _A a a A_ AL I 7 a ` a ..a . a a a .ate a lA a .a..>L_ A ..a_ ) a a a 1a a a s - `a. -a w as a aaa a a- a._ as a ca -z- -%aan — is a a- as v a:a ` a a s a Sam a s aaa as aaw as a s a aaa aaa — a a- a— a . -a . a a s - a a a a if . a a a a a w -aa a a a a a a s a a a a as a aaa a a a a a a a aaa a a a a a a a S - - aaaa as a a a a a a MS a a a a a a w- a s a a s a a a a a a a a/WV as a a a a a• a a A a a a a a - a a a a s S a a s a s as a ^'S a s a s a a a - _ _a..a s a A a a- a a A a a a s a s a a a a a a - a a a a a a a A a a a• a a a a a a a s a a =la a s 0 a^� a a s a a a a a a s r a a a s a v as as a a a a a a a a a a- as v a— -aim.as a a a a- a a -•� a s a s a a s a a -a aka a a a a a s a- al• a I a s s a aa s a s a a al a a a a as a a a a a a a a a a a a aI a. a a a a a a — — a/ a aa s A a_ a a s a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a - a a a a a- a a a a a \ s_a a a a a s a a a a a a a a a a a a S a a aka a a a� a s a — a a a a a — — a s SS a a a i s- a a a s a a a a a a a a a aka SW- as a ar a a v a a a a s a aaw V a a aka a a a a 7 8 4 3 6 2 Project File: 84 LUMBER 10-YR SD.stm Number of lines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 Storm Sewers v12.00 w al& at Ilia "mit•ff ■ ■ 1 f 1LJ•aa■ ■ ■ ■ s w a - r L'" au a r w a 1LlnA1L1■ sat MY � ■ ■ i • mosr r a w -rr S a r ■ ■ ■ IL/L t ■ 1 ■ t 11 S■ ■ ■ ■ V �■ ■ l lJ ■ M e A A • la r ra a sat ■�z_a■■r1W ■ KwIL S - v Page 1 Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) Junc Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line N Shape Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 End 1 2 3 4 2 6 4 60.000 46.000 260.000 60.000 120.000 162.000 112.000 70.000 164.602 29.993 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.085 -39.627 80.554 DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt 10.80 10.80 5.20 5.10 2.50 2.80 1.9 2.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4700.00 2,50 4701.50 4702.00 4703.80 4704.10 4702.00 4704.25 �.o 0.6 0.50 0.50 1.7 1.1 4704.10 0.57 4701.50 4702.00 4703.80 4704.10 4704.70 4704.25 4705.50 4704.50 30 30 24 24 15 18 18 18 Cir Cir Cir Cir Cir Cir Cir Cir 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.83 1.3 0.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4707.21 4707.49 4708.30 4707.75 4708.35 4709.18 4709.12 4708.30 Pipe -- (3 -POND) Pipe - (MH-3) Pipe - (4-MH) Pipe - (5-4) Pipe -- (7-5) Pipe - (2-MH) Pipe - (1-2) Pipe - (5-6) Project File: 84 LUMBER 10-YR SD.stm Number of lines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 Storm Sewers v12.00 f A. -It r �t a 1 r r ri �� it rink - seas :he IrTI irn re 11'J- vim■ vsw�v■■ v ■ nvrrv, es Page 1 Struct No. Structure ID Junction Type Rim Elev (ft) Structure Line Out Line In Shape Length (ft) Width (ft) Size (in) Shape Invert (ft) Size (in) Shape Invert (ft) 1 CB#3 DropGrate 4707.21 Rect 2.00 3.00 30 Cir 4701.50 30 Cir 4701.50 2 MH#1 DropGrate 4707.49 Rect 2.00 3.00 30 Cir 4702.00 24 Cir 4702.00 18 Cir 4702.00 3 CB#4 DropGrate 4708.30 Rect 2.00 3.00 24 Cir 4703.80 24 Cir 4703.80 4 CB#5 DropGrate 4707.75 Rect 2.00 3.00 24 Cir 4704.10 15 Cir 4704.10 18 Cir 4704.10 5 CB#7 DropGrate 4708.35 Rect 2.00 3.00 15 Cir 4704.70 6 CB#2 DropGrate 4709.18 Rect 2.00 3.00 18 Cir 4704.25 18 Cir 4704.25 7 CB#1 DropGrate 4709.12 Rect 2.00 3.00 18 Cir 4705.50 8 CB#6 DropGrate 4708.30 Rect 2.00 3.00 18 Cir 4704.50 Project File: 84 LUMBER 10-YR SD.stm Number of Structures: 8 Run Date: 6/23/2022 Storm Sewers v12.00 Al a r. mitt �■ E M W r r■ I w i M a n LR as w St at "milk LarwiaLar• rL� r i ION IC.■ N n s e t IL,'" off is Naha sada a ea mt "'EWE SWVtW WS Jr U/ IL)sa■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■aa ■ V a s e Ma run4 ic �r a1r__a r 'a r s r " ■ • a i W " i S Page 1 Line No. Line ID Flow rate (cfs) Line Size (in) Line shape Line length (ft) Invert EL (ft) Dn Invert EL (ft) Up Line Slope (%) HGL Down (ft) HGL Up (ft) Minor loss (ft) HGL Junct (ft) Dns Line No. Junction Type 1 Pipe - (3 -POND) 70.25 30 Cir 60.000 4700.00 4701.50 2.500 4702.05 4703.94 2.68 4703.94 End DropGrate 2 Pipe (MH-3) 46.32 30 Cir 46.000 4701.50 4702.00 1.087 4703.94 4704.25 n/a 4704.25 1 DropGrate 3 Pipe -- (4-MH) 20.39 24 Cir 260.000 4702.00 4703.80 0.692 4704.25* 4706.05* 0.33 4706.37 2 DropGrate 4 Pipe (5-4) 17.33 24 Cir 60.000 4703.80 4704.10 0.500 4706.37* 4706.67* 0.70 4707.38 3 DropGrate 5 Pipe (7-5) 4.95 15 Cir 120.000 4704.10 4704.70 0.500 4707.38* 4707.98* 0.25 4708.23 4 DropGrate 6 Pipe - (2-MH) 13.41 18 Cir 162.000 4702.00 4704.25 1.389 4704.25* 4706.50* 0.92 4707.42 2 DropGrate 7 Pipe - (1-2) 12.02 18 Cir 112.000 4704.25 4705.50 1.116 4707.42* 4708.67* 0.72 4709.39 6 DropGrate 8 Pipe - (5-6) 8.60 18 Cir 70.000 4704.10 4704.50 0.571 4707.38* 4707.77* 0.37 4708.14 4 DropGrate Prnia nt. Film: R4 I l 1MRFR 1 t1_YR Rn Qtm Number of lines: 8 Run Date: 6/23/2022 NOTESAIr1TCC'• l)a4t,.. .as -a.4 — 4(l)1 Yrs. . *0..Ma1�as-YA.4 /Li 'I A�ataa crown). : ES. :Return UCIIUU - 100 1 rs. SUILIIQIgeU ;1 IL3L- above LIUVVII). Storm Sewers v12.00 MyReport ' Page 1 Line No. Area Dn (sqft) Area Up (sqft) Byp Ln No Coeff C1 (C) Coeff C2 (C) Coeff CS (C) Capac Full (cfs) Grit Depth (ft) Cross SI, Sw (ft/ft) Cross SI, Sx (ft/ft) Curb Len (ft) Defl Ang (Deg) Depth Dn (ft) Depth Up (ft) DnStm Ln No Drng Area (ac) Fasting X (ft) EGL Dn (ft) EGL Up (ft) Energy Loss (ft) 1 4.31 4.88 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 70.25 2.44 0.020 0.020 .... 164.602 2.05 2.44** Outfall 0.00 2062518.61 4705.27 4707.17 0.000 2 4.65 4.65 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 46.32 2.25 0.020 0.020 .... 29.993 2.44 2.25** 1 0.00 2062474.09 4705.49 4705.79 0.000 3 3.14 3.14 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 20.39 1.62 0.020 0.020 .... 0.000 2.00 2.00 2 0.00 2062222.48 4704.90 4706.70 1.800 4 3.14 3.14 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 17.33 1.5 0.020 0.020 .... 0.000 2.00 2.00 3 0.00 2062164.42 4706.85 4707.15 0.300 5 1.2 1.2 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 4.95 0.9 0.020 0.020 .... 0.000 1.2 1.2 4 0.00 2062048.29 4707.63 4708.23 0.600 6 1.7 1.7 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 13.41 1.3 0.020 0.020 .... 65.085 1.5 1.5 2 0.00 2062445.07 4705.14 4707.39 2.251 7 1.77 1.77 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 12.02 1.31 0.020 0.020 .... -39.627 1.5 1.5 6 0.00 2062359.34 4708.14 4709.39 1.250 8 1.77 1.77 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 8.60 1.1 0.020 0.020 .... 80.554 1.5 1.5 4 0.00 2062170.70 4707.74 4708.14 0.400 PrniRrt run• R4 I I JMRPP 1 n -VP Rn Qtm Number of lines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 A1r1Tro. ** r..:i:...-.I .J.-.....41. C'....J......a $14-. .... 1:.,...:i,...,! •4.. x..11 $1..... :s:.... IVU 1 CO. Critical UCUL11 Syste 1 I IIUVVs limited IILCd LU full IIUVV t.OL)Ol.ILies. Storm Sewers MyReport Page 2 Flow Rate (cfs) Sf Ave (ft/ft) (ft/ft) Sf Dn Grate Area (sqft) Grate Len (ft) Grate Width (ft) Gnd/Rim El Dn (ft) Gnd/Rim El (ft) Up Gutter Depth (ft) Gutter Slope (ft/ft) Gutter Spread (ft) Gutter Width (ft) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) HGL Jnct (ft) HGL Jmp Dn (ft) HGL Jmp (ft) Up Incr CxA Incr (cfs) Q Inlet Depth (ft) Inlet Eff (%) 70.25 0.000 0.000 .... 1.0 1.0 4702.65 4707.21 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4702.05 4703.94 4703.94 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 46.32 0.000 0.000 .... 1.0 1.0 4707.21 4707.49 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4703.94 4704.25 4704.25 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 20.39 0.692 0.693 .... 1.0 1.0 4707.49 4708.30 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4704.25 4706.05 4706.37 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 17.33 0.501 0.501 .... 1.0 1.0 4708.30 4707.75 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4706.37 4706.67 4707.38 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4.95 0.500 0.500 .... 1.0 1.0 4707.75 4708.35 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4707.38 4707.98 4708.23 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 13.41 1.389 1.389 .... 1.0 1.0 4707.49 4709.18 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4704.25 4706.50 4707.42 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12.02 1.116 1.117 .... 1.0 1.0 4709.18 4709.12 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4707.42 4708.67 4709.39 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 8.60 0.571 0.572 .... 1.0 1.0 4707.75 4708.30 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4707.38 4707.77 4708.14 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PrniRrt run: R4 I I JMRPP 1 n_VP Rn Qtm Number of Tines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 AIr1T o. ** Critical .J. -....4L. G'....4a...a $I........ l;s,.:s....,1 �4a A.11 $L... :s:.... IVU 1 CO. t,I itILc2I UCULI I Syste 1 I IIUVVs limited IILCd LU Tull IIUVV t.OL)Ol.ILiC5. Storm Sewers M7I po t Page 3 Inlet ID Inlet Loc (ft) Inlet Time (min) i Sys (in/hr) i Inlet (in/hr) Invert Dn (ft) Invert Up (ft) Jump Loc (ft) Jump Len (ft) Vel Hd Jmp Dn (ft) Vel Hd Jmp Up (ft) J -Loss Coeff Junct Type Known O (cfs) Cost RCP Cost CMP Cost PVC Line ID CB#3 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4700.00 4701.50 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.83 z Dp-Grate 10.80 2,792 2,513 2,373 Pipe - (3 -POND) MH#1 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4701.50 4702.00 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.39 z Dp-Grate 10.80 2,328 2,095 1,979 Pipe - (MH-3) CB#4 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4702.00 4703.80 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.50 Dp-Grate 5.20 11,560 10,404 9,826 Pipe - (4-MH) CB#5 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4703.80 4704.10 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.4 Dp-Grate 5.10 2,540 2,286 2,159 Pipe - (5-4) CB#7 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4704.10 4704.70 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.0 Dp-Grate 2.50 3,700 3,330 3,145 Pipe - (7-5) CB#2 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4702.00 4704.25 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.0 Dp-Grate 2.80 6,600 5,940 5,610 Pipe - (2-MH) CB#1 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4704.25 4705.50 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.0 Dp-Grate 1.9 4,320 3,888 3,672 Pipe - (1-2) CB#6 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4704.10 4704.50 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.0 Dp-Grate 2.6 2,340 2,106 1,989 Pipe - (5-6) PrniRrt RP: R4 I I JMRPP 1n-VR Rn etm Y�YYR . Y Y.\.✓�. • Y \ Y✓.IL• Number of Tines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 t r1 • t� I.�\ T �� A I • 1247_16 t ♦� J 1 A A\ A A A A n. f ♦ A A \! .L.L A f I • A • r1 I• t • full 5 * • A / (inlet IVO 1 CJ. intensity - 12t _ 16 / (IIIIICt time- T 1 ! .CDLJJ .- 0.82 -- RCLuII1 period - 100 I rs. . **'Critical depth - 'System 1 Li vva limiter; to full IlUVV Ldua Mlles. NOT Storm Sewers MyRepo t Page 4 Line Length (ft) Line Size (in) Line Slope r/o) Type Line Local Depr (in) n-val Gutter n-val Pipe Minor Loss (ft) Northing (ft) Y Pipe Travel (min) Q Byp (cfs) Q Capt (cfs) Q Carry (cfs) Line Rise (in) Runoff Coeff (C) Line Span (in) Area Al (ac) Area A2 (ac) Area A3 (ac) Tc (min) Throat Ht (in) Total Area (ac) Total CxA 60.000 30 2.50 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 2.68 1982250.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 46.000 30 1.02 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 n/a 1982261.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 0.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 260.000 24 0.69 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.33 1982327.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 60.000 24 0.50 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.70 1982342.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 120.000 15 0.50 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.25 1982372.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 162.000 18 1.3 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.92 1982421.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 112.000 18 1.1 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.72 1982493.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 70.000 18 0.57 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.37 1982412.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 PrniRrtt RP: R4I I JMRPP 1n_VP Rn Qtm Number of Tines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 AIr1TrO. IVU ** r..:i.:...-.I .J. -....t4. • O. ...4.......". XL....... I: s...a:i,.-A •4.. x..11 XI..... :s:.... til ILILLI t7I UCUI OVbII I IIUVVs. III [limy LU Tull IIUVV t.OL)OL.ILIC5. I CO. Storm Sewers MyReport Page 5 Total Runoff (cfs) Vel Ave (ft/s) (ft/s) Vel Dn Vel Hd Dn (ft) Hd Vel (ft) Up (ft/s) Vel Up Cover Dn (ft) Cover Up (ft) Storage (cft) 0.00 15.35 16.31 3.22 3.22 14.40 0.15 3.21 277.69 0.00 9.73 9.49 1.54 1.54 9.97 3.21 2.99 219.62 0.00 6.49 6.49 0.65 0.65 6.49 3.49 2.50 816.65 0.00 5.52 5.52 0.47 0.47 5.52 2.50 1.6 188.46 0.00 4.03 4.03 0.25 0.25 4.03 2.40 2.4 147.23 0.00 7.59 7.59 0.90 0.89 7.59 3.99 3.43 286.22 0.00 6.80 6.80 0.72 0.72 6.80 3.43 2.12 197.88 0.00 4.87 4.87 0.37 0.37 4.87 2.15 2.30 123.68 PrniRrtt run: R4 I I JMRPP 1 n_VR Rn Qtm Number of Tines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 Alfl"Tr �. ** rM:i:-..-.I .J. -....t4. `'.f..4. .. .a I ...... 1:.,...:4....,1 �4a A.11 $L... :S:.... IVU i CO. Critical UCULI i OVbLC11 I IIUVVs limited IILCd LU full IIUVV t.dliOl.ILies. Storm Sewers at a- S. aaa — a a a a a a a . ` — a a r a a.'a a A �� a a r a a a a I a _A a a A_ aaa. I 7 a ` a ..a . a a a .ate a lA a .a..>L_ A ..a_ ) a a a 1a a a s - `a. -a w as a aaa a a- a._ as a ca -z- -%aan — is a a- as v a:a ` a a s a Sam a -a a aaa as aa- as a s a aaa aaa aroma a and a— a . a. a a s - a a a a if . a a a a a w -aa a a a a a a s a a a a as a aaa a a a a a a a aaa a a a a a a a S - - aaaa as a a a a a a MS a a a a a a w- a s a a s a a a a a a a a/WV as a a a a a• -t a A a a a a a - a a a a s S a a s a s a- a ^'S a s a s a a a 1- a s sa a aaa a a a- a a A a a a a s a s a a a a a a - a a a a a a a aaa a a a• a a a a a a a s a a =la a s 0 a^la• a a s a a a a a a s r a a a s a as as a a a a a s a a a a a a— as v a— a - a as a a— a a -•� a s a s a a s a a a a a a a s a— -a aka al• a I a a s as a s a s a W. al a a a a as a a a a a a a a a a a a aa. a a a a a a — a a— a/ a a a s A a_ a a s a a a a a a a a a a s a a a a a a- a a a a a- a a a a a \ a a s a a s a a V a a a a a a a a a a S a a aka a a ar a s a — a a a a a — — a s .S a a i s- a a a s a a a a a a a a a aka SW- as a ar a a v a a a a s a aaw V a a aka a a a a 7 8 4 3 6 2 Project File: 84 LUMBER 100-YR SD.stm Number of lines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 Storm Sewers v12.00 w al& at Ilia "mit•ff ■ ■ 1 f 1LJ•aa■ ■ ■ ■ s w a - r L'" au a r w a 1LlnA1L1■ sat MY � ■ ■ i • mosr r a w -rr S a r ■ ■ ■ IL/L t ■ 1 ■ t 11 S■ ■ ■ ■ V �■ ■ l lJ ■ M e A A • la r ra a sat ■�z_a■■r1W ■ KwIL S - v Page 1 Line No. Alignment Flow Data Physical Data Dnstr Line No. Line Length (ft) Defl angle (deg) Junc Type Known Q (cfs) Drng Area (ac) Runoff Coeff (C) Inlet Time (min) Invert El Dn (ft) Line Slope (%) Invert El Up (ft) Line Size (in) Line N Shape Value (n) J -Loss Coeff (K) Inlet/ Rim El (ft) Line ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 End 1 2 3 4 2 6 4 60.000 46.000 260.000 60.000 120.000 162.000 112.000 70.000 164.602 29.993 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.085 -39.627 80.554 DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt DrGrt 25.30 25.30 13.30 12.90 7.10 6.00 4.00 5.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4700.00 2,50 4701.50 4702.00 4703.80 4704.10 4702.00 4704.25 �.o 0.6 0.50 0.50 1.7 1.1 4704.10 0.57 4701.50 4702.00 4703.80 4704.10 4704.70 4704.25 4705.50 4704.50 30 30 24 24 15 18 18 18 Cir Cir Cir Cir Cir Cir Cir Cir 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.83 1.3 0.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4707.21 4707.49 4708.30 4707.75 4708.35 4709.18 4709.12 4708.30 Pipe -- (3 -POND) Pipe - (MH-3) Pipe - (4-MH) Pipe - (5-4) Pipe -- (7-5) Pipe - (2-MH) Pipe - (1-2) Pipe - (5-6) Project File: 84 LUMBER 100-YR SD.stm Number of lines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 Storm Sewers v12.00 f A. -It r �t a 1 r r ri �� it rink - seas :he IrTI irn re 11'J- vim■ vsw�v■■ v ■ nvrrv, es Page 1 Struct No. Structure ID Junction Type Rim Elev (ft) Structure Line Out Line In Shape Length (ft) Width (ft) Size (in) Shape Invert (ft) Size (in) Shape Invert (ft) 1 CB#3 DropGrate 4707.21 Rect 2.00 3.00 30 Cir 4701.50 30 Cir 4701.50 2 MH#1 DropGrate 4707.49 Rect 2.00 3.00 30 Cir 4702.00 24 Cir 4702.00 18 Cir 4702.00 3 CB#4 DropGrate 4708.30 Rect 2.00 3.00 24 Cir 4703.80 24 Cir 4703.80 4 CB#5 DropGrate 4707.75 Rect 2.00 3.00 24 Cir 4704.10 15 Cir 4704.10 18 Cir 4704.10 5 CB#7 DropGrate 4708.35 Rect 2.00 3.00 15 Cir 4704.70 6 CB#2 DropGrate 4709.18 Rect 2.00 3.00 18 Cir 4704.25 18 Cir 4704.25 7 CB#1 DropGrate 4709.12 Rect 2.00 3.00 18 Cir 4705.50 8 CB#6 DropGrate 4708.30 Rect 2.00 3.00 18 Cir 4704.50 Project File: 84 LUMBER 100-YR SD.stm Number of Structures: 8 Run Date: 6/23/2022 Storm Sewers v12.00 Al a r. mitt �■ E M W r r■ I w i M a n LR as w St at "milk LarwiaLar• rL� r i ION IC.■ N n s e t IL,'" off is Naha sada a ea mt "'EWE SWVtW WS Jr U/ IL)sa■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■aa ■ V a s e Ma run4 ic �r a1r__a r 'a r s r " ■ • a i W " i S Page 1 Line No. Line ID Flow rate (cfs) Line Size (in) Line shape Line length (ft) Invert EL (ft) Dn Invert EL (ft) Up Line Slope (%) HGL Down (ft) HGL Up (ft) Minor loss (ft) HGL Junct (ft) Dns Line No. Junction Type 1 Pipe - (3 -POND) 70.25 30 Cir 60.000 4700.00 4701.50 2.500 4702.05 4703.94 2.68 4703.94 End DropGrate 2 Pipe (MH-3) 46.32 30 Cir 46.000 4701.50 4702.00 1.087 4703.94 4704.25 n/a 4704.25 1 DropGrate 3 Pipe -- (4-MH) 20.39 24 Cir 260.000 4702.00 4703.80 0.692 4704.25* 4706.05* 0.33 4706.37 2 DropGrate 4 Pipe (5-4) 17.33 24 Cir 60.000 4703.80 4704.10 0.500 4706.37* 4706.67* 0.70 4707.38 3 DropGrate 5 Pipe (7-5) 4.95 15 Cir 120.000 4704.10 4704.70 0.500 4707.38* 4707.98* 0.25 4708.23 4 DropGrate 6 Pipe - (2-MH) 13.41 18 Cir 162.000 4702.00 4704.25 1.389 4704.25* 4706.50* 0.92 4707.42 2 DropGrate 7 Pipe - (1-2) 12.02 18 Cir 112.000 4704.25 4705.50 1.116 4707.42* 4708.67* 0.72 4709.39 6 DropGrate 8 Pipe - (5-6) 8.60 18 Cir 70.000 4704.10 4704.50 0.571 4707.38* 4707.77* 0.37 4708.14 4 DropGrate Prnia nt Film: R4 I l 1MRFR 1 nn_YR Sn ctm Number of lines: 8 Run Date: 6/23/2022 NOTESAIr1TCC'• l)a4t,.. Mas-a.4 — 4(l)1 Yrs. . *0..Ma1�as-YA.4 /Li 'I A�ataa crown). : ES. :Return UCIIUU - 100 1 rs. SUILIIQIgeU ;1 Ia above LIUVVII). Storm Sewers v12.00 MyReport ' Page 1 Line No. Area Dn (sqft) Area Up (sqft) Byp Ln No Coeff C1 (C) Coeff C2 (C) Coeff CS (C) Capac Full (cfs) Grit Depth (ft) Cross SI, Sw (ft/ft) Cross SI, Sx (ft/ft) Curb Len (ft) Defl Ang (Deg) Depth Dn (ft) Depth Up (ft) DnStm Ln No Drng Area (ac) Fasting X (ft) EGL Dn (ft) EGL Up (ft) Energy Loss (ft) 1 4.31 4.88 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 70.25 2.44 0.020 0.020 .... 164.602 2.05 2.44** Outfall 0.00 2062518.61 4705.27 4707.17 0.000 2 4.65 4.65 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 46.32 2.25 0.020 0.020 .... 29.993 2.44 2.25** 1 0.00 2062474.09 4705.49 4705.79 0.000 3 3.14 3.14 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 20.39 1.62 0.020 0.020 .... 0.000 2.00 2.00 2 0.00 2062222.48 4704.90 4706.70 1.800 4 3.14 3.14 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 17.33 1.5 0.020 0.020 .... 0.000 2.00 2.00 3 0.00 2062164.42 4706.85 4707.15 0.300 5 1.2 1.2 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 4.95 0.9 0.020 0.020 .... 0.000 1.2 1.2 4 0.00 2062048.29 4707.63 4708.23 0.600 6 1.7 1.7 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 13.41 1.3 0.020 0.020 .... 65.085 1.5 1.5 2 0.00 2062445.07 4705.14 4707.39 2.251 7 1.77 1.77 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 12.02 1.31 0.020 0.020 .... -39.627 1.5 1.5 6 0.00 2062359.34 4708.14 4709.39 1.250 8 1.77 1.77 Offsite 0.20 0.50 0.90 8.60 1.1 0.020 0.020 .... 80.554 1.5 1.5 4 0.00 2062170.70 4707.74 4708.14 0.400 PrniRrt Filn• R4 I I JMRPR Y�YYR . Y M.t.✓�. 1 nn_YR sn etm • V Y • s v . 4. Number of lines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 Alf-VT=O. ** r..:i.:...-.I .J. -.....t4. • Ct....4...... XL....... 1:.,...:i,...,! •4.. x..11 XL.... :s:.... IVU I CO. til ILILt7I UCULI I OVbLCII I IIUVVs. III IIILCy LU Iull IIUVV t.OL)OL.ILIC5. Storm Sewers MyReport Page 2 Flow Rate (cfs) Sf Ave (ft/ft) (ft/ft) Sf Dn Grate Area (sqft) Grate Len (ft) Grate Width (ft) Gnd/Rim El Dn (ft) Gnd/Rim El (ft) Up Gutter Depth (ft) Gutter Slope (ft/ft) Gutter Spread (ft) Gutter Width (ft) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) HGL Jnct (ft) HGL Jmp Dn (ft) HGL Jmp (ft) Up Incr CxA Incr (cfs) Q Inlet Depth (ft) Inlet Eff (%) 70.25 0.000 0.000 .... 1.0 1.0 4702.65 4707.21 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4702.05 4703.94 4703.94 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 46.32 0.000 0.000 .... 1.0 1.0 4707.21 4707.49 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4703.94 4704.25 4704.25 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 20.39 0.692 0.693 .... 1.0 1.0 4707.49 4708.30 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4704.25 4706.05 4706.37 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 17.33 0.501 0.501 .... 1.0 1.0 4708.30 4707.75 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4706.37 4706.67 4707.38 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4.95 0.500 0.500 .... 1.0 1.0 4707.75 4708.35 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4707.38 4707.98 4708.23 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 13.41 1.389 1.389 .... 1.0 1.0 4707.49 4709.18 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4704.25 4706.50 4707.42 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 12.02 1.116 1.117 .... 1.0 1.0 4709.18 4709.12 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4707.42 4708.67 4709.39 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 8.60 0.571 0.572 .... 1.0 1.0 4707.75 4708.30 0.00 0.000 0.00 2.00 4707.38 4707.77 4708.14 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PrniRrt RP: R4 I Y�YYR . Y I JMRPP 1nn_YR sn etm M.t.✓��• • V Y • V v. V. Number of Tines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 AIr1T o. ** Critical .J. -....4L. G'....4a...a $I........ l;s,.:s....,1 �4a A.11 $L... :s:.... IVU 1 CO. t,I itILc2I UCULI I System I IIUVVs limited IILCd LU Tull IIUVV t.dliOl.ILiC5. Storm Sewers M7I po t Page 3 Inlet ID Inlet Loc (ft) Inlet Time (min) i Sys (in/hr) i Inlet (in/hr) Invert Dn (ft) Invert Up (ft) Jump Loc (ft) Jump Len (ft) Vel Hd Jmp Dn (ft) Vel Hd Jmp Up (ft) J -Loss Coeff Junct Type Known O (cfs) Cost RCP Cost CMP Cost PVC Line ID CB#3 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4700.00 4701.50 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.83 z Dp-Grate 25.30 2,792 2,513 2,373 Pipe - (3 -POND) MH#1 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4701.50 4702.00 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.39 z Dp-Grate 25.30 2,328 2,095 1,979 Pipe - (MH-3) CB#4 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4702.00 4703.80 .... .... 