The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20183195.tiffUSE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &RVI ES * 1555 N. 17" i' AVENUE '° REELE , Ca 8 ..'1 .veweilymnIcipciv.car * . r 0 -IC C O.6 l Q Qi 4. Fes. 91-0-304,4498 FOR PLANNING ' DEPAiRTMEtir USE - AMOUNT I APPLICATION RECEIVED BY Parcel Numbers ` Ares -s of .site: r�L DATE RECEIVED: CAS E # AIGl WO. PLANNER A iGI D: a 0 S - ti 0 1 7074 C of it;lye Road 76 Winosof, CO BrOG60 LegalDescription: Lcit B RE 00307-05-.1 RE ale62, Zone District A Acreag=e: 13.9 Flmedpfairt FEE OWNERM OF THE PROPERTY: Name: Cheryl Sweet Trust Cor' pan - 6/511,8 USR18-0042 DA CPI 12 digit hunter on Tax ID Iflt ! 1-sst7 ' obl:3ir•tabin Elf waV _'1 1D avi .;:actst 1. Section: 05 TOViainSirdp.. 6N Range. S ieoI itai H;=r 'ard Airport O' +` rlay: YCN Phono #: 85Sa735-7081 Stresei Address: PO Box 213 Email- cfleryh§thentbl _ rt itt iSt ie1 zip de: . AJ Nicole- swear Cornpariy PI1 Brie #' c wr, CO i30550 =s B534'35-7052 Stied. Address: a 6434 Cloudburst Err1aifr nralk@thewhi;egabie_com 'City/State/Zip Code - Fin'na!h . CO $x-54? N E IT{ L ;:mp_ n.,,.. Pf attl e " Email: . Street a =.drdr ess. , _iaty i t fleiZi p Code: APT' T' LI c_NT 0- -1"�1. s T H0 R I Z E g AC E 17 , a Y.r'� �.. b� 5.1 �1 ! o iza t'L9 n# i -�.� �.� �4�� +di`i] straw!by . Lp!!.�i�1L 1' r' I Mil flame- Crieryt 25 C.! i Company: Phone*: 85a-735_70;1 StreetAddress: PO Box 213 DifyiStateiZip Code: PROPOI-e, ti!I 2E- etnettiewhitegable.coin ii4hrindi r, CO 30560 Fc4 ,�� . Irk �� 9 �- � . --A ��.;i "- � p ��. �1 � s' mr la a 'a _ E -i Mirth i lircrubreweryitap racer' r. rh ,, iI -o p 'cc°. aid home tot 1 H residence or rental I' (Wu) hehereb-yadepose slate under penalties " porjury That all stste:rnents, proposals. and/or plans tiLitorruil.cd with or cxxrlaincid within the applitotirirn am der and rreel: #0 lilt brit of my 4our)kn I 9w girt` , m (ii _ ; r� Dial! � �r�a propvily m it :sin this application_ It an AU'Ul rued Agent aign21 a 'riae I atriion from all lee owners must be included e iI` app6calinn It corporation is re fee qtr, notarized evidence mum be included ins];tallflg that th i `-; c;i;,i►I. eery -33 to legs! authority t`! sign NM the torpor -din _ /1" signatur4; Owner orAulhoracd Agent Date. SIB atLr : Owner or Authorized Mat OA; 1 ta-- Print Name Prim l� m 1-34'p Rat 47016 Certification iof Trust for the Cheryl Sweet Trust [fated August 18, 20Q8 isursuant to CRS_ 11405-1 11- iLtriticAlion of rust :is signed acting rr :rstzes elOro Cheryl Sweet 1 rust datedA'L_li' LISC IS. 0(JE.. FlN5 restated o n 2lJ 17, wit declare- - The tira,ii nr of t i e trust L:hen 1 Suter, Aso Lon as Chen 1 Lynn ik . kky Swett Cheryl L yu Balky, C l' ! .� ��OftibiW, Cheryl! The Mist is rdevcicatile by Ow :toy. 3 - I Lic Crowe of the 0tts i i s Cheryl Suva, 111 Trustee Sillectiakill provisions.are I forth in A i1 ale Three of tht tam 1, ii i Eax L te:rkk i IicatroI1 number of -the Eno is the Soi i'1 Sucuri r, minitrinrofEllen Sweet_ s_ Title tai is held in the trust will i7e Litkd s_ U t 1 Sweet, ifr sice. or her 7;tu S 'r in interem, ti)f the Checd. Sweet i r i si. dated o, u usi II. ZUOt. and Hair z.men l:rneMs thereto_ A, alittnaikt description will effectivc L r ale a.ssek5 the name or the trilst or to , L: g nifl L the trust its a b eine L .. if the &, -i p roi inekiiics lilt nh g of ()TICrtii b]a! or sucevisor T t , .}in y refectrice 1nhltcan1! that propL:rFy is beina held 9 7 in a. trLi14 1��a _ and to dare of the trust - e liAsettrpic fmiti Ow trust docturical that establish the trust ficiii.inkac the Traarteh and 't forth Five powers of the TrUSitt Will bac provided uppro, request_ _ 1, 5 Dr the arm -Ace cneiu .e y To acquire, sell - i fl9 con_Vrc y. &edge., crteuratier.. rice mauve. and deal rt v ` I Kr: 1t rillis of the trust proviat that a t: -pure°,- may fmi ' Lp.Ut tbb' Car'o'l- c? t Loa of T n1, r9r as evidence of the existence. of the u List mid is pceifl Cv relieved of any obligation To inquire into fit benus Of thIF ULLSI thr I he authority r7ty of my Trustee. Or in ciee lo appli-tatitin that my Trustee makes of funds; or oilier lier JJrX peRy e ''T 'd by. L_ e y Trustet- i m 9. k � t has riot been rcvokr modified. Or amenti.e j tt truy way that ipia o ld muss? I he rcpresti Rai Lrn in this Certificalion oil rust to ht 'Eric =° ~: . Certification n of Trusi for the 0170 Siotat Misr N. 2017 Cheretai Svitcotte trustvc -AT OF .COL,OI .: I XO ) si • L 8 ic t U N [1' OF BOULDER This instrument %%Hs ackric -1 . I ehre nit ORE 'hruary 20 P. by (2h .4 Trustee [Seal! KAIIINNICHUCT43YRD NOTARY Puuuc STATE OF wt. HA jut NOTARY t2nv:4045(186 kil INSSICra :EX Cr.: I; LBEER ff? .241 iv a Public MY COMM J r• tiaie 6 a CerCificatiion of Truzil fur the [htnMN Swed Teal Pte. PROPERY INFORMATION Section — Township — Range: 05 06 67 Site Address: 7674 CR 74 Parcel # 080705100016 Legal Description: PT W2NE4 5 6 67LOTB Owner: Cheryl Sweet APPLICANT INFORMATION Nicole Smith 6434 Cloudburst Ave. Timnath, CO 80547 858-735-7082 nicolesmith22@me.com PLANNING 1. A family farm setting to include a farm -to -table fried chicken casual restaurant