0.00 0.00 0.50 Dp-Grate 13.30 11,560 10,404 9,826 Pipe - (4-MH) CB#5 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4703.80 4704.10 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.4 Dp-Grate 12.90 2,540 2,286 2,159 Pipe - (5-4) CB#7 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4704.10 4704.70 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.0 Dp-Grate 7.10 3,700 3,330 3,145 Pipe - (7-5) CB#2 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4702.00 4704.25 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.0 Dp-Grate 6.00 6,600 5,940 5,610 Pipe - (2-MH) CB#1 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4704.25 4705.50 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.0 Dp-Grate 4.00 4,320 3,888 3,672 Pipe - (1-2) CB#6 On Grade 0.0 0.00 0.00 4704.10 4704.50 .... .... 0.00 0.00 1.0 Dp-Grate 5.80 2,340 2,106 1,989 Pipe - (5-6) PrniRrt RP: R4 I I JMRPP 1nn_YR sn etm Number of Tines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 t r1 • t� t ♦� J 1 A A\ A A A A n. f ♦ A A \! .L.L A f I • A • r1 I• t • full 5 * • A / (inlet NOTES: I • 127_16 intensity - 127 _ 16 / (IIIIICt time- T 1 ! .80) .- 0.82 -- Re -turn period - 100 I Is. . ** 'Critical depth - 'System 1 LIOVVa limited to full IlUVV Ldua Mlles. Storm Sewers MyRepo t Page 4 Line Length (ft) Line Size (in) Line Slope r/o) Type Line Local Depr (in) n-val Gutter n-val Pipe Minor Loss (ft) Northing (ft) Y Pipe Travel (min) Q Byp (cfs) Q Capt (cfs) Q Carry (cfs) Line Rise (in) Runoff Coeff (C) Line Span (in) Area Al (ac) Area A2 (ac) Area A3 (ac) Tc (min) Throat Ht (in) Total Area (ac) Total CxA 60.000 30 2.50 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 2.68 1982250.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 46.000 30 1.02 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 n/a 1982261.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 0.00 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 260.000 24 0.69 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.33 1982327.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 60.000 24 0.50 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.70 1982342.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 120.000 15 0.50 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.25 1982372.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 162.000 18 1.3 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.92 1982421.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 112.000 18 1.1 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.72 1982493.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 70.000 18 0.57 Cir .... 0.013 0.012 0.37 1982412.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.00 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 .... 0.00 0.00 PrniRrt RP: R4 I I JMRPP Y�YYR . Y M.t.✓�. 1nn_YR sn etm • V Y • s v . 4. Number of Tines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 :...-. I depth C'....J......a flows limited •4.. x..11 $1 :s:.... A 1 r1Tr o . ** Critical IVU 1 CO. til itILt7I UCUL11 Syste 1 I IIUVVs 111 I IILCd LU Tull IIUVV t.OL)Ol.ILiC5. Storm Sewers MyReport Page 5 Total Runoff (cfs) Vel Ave (ft/s) (ft/s) Vel Dn Vel Hd Dn (ft) Hd Vel (ft) Up (ft/s) Vel Up Cover Dn (ft) Cover Up (ft) Storage (cft) 0.00 15.35 16.31 3.22 3.22 14.40 0.15 3.21 277.69 0.00 9.73 9.49 1.54 1.54 9.97 3.21 2.99 219.62 0.00 6.49 6.49 0.65 0.65 6.49 3.49 2.50 816.65 0.00 5.52 5.52 0.47 0.47 5.52 2.50 1.6 188.46 0.00 4.03 4.03 0.25 0.25 4.03 2.40 2.4 147.23 0.00 7.59 7.59 0.90 0.89 7.59 3.99 3.43 286.22 0.00 6.80 6.80 0.72 0.72 6.80 3.43 2.12 197.88 0.00 4.87 4.87 0.37 0.37 4.87 2.15 2.30 123.68 PrniRrt RP: R4 Y�YR . Y I I JMRPP M •••✓�• 1nn_YR sn etm • V Y ♦ V v• V• Number of Tines: 8 Date: 6/23/2022 Alfl"Tr �. ** rM:i:-..-.I .J. -....t4. `'.f..4. .. .a I ...... 1:.,...:4....,1 �4a A.11 $L... :S:.... IVU i CO. Critical UCULI i OVbLC11 I IIUVVs limited IILCd LU full IIUVV t.dliOl.ILies. Storm Sewers Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. 10-YR EXISTING DITCH Triangular Side Slopes (z:1) Total Depth (ft) Invert Elev (ft) Slope C/o) N -Value Calculations Compute by: Known Q (cfs) Elev (ft) 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 3.00, 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.020 Known Q = 0.70 Section Highlighted Depth (ft) Q (cfs) Area (sqft) Velocity (ft/s) Wetted Perim (ft) Crit Depth, Yc (ft) Top Width (ft) EGL (ft) Thursday, Jun 23 2022 0.38 0.700 0.43 1.62 2.40 0.33 2.28 0.42 N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Depth (ft) 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 Reach (ft) Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. 100-YR EXISTING DITCH Triangular Side Slopes (z:1) Total Depth (ft) Invert Elev (ft) Slope C/o) N -Value Calculations Compute by: Known Q (cfs) Elev (ft) 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 3.00, 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.020 Known Q = 2.80 Section Highlighted Depth (ft) Q (cfs) Area (sqft) Velocity (ft/s) Wetted Perim (ft) Crit Depth, Yc (ft) Top Width (ft) EGL (ft) Thursday, Jun 23 2022 0.64 2.800 1.23 2.28 4.05 0.56 3.84 0.72 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Depth (ft) 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 Reach (ft) Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 10-YR Invert Elev Dn (ft) P ipe Length (ft) S lope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) S hape S pan (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Elea (ft) 47Ci8.DC. 4703.32 55.00 2.40 4704.64 24.0 Circular 24.0 1 0.010 Circular Concrete Groove end w/headwall (C) 0.0018, 2, 0.0292, 0.74, 0.2 4707.50 25.00 20.00 EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 10-YR Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc Dn (ft/s) Veloc Up (ft/s) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime Thursday, Jun 23 2022 0.70 0.70 (dc+D)I2 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.38 2.53 4704.46 4704.93 4705.00 0.18 Inlet Control Hw Depth (ft) 4707.00 — 4706.00 4705. 4704.00 4703.00 4702.00 Inlet control 1: f_:IIOL,Iar _ I-. =rt HGL L\v Em ban Ic• 40 4.5 50 R Reach (ft' 135 -.1 64 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 100-YR Invert Elev Dn (ft) P ipe Length (ft) S lope (%) Invert Elev Up (ft) Rise (in) S hape S pan (in) No. Barrels n -Value Culvert Type Culvert Entrance Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k Embankment Top Elevation (ft) Top Width (ft) Crest Width (ft) Elea (ft) 47Cia. DC. 4707.00 4706.00 4705. 4704.00 4703.00 4702.00 4703.32 55.00 2.40 4704.64 24.0 Circular 24.0 1 0.010 Circular Concrete Groove end w/headwall (C) 0.0018, 2, 0.0292, 0.74, 0.2 4707.50 25.00 20.00 EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM 10O-YR Calculations Qmin (cfs) Qmax (cfs) Tailwater Elev (ft) Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) Qpipe (cfs) Qovertop (cfs) Veloc Dn (ft/s) Veloc Up (ft/s) HGL Dn (ft) HGL Up (ft) Hw Elev (ft) Hw/D (ft) Flow Regime Thursday, Jun 23 2022 2.80 2.80 (dc+D)I2 2.80 2.80 0.00 1.31 3.68 4704.61 4705.22 4705.41 0.39 Inlet Control Hw Depth (ft) — h .rry .L -control !RIM I :IIOL,Iar I-. =ft HGL Embark r R Fe- _arh't, 138 L36 -.1 4 /Mk U I NTAI-I I rJr I'.11 i 1-1.11.4," • S I .>h41 ! ..t 1pJ I 'r It!: 6/23/2022 Project Name: Outlet Channel Side Slope: Riprap Sizing Channel Lining - Mild Slope Conditions (Sec. 8.1.1) - USDCM Vol. 1 840 LUMBER 0.5 :1 Location Hydraulic Structure Outlet Event (yr) Channel Q (cfs) User Inputs Details Depth (ft) V (ft/s) S (ft/ft) d50 Calc (ft) Rip Rap d50 Design Size (in) Sizing* RipRap Designation RipRap Depth Yn (in) Off -Site Ditch -1 1:0 2.8 2.5 2.8 0.0094 0.0464 12 Type M 24 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 0.0000 0.0000 6 *Only applicable for channel or outlet slopes of 2% or less. If channel or outlet slopes exceed 2% use a method for sizing riprap for steep slopes 1 -Apron Calculations assume rip rap is placed on side slopes to the height of the culvert. RipRap Equation for Mild Slope Conditions: d y - [4.5Gs 0°56 'Where: V = mean channel velocity (ft/sec) S = longitudinal channel slope (ft/ft) d,l0 = mean rock size (ft) Equation S-11 Gs = specific gravity of stone (minimum = 2.50, typically 2.5 to 21). Note: In this equation (Os -1) considers the buoyancy of the water, in that the specific gravity of water is subtracted from the specific gravity of the rock. RipRap Gradation (Figure 8-34 USDCM Vol. 1) CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP o SMALLER THAN INTERMEDIATE ROCK cisrt RIPRAP GIVEN SIZE DIMENSION DESIGNATION BY WEIGHT (INCHES) (INCHES) TYPE VL 70-100 12 50-70 9 35-50 6 8" 2-10 2 TYPE L 70-100 15 50-70 12 35-50 9 9*• 2-10 3 TYPE M 7O-1OO 21 50-70 18 35-50 12 12.4 2-10 4 TYPE H 100 30 5O -7O 24 35-50 18 18 2-1O 6 I TYPE VH 100 42 50-70 33 35-5O 24 24 2-10 9 • d5° = MEAN PARTICLE SIZE (INTERMEDIATE DIMENSION) BY WEIGHT •• MIX VL, L AND M RIPRAP AND OTHER RIPRAP SIZES AS NOTED ON PLANS WITH 3O% (BY VOLUME) TOPSOIL AND BURY IT WITH 6+ INCHES OF TOPSOIL. ALL VIBRATION COMPACTED AND REVEGETATE. (TABLE MD -7: CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP. UDFCD, DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL. VOL. 1) USDCM Vol 1 - Section 8 -Open Channels/Section 9 -Hydraulic Structures Page 1 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report APPENDIX G - DETENTION POND CALCULATIONS November 18, 2021 54 ,t UIN"TAH I Iii.—�e.,ll f t ills —..S :Fr C'� '.i. �i�' I "^'!1, Weld Comity Engineering & Construction Criteria Table 5-3 Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Vahtes UDFCD Vol. 1- Table 6-3 Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Values % Impervious WEIGHTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS Undeveloped Areas Historic Flow Analysis Greenbelts, Agricultural 2% 2% Streets Off -site flow analysis (Land Use Not Defined) Paved Gravel Recycled Asphalts Developed Areas Concrete Driveways 45% 100% 40% 75% 90% Sidewalks Roofs 90% 90% MISC. Single - Family Res. 0.75-2.5 Acres 20% Parks Pond Area Berms/ Cut/Fill Slopes/ Landscaping 10% 100% 2% 6/21/2022 Basin Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) _ Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Area (Ac) Total Area (Ac) Percent Imperv. 2.00% HISTORICAL SITE 8.73 8.73 DETENTION POND 5.03 0.37 0.12 0.81 1.01 1.39 8.73 82.91% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% Total: 8.73 USDCM Vol 1 - Section 6.0 Runoff Page 1 DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA METHOD Project: 84 LUMBER Basin ID: RETENTION POND (For catchments less than 160 acres only. For larger catchments, use hydrograph routing method) (NOTE: for catchments larger than 90 acres, CUHP hydrograph and routing are recommended) Determination of MINOR Detention Volume Using Modified FAA Method Determination of MAJOR Detention Volume Using Modified FAA Method Design Information (Input): la = A = Type = T = Tc = q = P1 = C1 = C2 = C3 = percent acres A, B, C, or D years (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100) minutes cfs/acre inches Design Information (Input): la = A = 68.11 percent acres A, B, C, or D years (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100) minutes cfs/acre inches Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Catchment Drainage Area Predevelopment NRCS Soil Group Return Period for Detention Control Time of Concentration of Watershed Allowable Unit Release Rate One -hour Precipitation Design Rainfall IDF Formula i = C1* P1/(C2+TJ^C3 Coefficient One Coefficient Two Coefficient Three 68.11 Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Catchment Drainage Area Predevelopment NRCS Soil Group Return Period for Detention Control Time of Concentration of Watershed Allowable Unit Release Rate One -hour Precipitation Design Rainfall IDF Formula i = Ci* Pi/(C2+Ta"C3 Coefficient One Coefficient Two Coefficient Three 10.980 10.980 A Type = T = Tc = q = P1 = C1 = C2 = A 10 100 26 26 0.00 0.00 1.41 2.75 28.50 28.50 10 10 0.789 C3 = 0.789 Determination of Average Outflow from the Basin (Calculated): cfs cfs cubic feet acre -ft 5 -Minutes) Determination of Average Outflow from the Basin (Calculated): cfs cfs cubic feet acre -ft Runoff Coefficient Inflow Peak Runoff Allowable Peak Outflow Rate Mod. FAA Minor Storage Mod. FAA Minor Storage <- Enter Rainfall Duration Incremental C = Qp-in = 0.47 Runoff Coefficient Inflow Peak Runoff Allowable Peak Outflow Rate Mod. FAA Major Storage Mod. FAA Major Storage C = 0.55 12.27 Qp-in = Qp-out = 28.00 Qp-out = Volume = 0.00 0.00 57,406 Volume = Volume = 131,020 Volume = Increase Value 1.318 3.008 24 Here (e.g. 5 for Rainfall Duration minutes (input.) Rainfall Intensity inches / hr (output) Inflow Volume acre-feet (output) Adjustment Factor "m" (output) Average Outflow cfs (output) Outflow Volume acre-feet (output) Storage Volume acre-feet (output) Rainfall Duration minutes (input) Rainfall Intensity inches / hr (output) Inflow Volume acre-feet (output) Adjustment Factor "m" (output) Average Outflow cfs (output) Outflow Volume acre-feet (output) Storage Volume acre-feet (output) 0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 24 2.49 0.424 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.424 24 4.85 0.968 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.968 48 1.63 0.557 0.77 0.00 0.000 0.557 48 3.18 1.271 0.77 0.00 0.000 1.271 72 1.24 0.636 0.68 0.00 0.000 0.636 72 2.42 1.451 0.68 0.00 0.000 1.451 96 1.01 0.692 0.64 0.00 0.000 0.692 96 1.98 1.579 0.64 0.00 0.000 1.579 120 0.86 0.736 0.61 0.00 0.000 0.736 120 1.68 1.681 0.61 0.00 0.000 1.681 144 0.76 0.773 0.59 0.00 0.000 0.773 144 1.47 1.764 0.59 0.00 0.000 1.764 168 0.67 0.805 0.58 0.00 0.000 0.805 168 1.31 1.836 0.58 0.00 0.000 1.836 192 0.61 0.832 0.57 0.00 0.000 0.832 192 1.19 1.899 0.57 0.00 0.000 1.899 216 0.56 0.857 0.56 0.00 0.000 0.857 216 1.09 1.956 0.56 0.00 0.000 1.956 240 0.52 0.879 0.55 0.00 0.000 0.879 240 1.01 2.007 0.55 0.00 0.000 2.007 264 0.48 0.900 0.55 0.00 0.000 0.900 264 0.93 2.053 0.55 0.00 0.000 2.053 288 0.45 0218 0.55 0.00 0.000 0218 288 0.88 2.096 0.55 0.00 0.000 2.096 312 0.42 0.936 0.54 0.00 0.000 0.936 312 0.82 2.136 0.54 0.00 0.000 2.136 336 0.40 0.952 0.54 0.00 0.000 0.952 336 0.78 2.174 0.54 0.00 0.000 2.174 360 0.38 0.968 0.54 0.00 0.000 0.968 360 0.74 2.209 0.54 0.00 0.000 2.209 384 0.36 0.982 0.53 0.00 0.000 0.982 384 0.70 2.242 0.53 0.00 0.000 2.242 408 0.34 0.996 0.53 0.00 0.000 0.996 408 0.67 2.274 0.53 0.00 0.000 2.274 432 0.33 1.009 0.53 0.00 0.000 1.009 432. 0.64 2.304 0.53 0.00 0.000 2.304 456 0.32 1.022 .0.53 0.00 0.000 1.022 456 0.61 2.332 0.53 0.00 0.000 2.332 480 0.30 1.034 0.53 0.00 0.000 1.034 480 0.59 2.360 0.53 0.00 0.000 2.360 504 0.29 1.045 0.53 0.00 0.000 1.045 504 0.57 2.386 0.53 0.00 0.000 2.386 528 0.28 1.057 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.057 528 0.55 2411 0.52 0.00 0.000 2411 552 0.27 1.067 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.067 552 0.53 2.436 0.52 .0.00 0.000 2436 576 0.26 1.077 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.077 576 0.51 2.459 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.459 600 0.25 1.087 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.087 600 0.50 2.482 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.482 624 0.25 1.097 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.097 624 0.48 2.503 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.503 648 0.24 1.106 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.106 648 0.47 2.525 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.525 672 0.23 1.115 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.115 672 0.46 2.545 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.545 696 0.23 1.124 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.124 696 0.44 2.565 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.565 720 0.22 1.132 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.132 720 043 2.585 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.585 744 0.22 1.141 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.141 744 0.42 2.603 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.603 768 0.21 1.149 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.149 768 0.41 2.622 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.622 792 0.21 1.157 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.157 792 0.40 2.640 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.640 816 0.20 1.164 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.164 816 0.39 2.657 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.657 840 0.20 1.172 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.172 840 0.38 2.674 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.674 864 0.19 1.179 0.52 0.00 0.000 1.179 864 0.37 2.691 0.52 0.00 0.000 2.691 888 0.19 1.186 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.186 888 0.37 2.707 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.707 912 0.18 1.193 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.193 912 0.36 2.723 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.723 936 0.18 1.200 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.200 936 0.35 2.738 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.738 960 0.18 1.207 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.207 960 0.34 2.754 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.754 984 0.17 1.213 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.213 984 0.34 2.769 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.769 1008 0.17 1.219 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.219 1008 0.33 2.783 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.783 1032 0.17 1.226 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.226 1032 0.33 2.798 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.798 1056 0.16 1.232 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.232 1056 0.32 2.812 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.812 1080 0.16 1.238 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.238 1080 0.31 2.826 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.826 1104 0.16 1.244 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.244 1104 0.31 2.839 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.839 1128 0.16 1.250 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.250 1128 0.30 2.852 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.852 1152 0.15 1.256 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.256 1152 0.30 2.866 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.866 1176 0.15 1.261 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.261 1176 0.29 2.878 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.878 1200 0.15 1.267 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.267 1200 0.29 2.891 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.891 1224 0.15 1.272 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.272 1224 0.29 2.904 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.904 1248 0.14 1.278 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.278 1248 0.28 2.916 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.916 1272 0.14 1.283 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.283 1272 0.28 2.928 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.928 1296 0.14 1.288 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.288 1296 0.27 2.940 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.940 1320 0.14 1.293 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.293 1320 0.27 2.952 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.952 1344 0.14 1.298 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.298 1344 0.27 2.963 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.963 1368 0.13 1.303 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.303 1368 0.26 2.975 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.975 1392 0.13 1.308 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.308 1392 0.26 2.986 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.986 1416 0.13 1.313 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.313 1416 0.25 2.997 0.51 0.00 0.000 2.997 1440 0.13 1.318 0.51 0.00 0.000 1.318 1440 0.25 3.008 0.51 0.00 0.000 3.008 Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (cubic ft.) = 57,406 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (cubic ft.) = Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (acre -ft.) = 1.3179 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (acre ft.) = UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.35, Released January 2015 131,020 3.0078 UD-Detention v2.35 POST, Modified FAA 6/21/2022, 4:31 PM DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA METHOD Project: 84 LUMBER Basin ID: RETENTION POND I. UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.35, Released January 2015 UD-Detention v2.35 POST, Modified FAA 6/21/2022, 4:31 PM STAGE -STORAGE SIZING FOR DETENTION BASINS Project: HIGHPOINT CRITTER CREEK 18 SWSE Basin ID: DRILL PHASE Dam A V Design Information (Input): Width of Basin Bottom, W = Length of Basin Bottom, L = Dam Side -slope (H:V), Zd = Stage -Storage Relationship: Dant Side Slope Z 100.00 400.00 3.00 ft ft ft/ft L teere,nomr Side Slope Z Righ Isosceles Circl Dam Side Slope z Check Basin Shape t Triangle Triangle Zectangle e / Ellipse Irregular X Storage Requirement from Sheet 'Modified FAA': Storage Requirement from Sheet 'Hydrograph': Storage Requirement from Sheet 'Full -Spectrum': MINOR Side Slope L OR... OR... OR... OR... (Use Overide values in cells G32:G52) MAJOR 1.32 3.01 acre -ft. acre -ft. acre -ft. Labels Dr WQCV, Mino & Major Storage Stages (input) Water Surface Elevation ft (input) 4698.00 Side Slope (H:V) ft/ft Below El. (input) Basin Width at Stage ft (output) Basin Length at Stage ft (output) Surface Area at Stage ft2 (output) Surface Area at Stage ft2 User Overide 30,331 Volume Below Stage ft3 (output) Surface Area at Stage acres (output) 0.696 Volume Below Stage acre -ft (output) 0.000 Target Volumes Dr WQCV, Mina & Major Storage Volumes (for goal seek) 4698.25 0.00 0.00 31,835 7,771 0.731 0.178 4698.50 0.00 0.00 32,554 15,819 0.747 0.363 4698.75 0.00 0.00 33,276 24,048 0.764 0.552 4699.00 4699.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,003 35,417 32,458 41,136 0.781 0.813 0.745 0.944 4699.50 0.00 0.00 36,161 50,083 0.830 1.150 4699.75 0.00 0.00 36,909 59,217 0.847 1.359 4700.00 0.00 0.00 37,662 68,538 0.865 1.573 4700.25 0.00 0.00 39,118 78,135 0.898 1.794 4700.50 0.00 0.00 40,661 88,108 0.933 2.023 4700.75 0.00 0.00 41,439 98,370 0.951 2.258 4701.00 0.00 0.00 42,882 108,910 0.984 2.500 4701.25 0.00 0.00 43,677 119,730 1.003 2.749 4701.50 0.00 0.00 44,476 130,749 1.021 3.002 4701.75 0.00 0.00 45,279 141,968 1.039 3.259 4702.00 0.00 0.00 52,104 154,141 1.196 3.539 4702.25 0.00 0.00 52,985 167,277 1.216 3.840 4702.50 0.00 0.00 53,871 180,634 1.237 4.147 4702.75 0.00 0.00 54,760 194,213 1.257 4.459 SPILLWAY 4703.00 0.00 0.00 55,893 208,045 1.283 4.776 1.5 x 4703.25 0.00 0.00 56,912 222,145 1.307 5.100 100-YR WSL 4703.50 0.00 0.00 57,936 236,501 1.330 5.429 4703.75 0.00 0.00 58,965 251,114 1.354 5.765 CREST 4704.00 0.00 0.00 59,999 265,984 1.377 6.106 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A UD-Detention_v2.35_POST, POST, Basin 6/21/2022, 4:31 PM STAGE -STORAGE SIZING FOR DETENTION BASINS Project: Basin ID: I. r ij CD CD U) 4705.00 4704.00 4703.00 4702.00 4701.00 4700.00 4699.00 STAGE -STORAGE CURVE FOR THE POND 4698.00 _ 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Storage (acre-feet) 1 I UD-Detention_v2.35_POST, POST, Basin 6/21/2022, 4:31 PM Project: 84 LUMBER Basin ID: RETENTION POND Design Information (input): Bottom Length of Weir Angle of Side Slope Weir Elev. for Weir Crest Coef. for Rectangular Weir Coef. for Trapezoidal Weir Calculation of Spillway Capacity (output): L= Angle = EL. Crest = CW = Ct = 35.00 68.20 4,703.00 3.00 3.00 Surface Elevation (linked) Water ft. Flowrate (output) Rect. Weir cfs Triangle Flowrate (output) Weir cfs Spillway Release (output) Total cfs Release (output) Total Pond cfs 4698.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 4698.25 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 4698.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 4698.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4699.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 4699.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4699.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 4699.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4700.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 4700.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4700.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 4700.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4701.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4701.25 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4701.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4701.75 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4702.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 4702.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4702.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 4702.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4703.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 4703.25 13.13 0.23 13.36 13.36 4703.50 37.12 1.33 38.45 38.45 _ 4703.75 68.20 3.65 71.85 71.85 4704.00 105.00 7.50 112.50 112.50 #N/A _ #NIA #NIA #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #NIA #NIA #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A _ #NIA #NIA #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #NIA #NIA #NIA #N/A feet degrees feet SPILLWAY 100-YR FLOW = 32.1 CFS UD-Detention_v2.35_POST, Spillway 6/21/2022, 4:31 PM Project: 84 LUMBER Basin ID: RETENTION POND STAGE -STORAGE -DISCHARGE CURVES FOR THE POND Storage (Acre -Feet) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4705 4704 4703 a) a) a) 4702 CD as 4701 4700 4699 4698 20 40 60 80 100 Pond Discharge (cfs) 120 TOTAL DISCHARGE SPILLWAY DISCHARGE POND STORAGE K UD-Detention_v2.35_POST, Spillway 6/21/2022, 4:31 PM 84 Lumber Additional Site Development Drainage Report APPENDIX H - CONSTRUCTION PLANS November 18, 2021 62 lierracon GeoReport. Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 Prepared for: 84 Lumber Company Eighty Four, Pennsylvania Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Evans, Colorado Environmental Facilities Geotechnical Materials November 4, 2021 84 Lumber Company 1019 Route 519, Building 4 Eighty Four, Pennsylvania 15530 Attn: Mr. Jim Zaunick, P.E. P: (724)228-8820 E: jim.zaunick@841umber.com Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Southwest of the Intersection of O Street and 59th Avenue Weld County, Colorado Terracon Project No. 21215066 Dear Mr. Zaunick: ilerracon GeoReport Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the project referenced above. This study was performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. P21215066 (revised) dated September 28, 2021. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations, floor systems and pavements for the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Materials testing and construction observation services are provided by Terracon as well. We would be pleased to discuss these services with you. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. Abby L. Lennox, E.I. Field Engineer Eric D. Bernhardt, Geotechnical De pa rime Terracon Consultants, Inc, 1510 44th Street, Unit 1 Evans, Colorado 80620 P (970) 351 0460 F (970) 353 8639 terracon.com Environmental Facilities Geotechnical Materials REPORT TOPICS INTRODUCTION 1 SITE CONDITIONS 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION 2 GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW 4 EARTHWORK 5 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 10 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 12 FLOOR SLABS 13 PAVEMENTS 14 CORROSIVITY 17 GENERAL COMMENTS 17 Note: This report was originally delivered in a web -based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the GeoReport logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon. com. ATTACHMENTS EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS EXPLORATION RESULTS SUPPORTING INFORMATION Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 REPORT SUMMARY lierracon GeoReport Topic Overview Statement Project Overview A geotechnical Colorado Avenue approximately in project Weld 10 exploration to County, to be 20% constructed feet Colorado. has below been southwest existing performed Eight (8) site for of the borings grades. the intersection proposed were performed 84 of Lumber O Street to depths Greeley, and 59th of Subsurface Conditions Subsurface about sand 20% 9 with feet. to 17 silt Boring conditions and feet logs of gravel silty are encountered sand was encountered presented with in our varying in the to Exploration exploratory the amounts maximum of borings silt Results and depth generally gravel. of exploration section Poorly of consisted this of graded about report. of Groundwater Conditions in irrigation Groundwater feet response below on existing or was to site adjacent encountered site development grades to the in at site most the time and and of fluctuations to our of varying test drilling. borings at Groundwater seasonal in nearby depths and water weather of levels features. about can 14 conditions, fluctuate to 17.1 Geotechnical Concerns Existing No. extend the Undocumented movement supported Comparatively 5 were vicinity vicinity to B-6 10 fill encountered feet drilled to of of undocumented greater was on Boring Boring of of or some at placed foundations, loose fill above the depths. Nos. Nos. can of in site. sand the the under these B-2 B-7 fill present Existing borings upper We soils and and was slabs, materials. do the encountered were 5 B-3 B-8. not a fill greater completed feet as observation could possess pavements encountered on well the exist than as to any at southeast in this a at normal the depth information of and other within site. west a other locations risk the of geotechnical In portion portion about general, of upper site regarding post of of 4 on improvements approximately the feet -construction the the the in engineer. materials site site site whether Boring in in and the the Earthwork to On the materials this the -site site report. site. soils provided (if needed) typically Earthwork they appear should are recommendations placed suitable be evaluated and for compacted use and are as presented approved general as described engineered in by the Terracon in Earthwork this fill and report. prior backfill to delivery section Import on of Grading Drainage and As should water allowed practices subgrade. movement discussed runoff be to should designed, pond and away Excessive in distress the adjacent be Grading from constructed followed the to wetting to foundations, proposed foundations to and of and avoid Drainage foundations/slab buildings maintained floor or wetting section on slabs, and pavements foundation/slab to concrete provide pavements. soils of this and and flatwork report, rapid conservative soils subgrade Water removal surface and and should pavements. can of pavement drainage irrigation surface not cause be Foundations and Systems Floor The system. storage proposed buildings. believe building a concrete can slab be supported -on -grade floor by a shallow, system spread can be used footing for the foundation proposed Pavements Recommended over asphalt areas. report. 4 inches over Additional 6 of inches Pavement aggregate of pavement aggregate thicknesses base section course base alternatives for in course this light project -duty in and heavy-duty discussion include parking drive 4% areas lanes are inches and presented 5 and of inches asphalt loading in the of Seismic Considerations As Building classification presented Code, in for the which this Seismic site refers is D. Considerations to Section 20 of section ASCE of 7, this indicates report, the the International seismic site Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliably i Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon GeoReport Topic Overview Statement Construction Observation and Testing Close monitoring of the construction operations and implementing drainage recommendations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the intended foundation, slab and pavement performance. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to monitor this portion of the work. General Comments This section contains important information about the limitations of this geotechnical engineering report. If the reader is reviewing this report as a pdf, the topics (bold orange font) above can be used to access the appropriate section of the report by simply clicking on the topic itself. This summary is for convenience only. It should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design making and design purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable ii Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Southwest of the Intersection of 0 Street and 59th Avenue Weld County, Colorado Terracon Project No. 21215066 November 4, 2021 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed 84 Lumber facility to be located southwest of the intersection of 0 Street and 59th Avenue in Weld County, Colorado. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: Subsurface soil conditions Groundwater conditions Site preparation and earthwork Excavation considerations Foundation design and construction Floor system design and construction Seismic considerations Pavement design and construction The geotechnical engineering scope of services for this project included the advancement of eight (8) test borings to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 20% feet below existing site grades. Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and as separate graphs in the Exploration Results section of this report. SITE CONDITIONS The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps. Item Description Parcel Information the The Avenue center project in of site Weld the is County, site located is 40.451673° Colorado. southwest N/104.776274° The of the approximate intersection W. See of Latitude/Longitude O Site Street Location. and 59th of Improvements Existing The site is vacant land. Current Cover Ground The current ground is moderately vegetated with native grasses and weeds. Existing Topography The mounds site slopes of soil gradually from utility towards trench construction the west. Near the for an middle existing of pipeline. the site exists Responsive • Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows: lierracon t-eoReport Item Description Information Provided The following Soil 18, Request 2021 project Boring for information and work Grading via described -Drainage email from Eli below Plan Henderson is provided based on on by client August the following: on August 18, 2021 Proposed Construction The be pre-engineered project includes and two (2) will single be slab -story -on storage -grade sheds. (non -basement). The metal sheds will Maximum Loads and provided Columns: Walls: Slabs: kips, linear square q 30 foot foot foot (klf) spacing (psf) (p � 50 to 100 (Assumed 1 to 3 kips p per by 84 Lumber Lumber) 150 poundsper Grading/Slopes Grading required plans to develop indicate final up grades. to about 2 feet of cut and about 2 feet of fill will be Below Structures -grade We understand no below -grade are planned for this site. Pavements We understand were not provided. flexible (asphalt) pavement will be considered. Traffic loads If project information or assumptions vary from what is described above or if location of construction changes, we should be contacted as soon as possible to confirm and/or modify our recommendations accordingly. GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION Subsurface Profile We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of site preparation and foundation options. Conditions encountered at each exploration point are indicated on the individual logs. The individual logs and the GeoModel can be found in the Exploration Results section this report. As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface profile. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon GeoReport Model Layer Layer Name General Description Approximate Bottom of Stratum Depth to 1 Silty Sand Silty gravel to brown dense. medium sand and with with trace grained, tan, varying amounts loose light amounts of to clay, brown medium fine to of About existing 8 to site 12% grades. feet below 2 Lean Cla y Lean clay sand, brown, with medium varying stiff to amounts very stiff. of About existing 10 site to 14 grades. feet below 3 Silt Sandy of gravel, silt with brown, clay stiff. and trace amounts About existing 16 site grades. feet below 4 Poorl y Graded Sand Poorly gravel, dense. graded brown, sand medium with dense silt to and very About existing 10 site to 20% grades. feet below As noted in Gener wi Commente this characterization is based upon widely spaced exploration points across the site and variations are likely. Groundwater Conditions The boreholes were observed while drilling for the presence and level of groundwater. The water levels observed in the boreholes are noted on the attached boring logs, and are summarized below: Boring Number Depth to Groundwater Drilling, ft. While Elevation While of Drilling, Groundwater ft. B-1 17.1 4,696.9 B-2 15.4 4,695.6 B-3 14 4,697 B-4 15% 4,696.5 B-5 Not encountered - B-6 Not encountered - B-7 Not encountered - B-8 Not encountered - These observations represent short-term groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration 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, and other factors. Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the water levels present in nearby water features, amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the boring were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structures may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliably Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW lierracon t-eoReport Based on subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, the site appears suitable for the proposed construction from a geotechnical point of view provided certain precautions and design and construction recommendations described in this report are followed. We have identified several geotechnical conditions that could impact design, construction and performance of the proposed structures, pavements, and other site improvements. These included existing, u ndocumented fill and potentially loose, low strength sand soils. These conditions will require particular attention in project planning, design and during construction and are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Existing, Undocumented Fill As previously noted, existing undocumented fill was encountered to a depth of about 4 feet in Boring No. B-6 drilled at the site. Existing fill could exist at other locations on the site and extend to greater depths. We do not possess any information regarding whether the fill was placed under the observation of a geotechnical engineer. Undocumented fill can present a greater than normal risk of post -construction movement of foundations, slabs, pavements and other site improvements supported on or above these materials. Consequently, it is our opinion existing fill on the site should not be relied upon for support and should be removed down to native soil, moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to new fill placement and/or construction. Low Strength Soils Comparatively loose sand soils were encountered within the upper approximately 5 to 10 feet of some of the borings completed at this site. In general, the materials were encountered in the u pper 5 feet on the southeast portion of the site in the vicinity of Boring Nos. B-2 and B-3 as well as in the west portion of the site in the vicinity of Boring Nos. B-7 and B-8. These materials present a risk for potential settlement of shallow foundations, floor slabs, pavements and other surficial improvements. These materials can also be susceptible to disturbance and loss of strength under repeated construction traffic loads and unstable conditions could develop. Stabilization of loose soils may be required at some locations to provide adequate support for construction equipment and proposed structures. Terracon should be contacted if these conditions are encountered to observe the conditions exposed and to provide guidance regarding stabilization (if needed). Foundation and Floor System Recommendations The proposed building can be supported by a shallow, spread footing foundation system. We believe a concrete slab -on -grade floor system can be used for the proposed storage buildings. Design recommendations for foundations for the proposed structures and related structural e lements are presented in the following sections. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon t-eoReport The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations. EARTHWORK The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation, fill materials, compaction requirements, utility trench backfill, grading and drainage and exterior slab design and construction. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. Evaluation of earthwork should include observation and/or testing of over -excavation, removal of existing fill, subgrade preparation, placement of engineered fills, subgrade stabilization and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project. Site Preparation Prior to placing any fill, strip and remove existing vegetation, topsoil, and any other deleterious materials from the proposed construction areas. As previously stated, we also recommend complete removal of existing, undocumented fill within proposed building areas. Existing fill was encountered in Boring No. B-6 extending to a depth of about 4 feet below existing site grades. Stripped organic materials should be wasted from the site or used to re -vegetate landscaped areas after completion of grading operations. Prior to the placement of fills, the site should be graded to create a relatively level surface to receive fill, and to provide for a relatively uniform thickness of fill beneath proposed structures. Excavation It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. The soils to be excavated can vary significantly across the site as their 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. Although evidence of fills or underground facilities such as grease pits, septic tanks, vaults, basements, and utilities was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features could be encountered during construction. If unexpected underground facilities are encountered, such features should be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction. Any over -excavation that extends below the bottom of foundation elevation should extend laterally beyond all edges of the foundations at least 8 inches per foot of over -excavation depth below the Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon t-eoReport foundation base elevation. The over -excavation should be backfilled to the foundation base elevation in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Depending upon depth of excavation and seasonal conditions, surface water infiltration and/or groundwater may be encountered in excavations on the site. It is anticipated that pumping from sumps may be utilized to control water within excavations. The subgrade soil conditions should be evaluated during the excavation process and the stability of the soils determined at that time by the contractors' Competent Person. Slope inclinations flatter than the OSHA maximum values may have to be used. 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. As a safety measure, it is recommended that all vehicles and soil piles be kept a minimum lateral distance from the crest of the slope equal to the slope height. The exposed slope face should be protected against the elements. Subgrade Preparation After the undocumented existing fill has been removed from the storage container and pavement area, the top 12 inches of the exposed ground surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM D698 before any new fill or foundation or pavement is placed. If pockets of loose, or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered at the bottom of the foundation excavations and it is inconvenient to lower the foundations, the proposed foundation elevations may be reestablished by over -excavating the unsuitable soils and backfilling with compacted engineered fill or lean concrete. Design Footing Level Recommended Excavation Level d LEAN CONCRETE Design Footing Level Recommended Excavation Level _I COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FELL y A it Lean Concrete Backfill Overexcavation / Backfill NOTE: Excavations in sketches shown vertical for convenience. Excavations should be sloped as necessary for safety. Responsive • Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon t-eoReport After the bottom of the excavation has been compacted, engineered fill can be placed to bring the storage building pad and pavement subgrade to the desired grade. Engineered fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in subsequent sections of this report. The stability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other factors. If unstable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. Alternatively, over -excavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials may be used, or crushed gravel and/or rock can be tracked or "crowded" into the unstable surface soil until a stable working surface is attained. Use of fly ash, cement or geo synthetics 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. Lightweight excavation equipment may also be used to reduce subgrade pumping. Fill Materials The on -site soils or approved granular and low plasticity cohesive imported materials may be used as fill material. The earthwork contractor should expect significant mechanical processing and moisture conditioning of the site soils and/or bedrock will be needed to achieve proper compaction Imported soils (if required) should meet the following material property requirements: Gradation Percent finer by weight (ASTM C136) 4" 100 3" 70-100 No. 4 Sieve 30-100 No. 200 Sieve 50 (max.) Soil Properties Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Values 35 (max.) 15 (max.) Other import fill materials types may be suitable for use on the site depending upon proposed application and location on the site, and could be tested and approved for use on a case -by -case basis Compaction Requirements Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon t-eoReport Item Description Fill lift thickness 9 propelled 4 equipment inches to 6 inches or compaction (i.e. less jumping in in loose loose equipment jack thickness or thickness plate is used compactor) when when heavy, hand is used self- -guided Minimum compaction requirements 95 ASTM percent D698 of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by Moisture content cohesive soil (clay) -1 to +3 °/0 of the optimum moisture content Moisture (sand) content cohesionless soil -3 to +3 % of the optimum moisture content We recommend engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in -place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction to be achieved without the fill material pumping when proof rolled. Moisture conditioned clay materials should not be allowed to dry out. A loss of moisture within these materials could result in an increase in the material's expansive potential. Subsequent wetting of these materials could result in undesirable movement. Utility Trench Backfill All trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction including backfill placement and compaction. All underground piping within or near the proposed structures should be designed with flexible couplings, so minor deviations in alignment do not result in breakage or distress. Utility knockouts in foundation walls should be oversized to accommodate differential movements. It is imperative that utility trenches be properly backfilled with relatively clean materials. If utility trenches are backfilled with relatively clean granular material, they should be capped with at least 18 inches of cohesive fill in non -pavement areas to reduce the infiltration and conveyance of surface water through the trench backfill. Utility trenches are a common source of water infiltration and migration. All utility trenches that penetrate beneath the containers should be effectively sealed to restrict water intrusion and flow through the trenches that could migrate below the containers. We recommend constructing an effective clay "trench plug" that extends at least 5 feet out from the face of the container exteriors. The plug material should consist of clay compacted at a water content at or above the soil's optimum water content. The clay fill should be placed to completely surround the utility line and be compacted in accordance with recommendations in this report. It is strongly recommended that a representative of Terracon provide full-time observation and compaction testing of trench backfill within storage containers and pavement areas. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 Grading and Drainage lierracon t-eoReport Grades must be adjusted to provide effective drainage away from the proposed storage containers during construction and maintained throughout the life of the proposed project. Infiltration of water into foundation excavations must be prevented during construction. Landscape irrigation adjacent to foundations should be minimized or eliminated. Water permitted to pond near or adjacent to the perimeter of the structures (either during or post -construction) can result in significantly higher soil movements than those discussed in this report. As a result, any estimations of potential movement described in this report cannot be relied upon if positive drainage is not obtained and maintained, and water is allowed to infiltrate the fill and/or subgrade. Exposed ground (if any) should be sloped at a minimum of 10 percent grade for at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed containers, where possible. Locally, flatter grades may be necessary to transition ADA access requirements for flatwork. The use of swales, chases and/or area drains may be required to facilitate drainage in unpaved areas around the perimeter of the containers. Backfill against foundations and exterior walls should be properly compacted and free of all construction debris to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration. After construction of the proposed containers and prior to project completion, we recommend verification of final grading be performed to document positive drainage, as described above, has been achieved. Flatwork and pavements will be subject to post -construction movement. Maximum grades practical should be used for paving and flatwork to prevent areas where water can pond. In addition, allowances in final grades should take into consideration post -construction movement of flatwork, particularly if such movement would be critical. Where paving or flatwork abuts the structures, care should be taken that joints are properly sealed and maintained to prevent the infiltration of surface water. Exterior Slab Design and Construction Exterior slabs on -grade, exterior architectural features, and utilities founded on, or in backfill or the site soils will likely experience some movement due to the volume change of the material. Potential movement could be reduced by: • Minimizing moisture increases in the backfill; • Controlling moisture -density during placement of the backfill; • Using designs which allow vertical movement between the exterior features and adjoining structural elements; and ^� Placing control joints on relatively close centers. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 Construction Observation and Testing lierracon t-eoReport The earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of Terracon. Monitoring should include documentation of adequate removal of vegetation and topsoil, proof rolling, and mitigation of areas delineated by the proof roll to require mitigation. Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked as necessary until approved by Terracon prior to placement of additional lifts. In areas of foundation excavations, the bearing subgrade should be evaluated under the direction of Terracon. In the event that unanticipated conditions are encountered, Terracon should prescribe mitigation options. In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the continuation of Terracon into the construction phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain Terracon's evaluation of subsurface conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes. SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork, the following design parameters are applicable for shallow foundations. Spread Footings or Reinforced Concrete Mat - Design Recommendations Description Values Bearing material Properly prepared on -site soil Maximum net allowable bearing pressure 2,000 psf Minimum foundation dimensions Columns: Continuous: 30 inches 18 inches Lateral earth pressure coefficients Active, Passive, At -rest, Ka Ko Kp 0.27 = 3.69 0.43 = = Sliding coefficient µ 0.56 = Moist soil unit weight y 110 pcf = Minimum grade embedment depth below finished 30 inches Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 Description Subgrade modulus lierracon t-eoReport Values K(BxL) ki = 69 psi/in B+12 K(BxB) = K1 ( ) 2B KBxB (1+0.5* ( B' ( )1 L)1 1.5 Where: k� = coefficient of subgrade reaction of foundations measuring 1 ft. x 1ft. K(BxB) = coefficient of subgrade modulus for a square foundation having dimensions BxB. K(BxL) = coefficient of subgrade modulus for a rectangular foundation having dimensions BxL. Estimated total movement About 1 inch Estimated differential movement About 1/2 to % of total movement The recommended maximum net allowable bearing pressure assumes any unsuitable fill or loose soils, if encountered, will be over -excavated and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill. The design bearing pressure applies to a dead load plus design live load condition. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. The lateral earth pressure coefficients and sliding coefficients are ultimate values and do not include a factor of safety. The foundation designer should include the appropriate factors of safety. For frost protection and to reduce the effects of seasonal moisture variations in the subgrade soils. The minimum embedment depth is for perimeter footings beneath unheated areas and is relative to lowest adjacent finished grade, typically exterior grade. Interior column pads in heated areas should bear at least 12 inches below the adjacent grade (or top of the floor slab) for confinement of the bearing materials and to develop the recommended bearing pressure. The estimated movements presented above are based on the assumption that the maximum footing size is 6 feet for column footings and 4 feet for continuous footings. Larger foundation footprints will likely require reduced net allowable soil bearing pressures to reduce risk for potential settlement. Footings should be proportioned to reduce differential foundation movement. As discussed, total movement resulting from the assumed structural loads is estimated to be on the order of about 1 inch. Additional foundation movements could occur if water from any source infiltrates the foundation soils; therefore, proper drainage should be provided in the final design and during construction and throughout the life of the structure. Failure to maintain the proper drainage as recommended in the Grading and Drainage section of the Earthwork section of this report will nullify the movement estimates provided above. Spread Footings - Construction Considerations To reduce the potential of "pumping" and softening of the foundation soils at the foundation bearing level and the requirement for corrective work, we suggest the foundation excavation for Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon t-eoReport the storage containers be completed remotely with a track -hoe operating outside of the excavation limits. Spread footing construction should only be considered if the estimated foundation movement can be tolerated. Subgrade soils beneath footings should be moisture conditioned and compacted as described in the Earthwork section of this report. The moisture content and compaction of subgrade soils should be maintained until foundation construction. Footings and foundation walls should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. Unstable surfaces will need to be stabilized prior to backfilling excavations and/or constructing the building foundation, floor slab and/or project pavements. The use of angular rock, recycled concrete and/or gravel pushed or "crowded" into the yielding subgrade is considered suitable means of stabilizing the subgrade. The use of geosynthetic materials in conjunction with gravel could also be considered and could be more cost effective. Unstable subgrade conditions should be observed by Terracon to assess the subgrade and provide suitable alternatives for stabilization. Stabilized areas should be proof rolled prior to continuing construction to assess the stability of the subgrade. Foundation excavations should be observed by Terracon. If the soil conditions encountered differ significantly from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be required. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure. The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7 and the International Building Code (IBC). Based on the soil properties encountered at the site and as described on the exploration logs and results, it is our professional opinion that the Seismic Site Classification is D. Subsurface explorations at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 20% feet. The site properties below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the conditions below the current boring depth. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 FLOOR SLABS lierracon t-eoReport A slab -on -grade may be utilized for the interior floor system for the proposed storage containers. If the estimated movement cannot be tolerated, a structurally -supported floor system, supported independent of the subgrade materials, is recommended. Subgrade soils beneath interior and exterior slabs should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted. The moisture content and compaction of subgrade soils should be maintained until slab construction. Floor System - Design Recommendations Even when bearing on properly prepared soils, movement of the slab -on -grade floor system is possible should the subgrade soils undergo an increase in moisture content. We estimate movement of about 1 inch is possible. If the owner cannot accept the risk of slab movement, a structural floor should be used. If conventional slab -on -grade is utilized, the subgrade soils should be prepared as presented in the car hwora section of this report. For structural design of concrete slabs -on -grade subjected to point loadings, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 90 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for floors supported on re - compacted existing soils at the site. A modulus of 200 pci may be used for floors supported on at least 1 foot of non -expansive, imported granular 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. Control joints should be saw -cut in slabs in accordance with ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R-37 8.3.12 (tooled control joints are not recommended) to control the location and extent of cracking. Interior utility trench backfill placed beneath slabs should be compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Earthwork section of this report. 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. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 Floor Systems - Construction Considerations lierracon t-eoReport Movements of slabs -on -grade using the recommendations discussed in previous sections of this report will likely be reduced and tend to be more uniform. The estimates discussed above assume that the other recommendations in this report are followed. Additional movement could occur should the subsurface soils become wetted to significant depths, which could result in potential excessive movement causing uneven floor slabs and severe cracking. This could be due to over watering of landscaping, poor drainage, improperly functioning drain systems, and/or broken utility lines. Therefore, it is imperative that the recommendations presented in this report be followed. For slabs that will support traffic loading, we recommend the slab be designed using Portland Cement Association method or similar mechanistic stress -based design for concrete slabs. For slabs that will carry significant traffic, we also recommend doweled joints be considered for the slab connections as well as placement of 6 to 12 inches of aggregate base course below the slab. To control the width of cracking (should it occur), continuous slab reinforcement should be considered in exposed concrete slabs. PAVEMENTS Pavements — Subgrade Preparation On most project sites, the site grading is accomplished relatively early in the construction phase. Fills are typically placed and compacted in a uniform manner. However, as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, or rainfall/snow melt. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction and corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of pavement construction for signs of disturbance or instability. We recommend the pavement subgrade be thoroughly proof rolled with a loaded tandem -axle dump truck prior to final grading and paving. All pavement areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving. Pavements — Subgrade Preparation On most project sites, the site grading is accomplished relatively early in the construction phase. Fills are typically placed and compacted in a uniform manner. However, as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, or rainfall/snow melt. As a result, the pavement subgrade may not be suitable for pavement construction and corrective action will be required. The subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of pavement construction for signs of disturbance or instability. We recommend the pavement subgrade be thoroughly proof rolled with a loaded tandem -axle dump truck prior to final grading and paving. All pavement areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to paving. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliably Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 Pavements — Design Recommendations lierracon t-eoReport Design of new privately -maintained pavements for the project has been based on the procedures described by the National Asphalt Pavement Associations (NAPA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI). We assumed the following design parameters for NAPA flexible pavement thickness design: Automobile Parking Areas Class I - Parking stalls and parking lots for cars and pick-up trucks, with Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) up to 7,000 over 20 years Main Traffic Corridors Class III — Drive areas with up to 10 dingle unit or 3 -axle semi -trailer trucks per day Subgrade Soil Characteristics USCS Classification — SM, classified by NAPA as poor We should be contacted to confirm and/or modify the recommendations contained herein if actual traffic volumes differ from the assumed values shown above. Recommended alternatives for flexible and rigid pavements are summarized for each traffic area as follows: Traffic Area Automobile Parking (NAPA Class I) Service Lanes (NAPA Class III) Alternative A Recommended Pavement Thicknesses (Inches) Asphaltic Aggregate Base Concrete Surface Course B A B 4 5 5 7 6 8 Total 10 5 13 7 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 aggregate base course. Aggregate base course should be placed in lifts not exceeding 6 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM D698. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon t-eoReport Asphaltic concrete should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler and additives (if required) and approved bituminous material. The asphalt concrete should conform to approved mix designs stating the Superpave properties, optimum asphalt content, job mix formula and recommended mixing and placing temperatures. Aggregate used in asphalt concrete should meet particular gradations. Material meeting CDOT Grading S or SX specifications or equivalent is recommended for asphalt concrete. Mix designs should be submitted prior to construction to verify their adequacy. Asphalt material should be placed in maximum 3 -inch lifts and compacted within a range of 92 to 96 percent of the theoretical maximum (Rice) density (ASTM D2041). Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and layout of pavements: S ite grades should slope a minimum of 2 percent away from the pavements; The subgrade and the pavement surface have a minimum 2 percent slope to promote proper surface drainage; Consider appropriate edge drainage and pavement under drain systems; Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting; Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately; S eal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to subgrade soils; and P lacing compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter. Pavements — Construction Considerations Openings in pavement, such as landscape islands, are sources for water infiltration into surrounding pavements. Water collects in the islands and migrates into the surrounding subgrade soils thereby degrading support of the pavement. This is especially applicable for islands with raised concrete curbs, irrigated foliage, and low permeability near -surface soils. The civil design for the pavements with these conditions should include features to restrict or to collect and discharge excess water from the islands. Examples of features are edge drains connected to the storm water collection system or other suitable outlet and impermeable barriers preventing lateral migration of water such as a cutoff wall installed to a depth below the pavement structure. Pavements — Maintenance Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for an ongoing pavement management program in order to enhance future pavement performance. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 CORROSIVITY lierracon t-eoReport Results of water-soluble sulfate testing indicate Exposure Class SO according to ACI 318. ASTM Type I or II portland cement should be specified for all project concrete on and below grade. Foundation concrete should be designed for low sulfate exposure in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. GENERAL COMMENTS Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide o bservation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on -site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations. Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, 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. Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with n o third -party beneficiaries intended. Any third -party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client. Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any u se of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing. Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon GeoReport of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing. Responsive • Resourceful • Reliable 18 ATTACHMENTS Contents: EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS EXPLORATION RESULTS SUPPORTING INFORMATION Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES Field Exploration The field exploration program consisted of the following: Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) 4 4 20 or auger refusal 10 or auger refusal lierracon t-eoReport Location Planned storage container areas Planned parking/driveway areas Boring Layout and Elevations: We used handheld GPS equipment to locate borings with an e stimated horizontal accuracy of +/-20 feet. Field measurements from existing site features were also utilized. A ground surface elevation at each boring location was obtained by Terracon from interpolation from a site specific, surveyed topographic map. Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced soil borings with a truck -mounted drill rig u sing continuous -flight, hollow -stem augers. Three samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet of e ach boring and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. Soil sampling was performed using modified California barrel and standard split -barrel sampling procedures. For the standard split -barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2 -inch outer diameter split -barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground by a 140 -pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18 -inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N -values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. For the modified California barrel sampling procedure, a 2% -inch outer diameter split -barrel sampling spoon is u sed for sampling. Modified California barrel sampling procedures are similar to standard split - barrel sampling procedures; however, blow counts are typically recorded for 6 -inch intervals for a total of 12 inches of penetration. The samples were placed in appropriate containers, taken to our soil laboratory for testing, and classified by a geotechnical engineer. In addition, we observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling observations. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of standard drilling operations including sampling depths, penetration distances, and other relevant sampling information. Field logs included visual classifications of materials encountered during drilling, and our interpretation of subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs, prepared from field logs, represent the geotechnical engineer's interpretation, and include modifications based on observations and laboratory test results. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon t-eoReport Property Disturbance: We backfilled borings with auger cuttings after completion. Our services did not include repair of the site beyond backfilling our boreholes. Excess auger cuttings were dispersed in the general vicinity of the boreholes. Because backfill material often settles below the surface after a period, we recommend checking boreholes periodically and backfilling, if n ecessary. We can provide this service for additional fees, at your request. Laboratory Testing The project engineer reviewed field data and assigned various laboratory tests to better u nderstand the engineering properties of various soil strata. Laboratory testing was conducted in general accordance with applicable or other locally recognized standards. Procedural standards n oted in this report are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgement. Testing was performed under the direction of a geotechnical engineer and included the following: Visual classification Dry density Grain -size analysis Water-soluble sulfates Atterberg limits Moisture content One-dimensional swell Unconfined compressive strength Laboratory compaction characteristics Our laboratory testing program includes examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based on the material's texture and plasticity, we described and classified soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil samples obtained during our field work will be disposed of after laboratory testing is complete unless a specific request is made to temporarily store the samples for a longer period of time. Responsive ® Resourceful • Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2 SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS Contents: Site Location Plan Exploration Plan (2 pages) Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable SITE LOCATION 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 EXPLORATION PLAN (1 of 2) 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 OSSISSMIL• Mt, lierracon GeoReporf z-sa �i Jy. - ..it ID i PIP DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS B -O EXPLORATION PLAN (2 of 2) 84 Lumber Greeley, Colorado Weld County, Colorado November 4, 2021 Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon GeoReporf EXPLORATION RESULTS Contents: GeoModel (2 pages) Boring Logs (8 pages) Atterberg Limits Grain Size Distribution (2 pages) Consolidation/Swell (2 pages) Unconfined Compressive Strength Corrosivity Moisture Density Relationship Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above. cu a) J 2 z O Q w J W GEOMODE! 84 Lumber Greeley, CO Greeley, CO Terracon Project No. 21215066 4,716 4,714 4,712 4,710 4,708 4,706 4,704 4,702 4,700 4,698 4,696 4,694 4,692 4,690 ■9 p This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions. Vegetative Layer Silty Sand Silty Sand with Gravel NY First Water Observation lierracon Wort port Model Layer Layer Name General Description 1 Silty Sand Silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and trace amounts of clay, fine to medium grained, light brown to brown with tan, loose to medium dense. 2 Lean Clay Lean clay with varying amounts of sand, brown, medium stiff to very stiff. 3 Silt Sandy silt with clay and trace amounts of gravel, brown, stiff. 4 Poorly Graded Sand Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel, brown, medium dense to very dense. pn su Poorly -graded Sand with Silt and Gravel Sandy Lean Clay Sandy Silt LEGEND Lean Clay Groundwater levels are temporal. The levels shown are representative of the date and time of our exploration. Significant changes are possible over time. Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In some cases, boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater. See individual logs for details. NOTES: Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project. Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface. GEOMODEI 84 Lumber Greeley, CO Greeley, CO Terracon Project No. 21215066 4,712 4,710 4,708 4,706 co 2 O a J 4,702 w 4,704 4,700 4,698 4,696 ■9 lierracon Wort port B-7 1 2 • • • • • • • • • 9 B-8 10 B-6 2 1 • • • • • 4 9 B-5 \• 7., 1 4 '4 9 10.5 10 10.5 This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions. Model Layer Layer Name General Description 1 Silty Sand Silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and trace amounts of clay, fine to medium grained, light brown to brown with tan, loose to medium dense. 2 Lean Clay Lean clay with varying amounts of sand, brown, medium stiff to very stiff. 3 Silt Sandy silt with clay and trace amounts of gravel, brown, stiff. 4 Poorly Graded Sand Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel, brown, medium dense to very dense. Vegetative Layer Silty Sand Poorly -graded Sand with Silt and Gravel 7 First Water Observation Sandy Lean Clay LEGEND Groundwater levels are temporal. The levels shown are representative of the date and time of our exploration. Significant changes are possible over time. Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In some cases, boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater. See individual logs for details. NOTES: Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project. Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface. H J a w 0 z I 0 H a CD w J w w CD J cc CD LO N J 0 0 J Q 0 Lu c9 0 a w J Q z c9 it 0 0 w 0 w f — Q Q a w co w 0 Q f- 0 co c9 0 J c9 m co BORING LOG NO. B-1 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO CLIENT: 59th Avenue 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA SITE: Southwest Greeley, CO of the Intersection of O Street and MODEL LAYER GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION Latitude: 40.4519° DEPTH See Exploration Longitude: -104.7754° Plan Approximate Surface Elev.: 4714 (Ft.) +/- ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL/ CONSOLIDATION (PSF) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf) WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) PERCENT FINES AT S LIMITS LL -PL -PI ' '•• ` 0 4 VEGETATIVE LAYER, about 5 inches thick 4713.5+/- — • ' ' •: :.: • - • - - • - • • : ' SILTY SAND, trace clay, fine to medium grained, light with 12.5 brown, clay, medium dense brown 4701.5+/- 7-9-8 N=17 3.1 - 9-15 4.7 106 10 H N=17 — ' • .• ' ' . •' • ' '• ° ; .� SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, very dense 17.0 4697+/- 15-30-27 N=57 1.5 15 - — 4 . :la: • o , •• •.'' .: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, brown, very - dense 20.5 4693.5+/- 24-34-35 N=69 9.7 20 Boring Terminated at 20.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic Advancement Method: Advanced using 4 -1/4 -inch diameter. continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger. See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic map.. Notes: Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started: 10-05-2021 Boring Completed: 10-05-2021 erracon 1510 44th Evans, St Unit 1 CO 17.1 at completion of drilling Drill Rig: CME 55 Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Project No.: 21215066 Nicr H CD H J w H H 0 z 0 U Q w 0 w J w 0 w J cc O O O LO ?Cl N J J w 0 0 J Q (/) C. 0 0 w J Q z_ 0 0 0 w H Q Q 0 w 0 Q H 0 U) CD 0 J CD z it 0 H BORING LOG NO. B-2 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO CLIENT: 59th Avenue 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA SITE: Southwest Greeley, CO of the Intersection of O Street and MODEL LAYER GRAPHIC LOG Latitude: 40.4515° DEPTH See Exploration Longitude: -104.7754° Plan Approximate Surface Elev.: 4711 (Ft.) +/- ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL/ CONSOLIDATION (PSF) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf) WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) PERCENT FINES ATTERBERG S LIMITS LL -PL -PI ' `4-. •`` 0.4 LAYER, about 5 inches thick 4710.5+/- — • ,.....• :••.: • •.: •• 1 \VEGETATIVE SILTY SAND, light brown, loose to medium dense 9.0 4702+/- I 5-9 4.5 100 8.0 5 10- 2 ' . • : SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, medium stiff2-6 2790 17.6 111 14.0 4697-F/- 3 ' .,;• . . • ' ••• : • • ' . • SANDY SILT, brown, wet, stiff 3-4-5 1 N=9 20.0 16.0 4695+/- 15 - 0 4 .y. - •. 'g' '-•''.6 ;'A •' o '..:31_ POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM), brown, dense 20.5 4690.5+/- - 1 6-16-15 N=31 11.4 NP 6 2 0 Boring Terminated at 20.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic Advancement Method: Advanced using 4 -1/4 -inch diameter. continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger. See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic map.. Notes: Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion. _ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started: 10-05-2021 Boring Completed: 10-05-2021 erracon 1510 44th Evans, St Unit 1 CO 15.4 at completion of drilling Drill Rig: CME 55 Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Project No.: 21215066 Nicr H 0 H J w H H 0 z 0 0 Q w w LIJ LIJ w cc O O O LO N J J w 0 th J Q 0 Lu 0 w J Q z_ 0 0 0 w H Q Q 0 w w 0 Q H 0 U) 0 0 J 0 z it 0 H BORING LOG NO. B-3 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO CLIENT: 59th Avenue 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA SITE: Southwest Greeley, CO of the Intersection of O Street and MODEL LAYER GRAPHIC LOG Latitude: 40.4515° DEPTH See Exploration Longitude: -104.7757' Plan Approximate Surface Elev.: 4711 (Ft.) +/- ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL/ CONSOLIDATION (PSF) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf) WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) PERCENT FINES ATTERBERG LIMITS S LL -PL -PI '•. •`` 0 4 LAYER, about 5 inches thick 4710.5+/- •-._-• ; �•:,• . . •.. •' . . - '9.0 \VEGETATIVE SILTY SAND (SM), tan to light brown, loose 4702+/- 3-3-3 6.2 NP 36 iI 61 7.8 104 5 10 N 11 3 M • '' . '• '•• ' • ' • ' =' ' . . , '• . ' • • • . 4• • . ' ' . • '16.0 SANDY SILT (ML), with clay, brown, medium stiff N=9 157 NP 52 trace gravel, wet 4695+/- - � 2-5 17.3 — — 4 -'4. ::?:(3 ;4. 'a, )o a •�,.. •:3•._ I POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, interlayered sandy lean clay, brown, medium dense 20.5 4690.5+/- 7-7-14 N=21 15.9 20 Boring Terminated at 20.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic Advancement Method: Advanced using 4 -1/4 -inch diameter. continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger. See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic map.. Notes: Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion. _ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started: 10-05-2021 Boring Completed: 10-05-2021 erracon 1510 44th Evans, St Unit 1 CO 14 feet at completion of drilling Drill Rig: CME 55 Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Project No.: 21215066 Nicr H 0 w H J w H H 0 z 0 O Q w LIJ w m J cc Co O LO N J J w 0 C9 O J H Q 0 Lu 0 0 w J Q z_ 0 0 0 w H Q Q 0 w w 0 Q H 0 U) 0 O J 0 z it 0 H BORING LOG NO. B-4 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO CLIENT: 59th Avenue 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA SITE: Southwest Greeley, CO of the Intersection of O Street and MODEL LAYER GRAPHIC LOG Latitude: 40.4518° DEPTH See Exploration Longitude: -104.7757' Plan Approximate Surface Elev.: 4712 (Ft.) +/- ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL/ CONSOLIDATION (PSF) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf) WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) PERCENT FINES ATTERBERG LIMITS S LL -PL -PI ' •`` 0.4 LAYER, about 5 inches thick 4711.5+/- — ••. • •II • :.: • • * . •. •.:• .• _•: • - •. • • 1 \VEGETATIVE SILTY SAND, trace clay, light brown, medium dense, trace calcium 9.0 carbonate 4703--/- 5-11 3.6 106 5.9 5 10- i 2 / / LEAN CLAY (CL), with sand, brown, very stiff 7-17 3.0/1,009 11.2 119 35-11-24 86 13.0 4699+/- _ 4 ••@.: t• o ••). ' ;.s. POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND _ GRAVEL, trace clay, brown, very dense 8-34-38 N=72 4.3 20.5 4691.5+/ 15 15-24-27 N=51 11.2 20 Boring Terminated at 20.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic Advancement Method: Advanced using 4 -1/4 -inch diameter. continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger. See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic map.. Notes: Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion. _ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started: 10-05-2021 Boring Completed: 10-05-2021 erracon 1510 44th Evans, St Unit 1 CO 15.5 at completion of drilling Drill Rig: CME 55 Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Project No.: 21215066 N icr 0 H J w H 0 z 0 Q w LU w C9 w J cc Co Co 0 LC) N N J J 0 0 H Q 0 w 0 H 0 0 w J Q z_ 0 0 0 w H Q Q 0 w w 0 Q H 0 z 0 0 J (9 z m H BORING LOG NO. B-5 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO CLIENT: 59th Avenue 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA SITE: Southwest Greeley, CO of the Intersection of 0 Street and w Q J J o O o 0 J U I Q CC LOCATION Latitude: 40.4518 DEPTH See Exploration c Longitude: -104.7767 Plan o Approximate Surface Elev.: 4711 (Ft) +/- ELEVATION (Ft.) '' Lv i H 0_ W o J Z W U W J Q �� W11 HW Q m U w az H w J a Q I Hco CB W I- H J �D JW W CC L JQ� J o w W JCS �o� c�cn z o OU o w w? Q ZU)= W co H z2:o oaz UAW 2 0 11 -- o �'� w z ~ a �� Z 0 H i - Q z H = mac? oW co z H Z UJ 0_ ATTERBERG LIMITS LL -PL -PI `''.'•. •`` 0 4 VEGETATIVE LAYER, about 5 inches thick 4710.5+/- — • •; . • : • = •.: .: • • • - •. / SILTY SAND, trace clay, light brown, medium dense, with clay 9.0 trace calcium carbonate 4702+/- 7-9 4.2 100 8-10 6.7 110 5 10 4 '•'•i: ,•:' ;:.1 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND 27-42-27 N=69 1.6 GRAVEL, light pinkish white and brown, very 10.5 dense 4700.5+/- Boring Terminated at 10.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic Advancement Method: Advanced using 4 -inch diameter, continuous -flight, solid -stem auger. See Supporting Informatior for explanation of Notes: Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion. _ symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic map Boring Started: 10-05-2021 Boring Completed: 10-05-2021 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS No free water observed erracon 1510 44th Evans, St Unit 1 CO Drill Rig: CME 55 Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Project No.: 21215066 N 0 H H H Q 0 z i 0 U Q H w J w w CD w m J cc Co Co 0 LC) N N J J 0 0 H Q 0 w C9 H 0 0_ w J Q z_ CD 0 0 C w H Q Q 0 w w 0 Q H 0 U) CD 0 J O z it 0 H BORING LOG NO. B-6 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO CLIENT: 59th Avenue 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA SITE: Southwest Greeley, CO of the Intersection of O Street and MODEL LAYER GRAPHIC LOG Latitude: 40.4515° DEPTH See Exploration Longitude: -104.7768° Plan Approximate Surface Elev.: 4709 (Ft.) +/- ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL/ CONSOLIDATION (PSF) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf) WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) PERCENT FINES ATTERBERG LIMITS S LL -PL -PI ' `'-'' -._0 4 LAYER, about 5 inches thick 4708.5+/- — ••• 4 • • .� I2 V \VEGETATIVE / FILL - SANDY LEAN CLAY , brown, trace calcium carbonate 4.0 4705+/— 1-1-2 N=3 12.7 28-14-14 58 N :se_ • • • • •'• • ' SILTY SAND, with clay, brown, medium denseN 4-8 12.8 110 9.0 4700+/- 1 0___ 2 .' • • SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, medium stiff 3-3 <-0.1 /500 19.9 111 10.0 4699+/- Boring Terminated at 10 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic Advancement Method: Advanced using 4 -inch diameter, continuous -flight, solid -stem auger. See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic map.. Notes: Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion. _ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started: 10-05-2021 Boring Completed: 10-05-2021 erracon 1510 44th Evans, St Unit 1 CO No free water observed Drill Rig: CME 55 Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Project No.: 21215066 N icr H Q J 0 w H Q 0 z O U Q w w J w w (9 w J cc Co Co 0 LC) N N J J O 0 H Q O w (9 H O w w J Q z CD O O w 0 w H Q Q w /ww w 0 Q H O z U) (9 O J z m H BORING LOG NO. B-7 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO CLIENT: 59th Avenue 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA SITE: Southwest Greeley, CO of the Intersection of 0 Street and w Q J J o O o 0 J O I Q CC LOCATION Latitude: 40.4515 DEPTH See Exploration c Longitude: -104.7771 Plan o Approximate Surface Elev.: 4708 (Ft.) +/- ELEVATION (Ft.) '' LL— i H w w o J Z wC wI J Q �� wII I -w Q m CUJ w a H w J a Q I CO CB L1JH H J �D JW w 11 LL Z In JQ� J o w UJ ) 5O� CO U) z 0U w o w? Q Z0I LT w H ZIO Uwz Caw 2 0 11 -- o �H w z ~w �I- �Z 0 H O — Q H I ›-0 Eru- w Z H Z w w ATTERBERG LIMITS LL -PL -PI •. •`` 0 4 LAYER, about 5 inches thick 4707.5+/- N .• . • 4 . •• ••.•••• • . :.: • • . .• . .•. •.: • • • • • • • . . . •. •. 1 \VEGETATIVE SILTY SAND, trace clay, light brown, loose to medium with 9.0 clay dense 4699+/-• 8-11 5.0 333 _ _ N=6 6.2 112 5 10 2 p • 4 SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, medium stiff 2-3- 4 N=7 20.9 10.5 4697.5+/- Boring Terminated at 10.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic 4 Advancement Method: Advanced using 4 -inch diameter, continuous -flight, solid -stem auger. See Supporting Informatior for explanation of Notes: Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion. _ symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic map Boring Started: 10-05-2021 Boring Completed: 10-05-2021 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS No free water observed erracon 1510 44th Evans, St Unit 1 CO Drill Rig: CME 55 Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Project No.: 21215066 N icr w H Q J 0 w H H Q 0 z 0 w w J w w CD w J cc Co Co 0 LC) N N J J 0 0 H Q 0 w 0 H 0 0 w J Q z_ CD 0 0 C w H Q Q 0 w w 0 Q H 0 U) 0 0 J 0 z it 0 H BORING LOG NO. B-8 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO CLIENT: 59th Avenue 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA SITE: Southwest Greeley, CO of the Intersection of O Street and MODEL LAYER GRAPHIC LOG Latitude: 40.4518° DEPTH See Exploration Longitude: -104.7771 Plan ° Approximate Surface Elev.: 4709 (Ft.) +/- ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS SWELL/ CONSOLIDATION (PSF) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf) WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) PERCENT FINES ATTERBERG S LIMITS LL -PL -PI ' `"'. •`` 0.4 LAYER, about 5 inches thick 4708.5+/- .. • . • •• 1•• :.: '• '• • • • •:• ,• • •. •.:• • • '.. •. •'8.0 \VEGETATIVE SILTY SAND (SM), interlayered sandy lean clay, tan to light brown, loose to medium dense 4701+/- 4-6 11.5 109 NP 41 345 N=9 9.5 5 4 '•'•9: , '.•.o_:. POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, interlayered sandy lean clay, light brown 6-19 16.3 107 to brown with 10.0 light pinkish white, medium dense 4699+/ Boring Terminated at 10 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic Advancement Method: Advanced using 4 -inch diameter, continuous -flight, solid -stem auger. See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were interpolated from a topographic map.. Notes: Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion. _ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started: 10-05-2021 Boring Completed: 10-05-2021 erracon 1510 44th Evans, St Unit 1 CO No free water observed Drill Rig: CME 55 Driller: Drilling Engineers, Inc. Project No.: 21215066 ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS ASTM 04318 N CO N 0 H O w H J 0_ 2 Q O z 0 CC H 0 w J W W CC 03 D co O O U, N r N Co H J O W CO W H H LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. 60 50 A s 40 T T 30 Y N 20 D E x 10 ,/,,,Z / O`Z` , E 2 dM7 & ' CGS' "' O Z7 MH or OH -MLA ML r OL IIMP CL MS - i q, 20 40 LIQUID 60 LIMIT 80 100 Boring ID Depth LL PL P1 Fines USCS Description • B-2 19 - 20.5 NP NP NP 5.6 SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL B-3 2 - 3.5 NP NP NP 36.2 SM SILTY SAND " A B-3 9 - 10.5 NP NP NP 52.4 ML SANDY SILT * B-4 9 - 10 35 11 24 85.8 CL LEAN CLAY O B-6 2 - 3.5 28 14 14 57.9 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY o B-8 2-3 NP NP NP 41.2 SM SILTY SAND PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO 151044th St Unit 1 Evans, CO _ PROJECT NUMBER: 21215066 erracon SITE: E Southwest Greeley, a of the Intersection of O Street and 59th Avenue CO _ CLIENT: 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D422 / ASTM C136 N O N O 0 (9 Q J EL w Q 0 z i O U w H U- w J w w 0 w E0 2 D J co O N N (I) 0 D w Q 0 LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. 100 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30• 25 20 15 10 U.S. SIEVE OPENING 4 2 6 3 IN INCHES 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 I 3 6 10 � 8 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I 16 30 50 100 200 14 2� 40 60 140 HYDROMETER : - • •• • . . . . • . . is • ► . • . • • = = = . = • • • 0 • : : . w m w z : : : : : : : : • • • . : i z• w rx w w : : : : :• : . . • . = • _,• •• = • • : • • • • • 5 0 • . 100 10 GRAIN 1 SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.1 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine coarse I medium I fine Boring ID Depth USCS Classification we (%) LL PL PI Cc Cu • B-2 19 - 20.5 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM) 11.4 NP NP NP 0.41 22.69 B-3 2 - 3.5 SILTY SAND (SM) 6.2 NP NP NP H A B-3 9 - 10.5 SANDY SILT (ML) 15.7 NP NP NP * B-4 9 - 10 LEAN CLAY (CL) 35 11 24 O B-6 2 - 3.5 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) 12.7 28 14 14 Boring ID Depth D100 D60 D30 D10 %Cobbles %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Fines %Clay • B-2 19 - 20.5 37.5 3.04 0.41 0.134 0.0 34.2 60.3 5.6 B-3 2 - 3.5 4.75 0.113 0.0 0.0 63.8 36.2 H A B-3 9 - 10.5 12.5 0.088 0.0 0.5 47.0 52.4 * B-4 9 - 10 4.75 0.0 0.0 142 85.8 O B-6 2 - 3.5 2 0.079 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, COi errecon 1510 44th St Unit 1 Evans. CO PROJECT NUMBER: 21215066 SITE: Southwest Greeley, of the Intersection of O Street and 59th Avenue CO CLIENT: 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D422 / ASTM C136 N O N O 0 (9 Q J EL w Q 0 z i O U Q w H U- w J w w 0 w CO 2 D J co O N N (I) 0 D w Q 0 LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. 100 F- 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 35 30• 25 20 15 10 0 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 4 2 1 1 /2 I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200 HYDROMETER 6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 814 0 40 60 140 : • : . . ' . • • • • . • • : • • • s • • • : . • _ • :• • • • - . . • w >- co w z : . .: : •: : • : : • •: : - : . • : . • : • F- z w eL w w . . • •40 . . • . : : : : . :• • = . . = • • : •: : • : . • : •: • : -• • • • • • • . 100 10 GRAIN 1 SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.1 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine coarse I medium I fine Boring ID Depth USCS Classification we (%) LL PL PI Cc Cu • B-8 2 - 3 SILTY SAND (SM) 11.5 NP NP NP Boring ID Depth D100 D60 D30 D10 %Cobbles %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Fines %Clay • B-8 2 - 3 2 0.104 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO ,•.,„, erracon 1510 44th St Unit 1 Evans. CO PROJECT NUMBER: 21215066 SITE: Southwest Greeley, of the Intersection of O Street and 59th Avenue CO ,c CLIENT: 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D4546 N Co 65155045-SWELUCONSOL 21215066 84 LUMBER GREELEY.GPJ TERRACON DATATEMPLATE.GDT LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. 10 8 6 0 z X Q 4 2 -2 -4 100 • 1,000 PRESSURE, psf 10,000 Specimen Identification Classification Id, pcf WC, % • B-4 9 - 10 ft LEAN CLAY(CL) 119 11 NOTES: Sample exhibited 3 percent swell upon wetting under an applied pressure of 1,000 psf. PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO SITE: Southwest of the Intersection of O Street and 59th Avenue Greeley, CO lierracon 1510 44th St Unit 1 Evans. CO PROJECT NUMBER: 21215066 CLIENT: 84 Lumber Company Eighty Four, PA SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D4546 N Co 65155045-SWELUCONSOL 21215066 84 LUMBER GREELEY.GPJ TERRACON DATATEMPLATE.GDT LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. 10 8 6 0 z X Q 4 2 -2 -4 100 1,000 PRESSURE, psf 10,000 Specimen Identification Classification 7d, pcf WC, % • B-6 9 - 10 ft LEAN CLAY 111 20 NOTES: Sample exhibited slight compression upon wetting under an applied pressue of 500 psf. PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO SITE: Southwest of the Intersection of O Street and 59th Avenue Greeley, CO lierracon 1510 44th St Unit 1 Evans. CO PROJECT NUMBER: 21215066 CLIENT: 84 Lumber Company Eighty Four, PA UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST ASTM D2166 r N Cr) r r H 0 O u.i Q J a 2 Q O z 0 U Q w a w J w w w 2 J op O O O r N r N 0 0 a H 0 z w 0 O z D LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 •SDI I �lii��k �Il tk Q i co co w I — CO w > co co frill 0- O O 4 8 AXIAL STRAIN 12 - 16 20 SPECIMEN FAILURE PHOTOGRAPH SPECIMEN TEST DATA Moisture Content: % 17.6 i Dry Density: pcf 111 Diameter: in. 1.93 Height: in. 3.94 Height / Diameter Ratio: 2.04 1 Calculated Saturation: % 99.09 Calculated Void Ratio: 0.46 Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.6 Failure Strain: % 14.89 Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf) 2793 Undrained Shear Strength: (psf) 1397 Strain Rate: in/min -0.0800 Remarks: SAMPLE TYPE: CARS SAMPLE LOCATION: B-2 @ 9 - 10 feet DESCRIPTION: LEAN CLAY LL PL PI Percent < #200 Sieve PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO 1510 44th Evans. St Unit 1 CO PROJECT NUMBER: 21215066 errecon SITE: , p Southwest Greeley, of the Intersection of O Street and 59th Avenue CO CLIENT: 84 Eighty Lumber Company Four, PA CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST REPORT Project Number: 21215066 Service Date: 10/15/21 Report Date: 10/15/21 lierracon 10400 State Highway 191 Midland, Texas 79707 432-684-9600 Client 84 Lumber Company 1019 Route 519, Building 4 Eighty Four, PA 15530 Sample Location Project 84 Lumber Greeley, CO 14902 CR 64 Greeley, CO Sample Depth Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4), ASTM C 1580 (ft) (mg/kg) B-1 B-7 2-3.5 2-3 Analyzed By: 117 587 Nohelia Monasterios Staff Engineer The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP ASTM D698/D1557 N 0 U H Q J Q. W H Q 0 I z O LU Q 0_ >- W J W LU 0! CO J co 0 0 0 U) N N N COMPACTION LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. 135 B4 B8 Composite Bulk 0 5 feet Source of Material - @ - Description of Material Silty Sand 130 Remarks: 125 Test Method ASTM D698 Method D TEST RESULTS Maximum Dry Density 115.1 PCF 14.0 % Optimum Water Content i */ \� E\ I 100 95 90 85 ir tn 80 for sp 75 0 5 10 15 20 WATER CONTENT, 25 30 35 40 45 % PROJECT: 84 Lumber Greeley, CO PROJECT NUMBER: 21215066 errecon 1510 Evans. 44th St Unit 1 CO SITE: Southwest Greeley, of the Intersection of O Street and 59th Avenue CO CLIENT: 84 Eighty Lumber Four, Company PA SUPPORTING INFORMATION Contents: General Notes Unified Soil Classification System Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above. GENERAL NOTES DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS 84 Lumber Greeley, CO Greeley, CO Terracon Project No. 21215066 lierracon GeoReport SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTS N Standard Penetration Test Water Initially Encountered Resistance (Blows/Ft.) V Modified V A California Ring a Grab Sample 17 Water Level After a Specified Period of Time (HP) Hand Penetrometer Sampler Standard ® Water Level After a Specified Period of Time (T) Torvane X Penetration Cave In Test Encountered (DCP) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are UC Unconfined Compressive the levels measured in the borehole at the times Strength indicated. Groundwater level variations will occur over determination time. In low of permeability groundwater levels soils, accurate is not possible (PID) Photo -Ionization Detector with short term water level observations. (OVA) Organic Vapor Analyzer DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil classification as noted on the soil boring logs is based Unified Soil Classification System. Where sufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils consistent with ASTM D2487 "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes" this procedure is used. ASTM D2488 "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure)" is also used to classify the soils, particularly where insufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils in accordance with ASTM D2487. In addition to USCS classification, coarse grained soils are classified on the basis of their in -place relative density, and fine-grained soils are classified on the basis of their consistency. See "Strength Terms" table below for details. The ASTM standards noted above are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgment. LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES Exploration point locations as shown on the Exploration Plan and as noted on the soil boring logs in the form of Latitude and Longitude are approximate. See Exploration and Testing Procedures in the report for the methods used to locate the exploration points for this project. Surface elevation data annotated with +1- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area. STRENGTH TERMS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE -GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.) (50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.) Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual -manual procedures or standard penetration resistance Descriptive Term Standard Penetration Ring Sampler Descriptive Term Unconfined Standard Penetration or Ring Sampler (Density) or N -Value Blows/Ft. (Consistency) Compressive Strength N -Value Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. Qu, (psf) I Blows/Ft. Very Loose 0 - 3 0 - 5 Very Soft less than 500 0 - 1 < 3 Loose 4 - 9 6 - 14 Soft 500 to 1,000 2 - 4 3 - 5 Medium Dense 10 - 29 15 - 46 Medium Stiff 1,000 to 2,000 4 - 8 6 - 10 Dense 30 - 50 47 - 79 Stiff 2,000 to 4,000 8 - 15 11 - 18 Very Dense > 50 > 80 Very Stiff 4,000 to 8,000 15 - 30 19 - 36 Hard > 8,000 > 30 > 36 RELEVANCE OF SOIL BORING LOG The soil boring logs contained within this document are intended for application to the project as described in this document. Use of these soil boring logs for any other purpose may not be appropriate. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM I lerracon &eoRep73Ft Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory 4 Soil Classification Group Symbol Group Name Tests Coarse -Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Gravels: More coarse retained than 50% of fraction on No. 4 sieve Clean Less than Gravels: 5% fines Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 GW Well -graded gravel Cu < 4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] = GP Poorly graded gravel Gravels with More than 12% Fines: fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F9 G9 H Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F9 G9 H Sands: 50% or fraction sieve more of passes coarse No. 4 Clean Sands: Less than 5% fines Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 - SW Well -graded sand Cu < 6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] SP Poorly graded sand Sands More than with Fines: 12% fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand 9 "9 i Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand 39 H9 U Fine -Grained 50% or more No. 200 sieve Soils: passes the Silts Liquid and Clays: limit less than 50 Inorganic: PI >7 and plots on or above "A" CL Lean clay K, L9 M PI < 4 or plots below "A" line ML Silt K9 19 M Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried < 0.75 OL Organic clay K9 L9 M, H Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, i►n, O Silts Liquid and Clays: limit 50 I or more Inorganic: PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat clay K9 L, M PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried < 0.75 OH Organic clay {9 L9 M9 P Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M9 Q Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat Based If field or boulders, Gravels gravel graded Sands sand sand Cu = If soil If fines on the sample with with gravel with with silt, with silt, O60/O10 contains classify material contained or both" 5 to silt, GW-GC with 5 to 12% SW SP Cc ≥ 15% as to 12% silt, fines -SC -SC poorly passing group fines well GP well (D30) cobbles -GC require -graded require -graded graded name. the poorly 2 or dual sand 3 symbol -inch boulders, dual gravel graded sand sand" symbols: symbols: with (75 with with GC -mm) clay, to or gravel clay. group -GM. sieve. both, clay, SW-SM SP-SM add GW-GM GP with name. or SC-SM. -GM clay. "with well poorly well poorly -graded cobbles -graded graded . If If r If MY " If fines soil Atterberg If soil gravel," soil "sandy" soil "gravelly" PI PI PI PI contains contains contains contains ≥ 4 < 4 plots plots are whichever to and or on below to plots organic, limits group group plots below or above "A" ≥ 15% 15 ≥ 30% name. ≥ 30% on add plot to 29% is predominant. name. or "A" "A" line. "with gravel, in shaded plus plus above line. line. plus No. No. organic add No. 200 200, "A" "with area, 200, line. fines" to group gravel" to soil is a CL add "with predominantly predominantly name. group -ML, sand" sand, gravel, name. silty clay. or "with add add = CL -ML. D� 0 x sand, add use D60 "with dual 60 50 i W 40 O Z ›- 30 CO 20 10 7 4 0 For soils coarse classification and fine-grained -grained of soils fine-grained fraction .4\ ,!' / /1 _of Equation Horizontal then PI=0.73 of "A" at P1=4 - (LL line to -20) LL=25.5. 11 i fr F' / f c4 ``e 1y Equation Vertical at of LL=16 "Li" - line to P1=7, / ,' // / o ,, then P1=0.9 (LL -8) / / / / / osV { / / / MH or OH / CL - M L ML OL i 1 or 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (LLB LUMBER COMPANY TRAFFIC STATEMENT 84 LUMBER GREELEY CO Approximately 200 total people are expected to access the site on a daily basis, including truck drivers, contractors, customers, and employees. Approximately 10-12 tractor trailers will access the site on a daily basis and 15-20 delivery trucks are expected throughout the day. Approximately 3-5 forklift vehicles will be stored at the facility 1019 Route 519 • Eighty Four, PA 15330 • 724-228-8820 LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 FAX (303) 333-1107 E-mail: lsc@lscdenver.com TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. June 7, 2022 Mr. Jim Zaunick 84 Lumber 1019 Route 519 Eighty Four, PA 15330 Re: 84 Lumber Facility Weld County, CO LSC #220230 Dear Mr. Zaunick: In response to your request, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has prepared this Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed 84 Lumber Facility development in Weld County, Colorado. As shown on Figure 1, the site is located south of O Street and west of N. 59th Avenue. REPORT CONTENTS The report contains the following: the existing roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site including the lane geometries, traffic controls, posted speed limits, etc.; the existing weekday peak -hour traffic volumes; the existing daily traffic volumes in the area; the typical weekday site -generated traffic volume projections for the site; the assignment of the projected traffic volumes to the area roadways; the projected short-term background and resulting total traffic volumes; the site's projected traffic impacts; and any recommended roadway improve- ments to mitigate the growth in background traffic or the impact of the site. LAND USE AND ACCESS The site is proposed as an 84 Lumber building material facility. Access is proposed to O Street as shown in the conceptual site plan in Figure 2. ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Area Roadways The major roadways in the site's vicinity are shown on Figure 1 and are described below. • N. 59th Avenue is a north -south, two-lane arterial roadway east of the site. The inter- section with O Street is all -way stop -sign controlled. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 45 mph. Mr. Jim Zaunick Page 2 June 7, 2022 84 Lumber Facility • O Street is an east -west, two-lane arterial roadway north of the site. The intersections with N. 59th Avenue and N. 71St Avenue are stop -sign controlled. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 35 mph. • N. 71st Avenue is a north -south, two-lane arterial roadway west of the site. The inter- section with O Street is stop -sign controlled. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 55 mph. Existing Traffic Conditions Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometries, traffic controls, posted speed limits, and traffic volumes in the site's vicinity on a typical weekday. The weekday peak -hour traffic volumes and daily traffic volumes are based on traffic counts conducted by Counter Measures, Inc in March, 2022. 2024 and 2042 Background Traffic Figure 4 shows the estimated 2024 background traffic, lane geometry, and traffic controls based on an annual growth rate of four percent. Figure 5 shows the estimated 2042 background traffic, lane geometry, and traffic controls based on an annual growth rate of two percent. Existing, 2024, and 2042 Background Levels of Service Level of service (LOS) is a quantitative measure of the level of congestion or delay at an inter- section. Level of service is indicated on a scale from "A" to "F." LOS A is indicative of little con- gestion or delay and LOS F is indicative of a high level of congestion or delay. Attached are specific level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections. The intersections in the study area were analyzed to determine the existing, 2024, and 2042 background levels of service using Synchro. Table 1 shows the level of service analysis results. The level of service reports are attached. 1. O Street/N. 71st Avenue: All movements at this stop -sign controlled intersection currently operate at LOS "B" or better during both morning and afternoon peak -hours and are ex- pected to operate at LOS "C" or better during both peak -hours through 2024. 2. O Street/ Site Access: This intersection was analyzed only in the total traffic scenarios. 3. O Street/ N. 59th Avenue: This all -way stop -sign controlled intersection currently operates at an overall LOS "F" during both morning and afternoon peak -hours. By 2024 it is ex- pected to be converted to roundabout control and operate at an overall LOS "B" during both peak -hours through 2042. TRIP GENERATION Table 2 shows the estimated average weekday, morning peak -hour, and afternoon peak -hour trip generation potential for the site use based on coordination with the applicant. Mr. Jim Zaunick Page 3 June 7, 2022 84 Lumber Facility The site is projected to generate about 200 vehicle -trips on the average weekday, with about half entering and half exiting the site during a 24 -hour period. During the morning peak -hour, which generally occurs for one hour between 6:30 and 8:30 a.m., about 11 vehicles would enter and about 11 vehicles would exit the site. During the afternoon peak -hour, which generally occurs for one hour between 4:00 and 6:30 p.m., about 11 vehicles would enter and about 11 vehicles would exit the site. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 shows the estimated directional distribution of the site -generated traffic volumes on the area roadways. The estimates were based on the location of the site with respect to the re- gional population, employment, and activity centers; and the site's proposed land use. TRIP ASSIGNMENT Figure 7 shows the estimated site -generated traffic volumes based on the directional distribu- tion percentages (from Figure 6) and the trip generation estimate (from Table 2). 2024 AND 2042 TOTAL TRAFFIC Figure 8 shows the 2024 total traffic which is the sum of the 2024 background traffic volumes (from Figure 4) and the site -generated traffic volumes (from Figure 7). Figure 8 also shows the recommended 2024 lane geometry and traffic control. Figure 9 shows the 2042 total traffic which is the sum of the 2042 background traffic volumes (from Figure 5) and the site -generated traffic volumes (from Figure 7). Figure 9 also shows the recommended 2024 lane geometry and traffic control. PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE The intersections in the study area were analyzed to determine the 2024 and 2042 total levels of service. Table 1 shows the level of service analysis results. The level of service reports are attached. 1. O Street/N. 71st Avenue: All movements at this stop -sign controlled intersection are ex- pected to operate at LOS "C" or better during both morning and afternoon peak -hours through 2024. 2. O Street/Site Access: All movements at this stop -sign controlled intersection are expec- ted to operate at LOS "C" or better during both morning and afternoon peak -hours through 2024. 3. O Street/N. 59th Avenue: This future roundabout -controlled intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS "B" during both morning and afternoon peak -hours through 2042. High delay will be experienced as long as the existing all -way stop -sign control is in place. Mr. Jim Zaunick Page 4 June 7, 2022 84 Lumber Facility CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Trip Generation 1. The site is projected to generate about 200 vehicle -trips on the average weekday, with about half entering and half exiting during a 24 -hour period. During the morning peak -hour, about 11 vehicles would enter and about 11 vehicles would exit the site. During the afternoon peak -hour, about 11 vehicles would enter and about 11 vehicles would exit the site. Projected Levels of Service 2. All movements at the stop -sign controlled intersections are expected to operate at LOS "C" or better during both peak -hours through 2042. 3. The future roundabout controlled O Street/N. 59th Avenue intersection is expected to ope- rate at an overall LOS "B" during both peak -hours through 2042. High delay will be expe- rienced as long as the existing all -way stop -sign control is in place. Conclusions 4. The impact of the proposed 84 Lumber Facility development can be accommodated by the existing roadway network with the following recommendations. Recommendations 5. Construction of a westbound left -turn lane at the O Street/N. 71st Avenue intersection. An appropriate length would be 260 feet (190 feet for deceleration and 70 feet for storage) plus a 120 -foot transition taper by others. 6. Construction of an eastbound right -turn lane at the O Street/N. 71st Avenue intersection. An appropriate length would be 190 feet plus a 120 -foot transition taper. 7. Conversion of the O Street/N. 59th Avenue intersection to roundabout control by others. Mr. Jim Zaunick Page 5 June 7, 2022 84 Lumber Facility We trust our findings will assist you in gaining approval of the proposed 84 Lumber Facility de- velopment. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further assistance. Sincerely, LSC TRANSPOTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. • �t v. cC., i Ci I) S A ' (I) ' ct By // -O„ C ri ' topher..S.: 1/IcGranahan, PE, PTOE CSM/wc Enclosures: Tables 1 and 2 Figures 1 - 9 Traffic Count Data Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Reports W: \ LSC\ Projects \2022 \220230-84LumberFacility\Report \84-Lumber-060722.wpd Table 1 Intersection Levels of Service Analysis 84 Lumber Weld County, CO LSC #220230; June, 2022 Intersection No. & Location Existing Traffic 2024 Background 2024 Total 2042 Background 2042 Total Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Traffic Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Control AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1) O Street/N. 71st Avenue N B Approach WB Approach Critical Movement Delay 2) O Street/Site Access N B Approach WB Left Critical Movement Delay 3) O Street/N. 59th Avenue N B Approach EB Approach WB Approach SB Approach Entire Intersection Delay (sec /veh) Entire Intersection LOS EB Approach WB Approach N B Approach SB Approach Entire Intersection Delay (sec /veh) Entire Intersection LOS TWSC TWSC AWSC Roundabout B B B B B B C C C C A A A A A A A A A A 12.0 12.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.6 16.6 16.5 16.8 16.6 Me O 01•1 IMP U S. Mil MI Mil MI MN F F F F E F F F 155.8 207.6 F F O 01•1 IMP 0.000 S N M IMO S IM Mil Me dila Mil Mil MN !Mil UM IMII Mill ilM0 NMI MI IS. MS MI MI IS. .IMIP .10110 MI MN 0 Mil a MI Mil MN MI ellel IMII Mill 0,11 NM MOP *MP MN MIN MI MIll Nal Mil MOP *MP mo MN MN 811•1 B B A A 12.7 11.6 MS MIll MN MIN 40101 0.0101 MN MIN MN *MI MN 01•01 Mill MIll MOP *MP IMO MN MU 11•001 MI OM Mil OM MS OM MO IIM MO IMP Mil OMP MS OM IMP SMI MIll an 40101 IIMP MN MIN MI UM MN MIN 40101 0.0101 MN MIN MN *MI MN liMINI C B A A 16.1 13.8 MIIP MI MOP MN mei OM elkill MN Mill IMP SIN IIMI .001 IIMP MN "Mk SIN B A B B B C B C A B A B B B B B B B B B C A C A A C A C A C A C 10.6 12.5 11.9 14.4 12.8 14.0 13.0 12.4 B B B B B B B B Table 2 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION 84 Lumber Weld County, CO LSC #220230; June, 2022 Trip Generating Category Vehicle -Trips Generated (1) Average AM Peak -Hour PM Peak -Hour Weekday In Out In Out CURRENTLY PROPOSED LAND USE Customer Passenger Vehicles (2) Tractor Trailers (3) Delivery Trucks (Box Trucks) (4) Employee Passenger Vehicles (5) Deliveries, etc. Total = 150 11 11 11 11 12 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 200 11 11 11 11 Notes. (1) Trip generation is based on coordination with the applicant. (2) The applicant expects about 75 roundtrips per day from customers. Fifteen percent of daily trips are assumed to occur in each peak -hour. (3) The applicant expects about 6 roundtrips per day from tractor trailers. These trips will typically be outside of the commuter peak -hour to avoid congestion. (4) The applicant expects about 6 roundtrips per day from box trucks. These trips will typically occur outside of the commuter peak -hour to avoid congestion. (5) 10 - 12 employees arriving at or before 7:00 AM and departing at or after 6:00 PM y• z 0 z n � 1 11_x' rir ly _ . , , ii, 4 II fp+r, +- : It '' ' .‘ A } ,�� ....are' Tl��l��Y/Y 1 p ♦r j � , -rso,,,,,:„._,i •.1.11 �r 1 >a 1, TIW'` 4,+ ,. s, .,_ ! • ! a. +1 Approximate Scale Scale: 1'1'1 000' I r a 1 r x.h e .2 �'©t,r, 're Yet f j l'•r. e., .1 • ir4ija If 1 -:if �i7 sing? fr" t 1 •r' 1 Y J I _ r~ • n Y,. � fir 1 i I r i Mtn it --41•: �,e ,.• Fr figure 1 lli St. -: ala.. a . 1 4 -- sr P .r� 1• Vicinity _. •.� �" Map ry _ '�� 84 Lumber (LSC #220230) OS .OS. .. .05 05 0 05 OS .- 05 OS Ch CL 6000 EMSEPTC ARCS Note: The volumes at the western intersection were increased to better balance with the counts at the eastern intersection. LEGEND: Is = Stop Sign S = Traffic Signal 26 __ AM Peak Hour Traffic 35 PM Peak Hour Traffic 1,000 = Average Daily Traffic Recommended Improvements: WB LT = 260 feet (190 feet for decel + 70 feet for storage) + 120 -foot transition taper (by others) Roundabout control (by others) LEGEND: Is = Stop Sign S = Traffic Signal 26 __ AM Peak Hour Traffic 35 PM Peak Hour Traffic 1,000 = Average Daily Traffic Recommended Improvements: WB LT = 260 feet (190 feet for decel + 70 feet for storage) + 120 -foot transition taper (by others) Note: Tractor Trailer, Box Truck, Employees and deliveries are expected to occur outside of the adjacent street peak hour. LEGEND: Is = Stop Sign S = Traffic Signal 26 __ AM Peak Hour Traffic 35 PM Peak Hour Traffic 1,000 = Average Daily Traffic LEGEND: Is = Stop Sign S = Traffic Signal 26 __ AM Peak Hour Traffic 35 PM Peak Hour Traffic 1,000 = Average Daily Traffic N/S STREET: N. 59TH AVE E/W STREET: O STREET CITY: GREELEY COUNTY: WELD COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 Groups Printed- VEHICLES File Name : N59THOST Site Code : 00000017 Start Date : 3/22/2022 Page No : 1 N. 59TH Southbound AVE O Westbound ST N. Northbound 59TH AVE O Eastbound ST Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Total Int. Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 06:30 AM 06:45 AM 0 2 102 43 11 16 0 0 4 4 15 23 4 0 4 0 6 67 20 7 76 11 0 0 6 39 4 33 55 7 0 0 219 340 Total 2 145 27 0 8 38 8 0 13 143 31 0 39 94 11 0 559 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 4 4 6 5 19 102 103 114 99 418 4 102 9 110 12 15 23 22 72 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 11 0 6 24 4 11 45 8 9 41 11 7 47 14 33 157 37 0 0 0 0 0 6 40 7 0 6 36 10 0 13 104 9 124 11 100 6 90 39 418 10 78 8 75 10 8 30 17 65 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 10 0 25 19 13 17 74 44 5 81 4 90 8 82 12 297 29 0 0 1 0 1 6 66 4 0 11 64 2 1 353 431 457 418 1659 343 353 Total 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM 13 212 4 1 6 4 15 9 5 2 4 126 161 117 125 529 136 103 104 98 23 0 11 0 14 0 14 0 12 0 51 0 16 18 22 17 1 0 0 0 12 76 17 0 19 44 3 0 33 61 2 0 16 70 6 0 20 49 2 0 88 224 13 0 17 18 14 12 50 38 25 20 5 6 3 8 0 0 0 0 18 153 12 15 5 6 116 133 122 112 38 483 7 6 10 3 103 97 72 63 18 0 7 0 14 0 12 0 10 0 43 0 1 0 5 0 8 0 1 0 17 130 6 1 5 9 15 5 34 12 8 16 7 37 8 43 16 52 21 41 20 173 65 26 26 27 26 24 16 17 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 696 392 502 456 406 1756 408 346 320 273 Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 20 441 73 1 69 1745 246 3.3 84.7 11.9 1.1 29.0 4.1 1 0.0 0.0 61 133 22 0 202 628 97 0 21.8 67.7 10.5 0.0 3.4 10.4 1.6 0.0 26 335 134 1532 7.3 83.4 2.2 25.5 15 0 172 9.4 2.9 0 0.0 0.0 43 105 71 1 207 799 182 17.4 67.1 15.3 3.4 13.3 3.0 3 0.3 0.0 1347 6017 N/S STREET: N. 59TH AVE E/W STREET: O STREET CITY: GREELEY COUNTY: WELD COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : N59THOST Site Code : 00000017 Start Date : 3/22/2022 Page No : 2 N. 59TH Southbound AVE O Westbound ST N. Northbound 59TH AVE O Eastbound ST Time Start Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s Total App. Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s Total App. Total Int. Peak Hour From 06:30 AM to 08:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersect' 07:00 AM on Volume 19 418 72 0 509 82. 14. 1 1 Percent 07:30 Volume Peak Factor High Int. Volume Peak Factor 3.7 0.0 6 114 23 0 143 07:30 AM 6 114 23 0 143 0.89 0 33 157 37 0 227 14. 69. 16. 0.0 5 2 3 9 41 11 0 61 07:45 AM 7 47 14 0 68 0.83 5 39 418 65 0 522 7.5 80. 12. 0.0 1 5 11 100 30 0 141 07:15 AM 9 124 8 0 141 0.92 6 74 297 29 1 18. 74. 7.2 0.2 5 1 401 13 90 8 1 112 07:30 AM 13 90 8 1 112 0.89 5 O CD O H O Co CO OD Co H rn — r\F C E co D a) 0 N. 59TH AVE Out In Total 529 509 1038 72 418 19 0 Right Thru 1-� 1 a Left Peds �-1 North 3/22/2022 7:00:00 AM 3/22/2022 7:45:00 AM VEHICLES 4 — Left Thru Right Peds 39 418 65 0 480 522 1002 Out In Total N. 59TH AVE 1 D- 1 C n CD v CD Q CA) O1 CA) OD N v O) O CO W W O O c 0 = 0) 0 r 0) 1659 457 0.908 N/S STREET: N. 59TH AVE E/W STREET: O STREET CITY: GREELEY COUNTY: WELD COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : N59THOST Site Code : 00000017 Start Date : 3/22/2022 Page No : 3 N. 59TH Southbound AVE O Westbound ST N. Northbound 59TH AVE O Eastbound ST Time Start Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s Total App. Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s Total App. Total Int. Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on Volume 04:15 PM 20 539 Percent 3.2 87. 1 161 04:15 Volume Peak Factor High Int. 04:15 PM Volume 1 161 14 Peak Factor 56 9.1 14 1 0.2 616 0 176 0 176 0.87 5 86 230 15 0 26. 6a 4.5 0.0 0 5 331 33 61 2 0 96 04:15 PM 33 61 2 0 96 0.86 2 33 470 37 0 540 6.1 8T 6.9 0.0 0 15 133 14 0 162 04:15 PM 15 133 14 0 162 0.83 3 41 162 81 1 14. 56. 28. 0.4 4 8 4 285 9 43 16 0 68 04:30 PM 15 52 21 CD O O O co N 0) Co .7r J a) 0 N. 59TH AVE Out In Total 526 616 1142 56 539 20 1 Right Thru Left Peds t North 3/22/2022 4:15:00 PM 3/22/2022 5:00:00 PM VEHICLES I Left Thru Right Peds 33 470 37 0 706 540 1246 Out In Total N. 59TH AVE 1 T - D- v 0 Q 01 N CO N O CO O O Ul O 0 O O) 0 88 0.81 0 1772 502 0.882 N/S STREET: N. 71ST AVE E/W STREET: O STREET CITY: GREELEY COUNTY: WELD COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 Groups Printed- VEHICLES File Name : N71STOST Site Code : 00000022 Start Date : 3/22/2022 Page No : 1 NO ACCESS Southbound O STREET Westbound N. 71ST Northbound AVE O STREET Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Total Int. Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 06:30 AM 06:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 23 0 0 5 20 0 0 5 0 14 9 0 9 0 0 0 33 0 42 1 5 0 0 78 90 Total 0 0 0 0 7 43 0 0 14 0 23 0 0 75 6 0 168 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM Total 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o o 0 0 7 25 10 29 11 18 12 28 40 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 19 0 0 6 17 0 0 2 3 11 10 26 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 12 19 17 26 74 0 0 0 1 1 15 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 40 37 50 149 9 7 9 6 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 3 0 0 23 5 0 77 108 103 133 421 75 59 Total 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:45 PM Total 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 36 0 0 12 13 9 6 25 28 26 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 115 0 0 11 17 11 5 33 33 28 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 12 0 2 0 9 0 24 0 2 6 8 6 0 0 0 0 22 0 5 0 15 0 10 0 5 0 35 0 7 5 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 47 8 0 0 17 3 0 0 26 10 0 0 32 9 0 0 20 9 0 0 95 31 0 0 0 0 0 28 30 32 18 4 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 134 63 104 88 85 340 86 95 96 57 Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44 115 0 0 146 409 0 0 26.3 73.7 0.0 0.0 10.5 29.3 0.0 0.0 22 0 92 33.3 6.6 29 0 0 183 0.0 66.3 0.0 13.1 1 0.4 0.1 0 108 15 1 0 474 91 0.0 83.7 16.1 0.0 33.9 6.5 1 0.2 0.1 334 1397 0 N/S STREET: N. 71ST AVE E/W STREET: O STREET CITY: GREELEY COUNTY: WELD COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : N71STOST Site Code : 00000022 Start Date : 3/22/2022 Page No : 2 NO ACCESS Southbound O STREET Westbound N. Northbound 71ST AVE O STREET Eastbound Time Start Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s Total App. Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s Total App. Total Int. Peak Hour From 07:00 AM to 07:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on Volume 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 07:45 Volume Peak Factor High Int. Volume 0 0 0 0 Peak Factor 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 100 0 0 28. 71. 0.0 0.0 6 4 140 12 28 0 0 40 07:45 AM 12 28 0 0 40 0.87 5 26 0 74 1 25. 0.0 73. 1.0 7 3 10 0 26 1 07:45 AM 10 0 26 101 37 1 37 0.68 2 0 149 31 0 0.0 8Z 17. 0.0 8 2 0 50 6 07:45 AM 0 50 180 0 56 6 0 56 0.80 4 w we CC - I - O O CO Co N O� 0 CO 0 E CD D Q) 0 NO ACCESS Out In Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru 1-� 1 a Left Peds �-1 North 3/22/2022 7:00:00 AM 3/22/2022 7:45:00 AM VEHICLES 4 — Left Thru Right Peds 26 0 74 1 71 101 172 Out In Total N. 71ST AVE I D- 1 C n CD CD Q O O O N N W 0 O W rn C) O C rt 0 = 23 m m 421 133 0.791 0 N/S STREET: N. 71ST AVE E/W STREET: O STREET CITY: GREELEY COUNTY: WELD COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER.COLORADO 303-333-7409 File Name : N71STOST Site Code : 00000022 Start Date : 3/22/2022 Page No : 3 NO ACCESS Southbound O STREET Westbound N. Northbound 71ST AVE O STREET Eastbound Time Start Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s Total App. Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s App. Total Left Thr u Rig ht Ped s Total App. Total Int. Peak Hour From 04:15 PM to 05:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti on Volume 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 04:15 Volume Peak Factor High Int. Volume 0 0 Peak Factor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 123 0 0 24. 75. 0.0 0.0 9 162 13 28 0 0 41 05:00 PM 11 33 0 0 44 0.92 0 25 0 37 0 40. 0.0 59. 0.0 3 7 12 0 15 0 04:15 PM 12 0 15 62 27 0 27 0.57 4 0 106 32 1 0.0 76. 23. 0.7 3 0 0 26 10 04:30 PM 0 32 139 0 36 9 0 41 0.84 8 w LLB c cn 0 O Cr) CO O O N Or) CD -o a) 0 NO ACCESS Out In Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru Left Peds t North 3/22/2022 4:15:00 PM 3/22/2022 5:00:00 PM VEHICLES I Left Thru Right Peds 25 0 37 0 71 62 133 Out In Total N. 71ST AVE 1 T - D- v 0 Q O N W CD O W 0 O r 0 m 363 104 0.873 Page 1 Location: 0 STREET W -O 59TH AVE City: GREELEY County: WELD Direction: EAST/WEST COUNTER MEASURES INC. 1889 YORK STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80206 303-333-7409 Site Code: 222219 Station ID: 222219 Start Time 23 -Mar -22 Wed EAST WEST Total 12:00 AM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 PM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 8 4 4 6 17 80 165 4 0 8 2 10 49 106 274 157 172 128 124 142 118 123 137 226 226 60 70 57 54 59 64 86 88 90 253 136 62 52 28 16 12 54 38 23 32 18 14 6 12 4 12 8 27 129 271 431 232 198 181 196 177 187 223 314 316 307 174 85 84 46 30 18 Total Percent 2513 68.6% 1149 31.4% 3662 AM Peak Vol. PM Peak Vol. 07:00 274 17:00 253 07:00 157 16:00 90 07:00 431 16:00 316 Grand Total Percent ADT 2513 68.6% ADT 3,662 1149 31.4% AADT 3,662 3662 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS From Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2016, 6th Edition UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Applicable to Two -Way Stop Control, All -Way Stop Control, and Roundabouts LOS Vehicle Average Delay Control Operational Characteristics A <10 seconds Normally, vehicles on the stop -controlled approach only have to wait up to 10 seconds before being able to clear the intersection. Left to -turning make their vehicles turn. on the uncontrolled street do not have to wait B 10 seconds to 15 Vehicles before to 15 seconds. on the being able Left stop to to -turning -controlled clear make the their vehicles intersection. turn. approach on the will The experience delay could delays be up uncontrolled street may have to wait C 15 seconds to 25 Vehicles range Motorists thereby on the of uncontrolled on 15 posing to may the 25 begin a stop seconds safety -controlled street to take risk before will chances to now through approach clearing be due required traffic. to can the the expect intersection. Left long -turning delays delays, vehicles in the to wait to make their turn causing a queue to be created in the turn lane. D . 25 seconds to 35 This is the point at which a traffic signal may be warranted for this intersection. be delays excessive. and private for the The stop access length -controlled points. of the queue intersection may are not begin to The considered block other to public E 35 seconds to 50 The unacceptable. approaches There delays is a high for as all critical length as the traffic of left that the -turn this movements queues movements intersection for are the considered stop are will -controlled extremely meet traffic to be long. be The well probability signal warrants. the the ability existing accesses stop -controlled to traffic install by a signals. eliminating traffic approach. Consideration signal the is left affected -turn may move- by The to the given ments location to from restricting of and other F >50 seconds The of Motorists The 100 delay only seconds. are remedy for the selecting The for critical length these alternative traffic long of movements the delays queues routes is due installing are are to extremely probably the long a traffic in long. delays. excess signal or restricting the accesses. The potential to motorists motorist for begin taking accidents making more at risky two this inter- -stage left section chances. -turns. are If extremely the median high permits, due HCM 6th TWSC 1: N. 71st Avenue & 0 Street Existing AM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1, 4 Yr Traffic Vol, veh/h 250 35 40 175 30 75 Future Vol, veh/h 250 35 40 175 30 75 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length IS IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 272 38 43 190 33 82 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 310 0 567 291 Stage 1 Si S IS - 291 Stage 2 IS - 276 Critical Hdwy M. - 4.15 - 6.45 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.45 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 IS - 5.45 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.245 - 3.545 3.345 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1234 - 480 741 Stage 1 - 752 Stage 2 - 764 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1234 - 461 741 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 461 Stage 1 - 752 Stage 2 IS - 734 IS Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 12 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 631 - 1234 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.181 - 0.035 HCM Control Delay (s) 12 8 0 HCM Lane LOS B IS IS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 0.1 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th AWSC 3: N. 59th Avenue & O Street Existing AM Peak Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 155.8 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 74 297 29 33 157 37 39 418 65 19 418 72 Future Vol, veh/h 74 297 29 33 157 37 39 418 65 19 418 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 80 323 32 36 171 40 42 454 71 21 454 78 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 98.8 35.4 211.7 196.9 HCM LOS F E F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, 7% 18% 15% 4% Vol Thru, % 80% 74% 69% 82% Vol Right, 12% 7% 16% 14% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 522 400 227 509 LT Vol 39 74 33 19 Through Vol 418 297 157 418 RT Vol 65 29 37 72 Lane Flow Rate 567 435 247 553 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 1.374 1.059 0.659 1.337 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.82 10.514 11.956 9.885 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 374 348 306 371 Service Time 7.82 8.514 9.956 7.885 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.516 1.25 0.807 1.491 HCM Control Delay 211.7 98.8 35.4 196.9 HCM Lane LOS F F E F HCM 95th -tile Q 24.8 13 4.3 23.2 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 1: N. 71st Avenue & 0 Street Existing PM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1, 4 Yr Traffic Vol, veh/h 220 35 40 225 30 40 Future Vol, veh/h 220 35 40 225 30 40 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length IS IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 239 38 43 245 33 43 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 277 0 589 258 Stage 1 Si M - 258 Stage 2 IS - 331 Critical Hdwy M. - 4.15 - 6.45 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.45 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 IS - 5.45 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.245 - 3.545 3.345 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1269 - 466 773 Stage 1 - 778 Stage 2 - 721 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1269 - 448 773 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 448 Stage 1 - 778 Stage 2 IS - 693 Si Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.2 12 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 590 - 1269 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 - 0.034 HCM Control Delay (s) 12 - 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B IS IS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 0.1 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th AWSC 3: N. 59th Avenue & O Street Existing PM Peak Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 207.6 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4+ 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 41 162 81 86 230 15 33 470 37 20 539 56 Future Vol, veh/h 41 162 81 86 230 15 33 470 37 20 539 56 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 45 176 88 93 250 16 36 511 40 22 586 61 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 50.1 68.4 242.7 324.5 HCM LOS F F F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, 6% 14% 26% 3% Vol Thru, % 87% 57% 69% 88% Vol Right, 7% 29% 5% 9% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 540 284 331 615 LT Vol 33 41 86 20 Through Vol 470 162 230 539 RT Vol 37 81 15 56 Lane Flow Rate 587 309 360 668 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 1.443 0.796 0.914 1.639 Departure Headway (Hd) 10.537 12.303 11.956 10.071 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 352 296 306 368 Service Time 8.537 10.303 9.956 8.071 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.668 1.044 1.176 1.815 HCM Control Delay 242.7 50.1 68.4 324.5 HCM Lane LOS F F F F HCM 95th -tile Q 26 6.3 8.7 34.9 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background 1: N. 71st Avenue & O Street AM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1, li t Y' Traffic Vol, veh/h 270 38 43 190 32 81 Future Vol, veh/h 270 38 43 190 32 81 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 260 IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 293 41 47 207 35 88 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 334 0 615 314 Stage 1 Si S IS - 314 Stage 2 IS - 301 Critical Hdwy M. - 4.15 - 6.45 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.45 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 IS - 5.45 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.245 - 3.545 3.345 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1209 - 450 719 Stage 1 - 734 Stage 2 - 744 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1209 - 432 719 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 432 Stage 1 - 734 Stage 2 IS - 715 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 12.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 605 - 1209 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.203 - 0.039 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.5 - 8.1 HCM Lane LOS B IS IS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 0.1 s. Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th Roundabout 2024 Background 3: N. 59th Avenue & O Street AM Peak Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.6 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 473 271 614 603 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 496 284 644 632 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 586 655 484 290 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 336 473 598 649 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.0 8.0 12.6 8.6 Approach LOS B A B A Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Designated Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R RT Channelized Lane Util 0.919 0.081 0.842 0.158 0.876 0.124 0.856 0.144 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.535 2.535 2.535 2.535 2.535 2.535 2.535 2.535 Critical Headway, s 4.544 4.544 4.544 4.544 4.544 4.544 4.544 4.544 Entry Flow, veh/h 456 40 239 45 564 80 541 91 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 833 833 782 782 914 914 1091 1091 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.953 0.950 0.953 0.956 0.953 0.950 0.953 0.956 Flow Entry, veh/h 435 38 228 43 538 76 516 87 Cap Entry, veh/h 794 791 746 748 871 868 1039 1043 V/C Ratio 0.547 0.048 0.305 0.058 0.617 0.088 0.496 0.083 Control Delay, s/veh 12.6 5.0 8.5 5.4 13.6 5.0 9.3 4.2 LOS B A A A B A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 3 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 2024 Background 1: N. 71st Avenue & O Street PM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 240 38 43 245 32 43 Future Vol, veh/h 240 38 43 245 32 43 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 260 IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 261 41 47 266 35 47 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 302 0 642 282 Stage 1 Si S IS - 282 Stage 2 IS - 360 Critical Hdwy M. - 4.15 - 6.45 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.45 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 IS - 5.45 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.245 - 3.545 3.345 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1242 - 434 750 Stage 1 - 759 Stage 2 - 699 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1242 - 418 750 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 418 Stage 1 - 759 Stage 2 IS - 672 Si Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.2 12.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 560 - 1242 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.146 - 0.038 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.5 8 HCM Lane LOS B IS IS A Si HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 0.1 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th Roundabout 2024 Background 3: N. 59th Avenue & O Street PM Peak Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.5 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 337 397 640 722 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 354 417 672 758 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 797 678 278 439 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 399 272 872 656 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.5 12.2 10.2 16.1 Approach LOS A B B C Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Designated Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R RT Channelized Lane Util 0.709 0.291 0.945 0.055 0.933 0.067 0.910 0.090 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.535 2.535 2.535 2.535 2.535 2.535 2.535 2.535 Critical Headway, s 4.544 4.544 4.544 4.544 4.544 4.544 4.544 4.544 Entry Flow, veh/h 251 103 394 23 627 45 690 68 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 688 688 766 766 1103 1103 952 952 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.954 0.951 0.953 0.957 0.953 0.956 0.953 0.956 Flow Entry, veh/h 239 98 375 22 597 43 657 65 Cap Entry, veh/h 656 654 730 733 1050 1054 907 910 V/C Ratio 0.365 0.150 0.514 0.030 0.569 0.041 0.725 0.071 Control Delay, s/veh 10.4 7.2 12.6 5.2 10.7 3.8 17.3 4.6 LOS B A B A B A C A 95th %tile Queue, veh 2 1 3 0 4 0 7 0 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 1: N. 71st Avenue & O Street 2024 Total AM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1, li t Y' Traffic Vol, veh/h 272 38 44 192 32 82 Future Vol, veh/h 272 38 44 192 32 82 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 260 IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 296 41 48 209 35 89 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 337 0 622 317 Stage 1 Si S IS - 317 Stage 2 IS - 305 Critical Hdwy M. - 4.15 - 6.45 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.45 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 IS - 5.45 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.245 - 3.545 3.345 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1206 - 446 717 Stage 1 - 732 Stage 2 - 741 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1206 - 428 717 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 428 Stage 1 - 732 Stage 2 IS - 711 IS Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 12.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 603 - 1206 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.205 - 0.04 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.5 - 8.1 HCM Lane LOS B IS M. A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 0.1 s. Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 2: Site Access & O Street 2024 Total AM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1, 4 Yr Traffic Vol, veh/h 435 3 8 295 3 8 Future Vol, veh/h 435 3 8 295 3 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length IS IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 10 10 5 10 10 Mvmt Flow 473 3 9 321 3 9 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 476 0 814 475 Stage 1 Si IS - 475 Stage 2 IS - 339 Critical Hdwy MI - 4.2 - 6.5 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 M. - 5.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 M. IS - 5.5 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.29 - 3.59 3.39 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1046 - 337 574 Stage 1 - 609 Stage 2 - 704 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1046 - 334 574 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver M. - 334 Stage 1 - 609 Stage 2 IS - 697 Si Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 12.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 480 - 1046 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - 0.008 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.7 - 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B IS IS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 SP 0 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th Roundabout 3: N. 59th Avenue & O Street 2024 Total AM Peak Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.9 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 2 2 2 2 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 481 274 618 604 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 505 287 649 633 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 586 661 489 298 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 345 477 602 650 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.4 8.6 14.5 9.4 Approach LOS B A B A Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Designated Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R RT Channelized Lane Util 0.913 0.087 0.843 0.157 0.877 0.123 0.855 0.145 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 Entry Flow, veh/h 461 44 242 45 569 80 541 92 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 787 863 735 810 861 937 1026 1102 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.953 0.955 0.953 0.956 0.952 0.950 0.953 0.957 Flow Entry, veh/h 439 42 231 43 542 76 516 88 Cap Entry, veh/h 751 824 700 774 819 890 978 1054 V/C Ratio 0.585 0.051 0.329 0.056 0.661 0.085 0.527 0.083 Control Delay, s/veh 14.3 4.9 9.3 5.2 15.8 4.8 10.3 4.1 LOS B A A A C A B A 95th %tile Queue, veh 4 0 1 0 5 0 3 0 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 1: N. 71st Avenue & O Street 2024 Total PM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 242 38 44 247 32 44 Future Vol, veh/h 242 38 44 247 32 44 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 260 IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 263 41 48 268 35 48 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 304 0 648 284 Stage 1 Si S IS - 284 Stage 2 IS - 364 Critical Hdwy M. - 4.15 - 6.45 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.45 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 IS - 5.45 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.245 - 3.545 3.345 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1240 - 430 748 Stage 1 - 757 Stage 2 - 696 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1240 - 413 748 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 413 Stage 1 - 757 Stage 2 IS - 669 Si Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.2 12.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 558 - 1240 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.148 - 0.039 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 8 HCM Lane LOS B IS IS A IS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 0.1 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 2: Site Access & O Street 2024 Total PM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1, 4 Yr Traffic Vol, veh/h 310 3 8 350 3 8 Future Vol, veh/h 310 3 8 350 3 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length IS IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 10 10 5 10 10 Mvmt Flow 337 3 9 380 3 9 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 340 0 737 339 Stage 1 Si IS - 339 Stage 2 - 398 Critical Hdwy MI - 4.2 - 6.5 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 M. - 5.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 M. IS - 5.5 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.29 - 3.59 3.39 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1176 - 374 685 Stage 1 - 704 Stage 2 - 661 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1176 - 370 685 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver M. IS - 370 Stage 1 - 704 Stage 2 IS - 654 Si Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 11.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 556 - 1176 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 - 0.007 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 - 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B IS IS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 SP 0 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th Roundabout 3: N. 59th Avenue & O Street 2024 Total PM Peak Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.4 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 2 2 2 2 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 345 400 645 723 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 362 420 677 759 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 797 684 283 447 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 408 276 876 657 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 13.8 11.6 19.3 Approach LOS B B B C Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Designated Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R Assumed Moves LT R LT R LT R LT R RT Channelized Lane Util 0.704 0.296 0.945 0.055 0.934 0.066 0.909 0.091 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 Entry Flow, veh/h 255 107 397 23 632 45 690 69 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 648 721 719 794 1040 1116 895 971 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.954 0.953 0.953 0.957 0.953 0.956 0.953 0.957 Flow Entry, veh/h 243 102 378 22 602 43 657 66 Cap Entry, veh/h 619 688 685 759 992 1067 853 929 V/C Ratio 0.393 0.148 0.552 0.029 0.607 0.040 0.771 0.071 Control Delay, s/veh 11.5 6.9 14.3 5.0 12.1 3.7 20.7 4.5 LOS B A B A B A C A 95th %tile Queue, veh 2 1 3 0 4 0 8 0 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 2042 Background 1: N. 71st Avenue & O Street AM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 385 55 65 275 45 115 Future Vol, veh/h 385 55 65 275 45 115 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 190 260 IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 418 60 71 299 49 125 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 478 0 859 418 Stage 1 Si IS - 418 Stage 2 IS - 441 Critical Hdwy M. - 4.15 - 6.45 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 M. - 5.45 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 IS - 5.45 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.245 - 3.545 3.345 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1069 - 323 629 Stage 1 - 658 Stage 2 - 642 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1069 - 302 629 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver M. - 302 Stage 1 - 658 Stage 2 IS - 600 Si Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.6 16.6 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 482 - 1069 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.361 - 0.066 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.6 - 8.6 HCM Lane LOS C IS IS A IS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 - 0.2 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th Roundabout 2042 Background 3: N. 59th Avenue & O Street AM Peak Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.8 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 2 2 2 2 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 668 381 876 859 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 701 400 920 902 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 834 937 684 412 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 480 667 851 925 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.6 10.9 15.5 9.7 Approach LOS B B C A Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Designated Moves LT TR LT TR LT TR LT TR Assumed Moves LT TR LT TR LT TR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.469 0.531 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 Entry Flow, veh/h 329 372 188 212 432 488 424 478 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 627 699 570 640 719 794 924 1000 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.954 0.951 0.952 0.952 0.953 0.952 0.952 0.953 Flow Entry, veh/h 314 354 179 202 412 464 404 455 Cap Entry, veh/h 598 665 543 610 686 756 880 953 V/C Ratio 0.525 0.532 0.330 0.331 0.600 0.615 0.459 0.478 Control Delay, s/veh 15.1 14.1 11.5 10.5 15.8 15.1 9.8 9.6 LOS C B B B C C A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 3 3 1 1 4 4 2 3 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 2042 Background 1: N. 71st Avenue & O Street PM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 345 55 65 350 45 65 Future Vol, veh/h 345 55 65 350 45 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 190 260 IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 375 60 71 380 49 71 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 435 0 897 375 Stage 1 Si IS - 375 Stage 2 IS - 522 Critical Hdwy M. - 4.15 - 6.45 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 M. - 5.45 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 IS - 5.45 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.245 - 3.545 3.345 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1109 - 307 665 Stage 1 - 688 Stage 2 - 589 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1109 - 287 665 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver M. - 287 Stage 1 - 688 Stage 2 IS - 551 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.3 16.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 432 - 1109 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.277 - 0.064 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.5 - 8.5 HCM Lane LOS C IS IS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 - 0.2 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th Roundabout 2042 Background 3: N. 59th Avenue & O Street PM Peak Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.0 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 2 2 2 2 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 479 560 883 998 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 504 588 927 1048 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1105 939 401 616 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 559 389 1208 911 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.3 14.5 9.8 16.3 Approach LOS C B A C Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Designated Moves LT TR LT TR LT TR LT TR Assumed Moves LT TR LT TR LT TR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.470 0.530 0.469 0.531 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 Entry Flow, veh/h 237 267 276 312 436 491 493 555 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 488 555 569 639 933 1010 766 841 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.951 0.952 0.954 0.951 0.952 0.953 0.951 0.953 Flow Entry, veh/h 225 254 263 297 415 468 469 529 Cap Entry, veh/h 464 528 543 608 888 962 728 801 V/C Ratio 0.485 0.481 0.485 0.488 0.467 0.486 0.644 0.660 Control Delay, s/veh 17.3 15.4 15.1 13.9 9.9 9.7 16.6 16.1 LOS C C C B A A C C 95th %tile Queue, veh 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 1: N. 71st Avenue & O Street 2042 Total AM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement Lane Configurations 3.5 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR t r '1 t Yr Traffic Vol, veh/h 387 55 66 277 45 116 Future Vol, veh/h 387 55 66 277 45 116 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 260 IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 421 60 72 301 49 126 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 481 0 866 421 Stage 1 Si S IS - 421 Stage 2 IS - 445 Critical Hdwy M. - 4.15 - 6.45 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.45 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 IS - 5.45 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.245 - 3.545 3.345 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1066 - 320 626 Stage 1 - 656 Stage 2 - 639 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1066 - 298 626 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 298 Stage 1 - 656 Stage 2 IS - 596 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.7 16.8 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 479 - 1066 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.365 - 0.067 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.8 - 8.6 HCM Lane LOS C IS IS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 - 0.2 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 2: Site Access & O Street 2042 Total AM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1, 4 Yr Traffic Vol, veh/h 620 3 8 425 3 8 Future Vol, veh/h 620 3 8 425 3 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length IS IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 10 10 5 10 10 Mvmt Flow 674 3 9 462 3 9 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 677 0 1156 676 Stage 1 Si IS - 676 Stage 2 - 480 Critical Hdwy MI - 4.2 - 6.5 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 M. - 5.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 M. IS - 5.5 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.29 - 3.59 3.39 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 878 - 210 440 Stage 1 - 491 Stage 2 - 606 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 878 - 207 440 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver M. - 207 Stage 1 - 491 Stage 2 IS - 598 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 16.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 337 - 878 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.035 - 0.01 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.1 - 9.1 0 HCM Lane LOS C IS M. A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 SP 0 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th Roundabout 3: N. 59th Avenue & O Street 2042 Total AM Peak Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.0 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 2 2 2 2 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 677 384 880 860 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 711 403 924 903 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 834 942 689 419 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 488 671 856 926 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.8 11.1 15.7 9.8 Approach LOS B B C A Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Designated Moves LT TR LT TR LT TR LT TR Assumed Moves LT TR LT TR LT TR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.470 0.530 0.469 0.531 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 Entry Flow, veh/h 334 377 189 214 434 490 424 479 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 627 699 567 638 716 791 918 995 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.953 0.952 0.954 0.951 0.953 0.952 0.954 0.952 Flow Entry, veh/h 318 359 180 203 414 467 404 456 Cap Entry, veh/h 597 666 542 606 683 753 875 947 V/C Ratio 0.533 0.539 0.333 0.336 0.606 0.620 0.462 0.482 Control Delay, s/veh 15.4 14.3 11.6 10.6 16.1 15.4 9.9 9.7 LOS C B B B C C A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 3 3 1 1 4 4 2 3 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 1: N. 71st Avenue & O Street 2042 Total PM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement Lane Configurations 2.6 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR t r '1 t Yr Traffic Vol, veh/h 347 55 66 352 45 66 Future Vol, veh/h 347 55 66 352 45 66 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 260 IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 377 60 72 383 49 72 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 437 0 904 377 Stage 1 Si IS - 377 Stage 2 IS - 527 Critical Hdwy M. - 4.15 - 6.45 6.25 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 M. - 5.45 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 IS - 5.45 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.245 - 3.545 3.345 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1107 - 304 663 Stage 1 - 687 Stage 2 - 586 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1107 - 284 663 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver M. - 284 Stage 1 - 687 Stage 2 IS - 548 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.3 16.6 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 430 - 1107 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.281 - 0.065 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.6 - 8.5 HCM Lane LOS C IS IS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 - 0.2 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th TWSC 2: Site Access & O Street 2042 Total PM Peak Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1, 4 Yr Traffic Vol, veh/h 440 3 8 495 3 8 Future Vol, veh/h 440 3 8 495 3 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length IS IS 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 10 10 5 10 10 Mvmt Flow 478 3 9 538 3 9 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 481 0 1036 480 Stage 1 Si M IS - 480 Stage 2 IS - 556 Critical Hdwy MI - 4.2 - 6.5 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 M. IS - 5.5 Follow-up Hdwy - 2.29 - 3.59 3.39 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver M. - 1041 - 248 570 Stage 1 - 606 Stage 2 - 559 Platoon blocked, % IS Mov Cap -1 Maneuver MI - 1041 - 245 570 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 245 Stage 1 - 606 Stage 2 IS - 552 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 '13.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 419 - 1041 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - 0.008 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.8 - 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B IS IS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 SP 0 Synchro 10 Report CSM HCM 6th Roundabout 3: N. 59th Avenue & O Street 2042 Total PM Peak Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.2 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 2 2 2 2 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 487 564 887 999 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 512 592 931 1049 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1105 944 405 624 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 568 392 1212 912 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.5 14.7 9.9 16.6 Approach LOS C B A C Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left Right Designated Moves LT TR LT TR LT TR LT TR Assumed Moves LT TR LT TR LT TR LT TR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.471 0.529 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 Follow -Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 Entry Flow, veh/h 241 271 278 314 438 493 493 556 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 488 555 566 636 930 1006 760 835 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.950 0.953 0.953 0.952 0.952 0.953 0.952 0.952 Flow Entry, veh/h 229 258 265 299 417 470 469 529 Cap Entry, veh/h 464 529 540 606 885 960 724 795 V/C Ratio 0.493 0.488 0.491 0.493 0.471 0.490 0.648 0.665 Control Delay, s/veh 17.5 15.6 15.4 14.1 10.0 9.7 16.9 16.4 LOS C C C B A A C C 95th %tile Queue, veh 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 Synchro 10 Report CSM RAIL MADE GWR Rail Service to 84 Lumber Facility Located near Greeley, CO James A. Zaunick , P.E. 84 Lumber Company 1019 Route 519 Eighty Four, PA 15330 Dear Mr. Zaunick, The Great Western Railway of Colorado, LLC ("GWR"), managed by OmniTRAX, Inc., will provide rail service to/from both BNSF Railway & Union Pacific Railway to 84 Lumber's facility near Greeley, CO, provided the rail design and rail construction is in accordance and approved by GWR's operations and engineering departments. For further clarification, 84 Lumber's facility will be constructed on parcel numbers 080533100005 & 080533100006, known as Lot A and Lot B of Recorded Exemption RE -449; being a part of the NE4NE4 of Section 33, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., County of Weld, State of Colorado. Thank you, Dallas Ramos General Manager Great Western Railway of Colorado Zac Vallos Vice President of Engineering OmniTRAX, Inc. 0 O.nn.Tfl15p( 252 Clayton Street, 4th Floor I Denver, Colorado 802O6 303.398.4500 I www_omnitrax.00m Weld County Treasurer Statement of Taxes Due Account Number R0166091 Parcel 080533 100006 Legal Description PT NE4NE4 33-6-66 LOT A REC EXEMPT RE -449 ( 75R.60RR) Account: R0166091 FREI DONALD D PO BOX 700 GREELEY, CO 80632-0700 Year 2021 Charges Tax • Billed $39,156.84 Situs Address 14902 COUNTY ROAD. 64 WELD Payments $0.00 Balance $39,156,84 Grand Total Due as of 01/28/2022 Tax Billed at 2021 Rates for Tax Area 5056 - 5056 Authority WEI.n COUNTY SCI COOL DIST RE2 NORTHERN COLORADO WATER (NC WESTERN HILLS FIRE AIMS JUNIOR COLLEGE EATON REC DISTRICT HIGH PLAINS LIBRARY WEST GREELEY CONSERVATION Taxes Billed 2021 * Credit Levy Mill Levy 15,0380000* 43,3540000* 1.0000000 10.0850000 6.3420000 7 1580000 3,1970000 0.4140000 86.5880000 Amount $6,800.50 $19,605.55 $452.22 $4,560.64 $2,867 98 $3,236.99 $1,445.74 $187.22 $39,156.84 Values WAREHOUSE/S'I'ORA GE -IMPS. CONTRACTNG/S E RV - [.AND 'Total Actual $987,638 $571,725 $39,156.84 Assessed $286,420 $165,800 $1,559,363 $452,220 ALL TAX LIEN SALE AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO ENDORSEMENT OF CURRENT TAXES BY THE LIENHOLDER OR TO ADVERTISING AND DISTRAINT WARRANT FEES Weld County Treasurer's Office 1400 N 17th Avenue PO Box 458 Greeley, CO 80632 Phone: 970-400-3290 Pursuant to the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance, the attached Statement of Taxes Due issued by the Weld County Treasurer, are evidence of the status as of this date of all property taxestaxesasspacialassessimentseand grit r_ta lier� ttached-tninth�is cur t Signed: Current year's taxes are due but not delinquent. Date: Weld County Treasurer Statement of Taxes Due Account Number R0165991 Parcel 080533 1 00005 Legal Description PT NE4NE4 33-6-66 LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -449 (PARCI+;L 11(.43R.75RR) Account: R0165991 FREE DONALD D PO BOX 700 GREELEY, CO 80632-0700 Year 2021 Charges Billed $26.84 Sluts Address Payments $0.00 Balance $26.84 Grand Total Due as of 0I/28/2022 $26.84 Tax Billed at 2021 Rates for Tax Area 5058 - 5058 Authority WELD COUNTY SCHOOL DIS"t' RE2 NORTHERN COLORADO WATER (NC WESTERN HILLS FIRE AIMS JUNIOR COLLEGE EATON REC DISTRICT 111G11 PLAINS LIBRARY WEST GREELEY CONSERVATION Taxes Billed 2021 * Credit Levy Mill Levy 15.0380000* 43.3540000* I 0000000 10.0850000 6.3420000 7. l 580000 3.1970000 0.4140000 Amount $4 66 $13.44 $0.31 $3.13 $1.96 $2.22 $0 99 $0.13 86.5 880000 $26.84 Values AG -MEADOW MAY LAND Total Actual $1,066 Assessed $310 $1,066 $310 ALL TAX LIEN SALE AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO ENDORSEMENT OF CURRENT TAXES BY THE LIENHOLDER OR TO ADVERTISING AND DISTRAINT WARRANT FEES. Weld County Treasurer's Office 1400 N 17th Avenue PO Box 458 Greeley, CO 80632 Phone: 970-400-3290 Pursuant to the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance, the attached Statement of Taxes Due issued by the Weld County Treasurer, are evidence of the status as of this date of all property taxes.r-spedd Iras essme t d-prio tax -ii nsaattscl ed-t this -account. Current year's taxes are due but not delinquent. Signed: Date: Hello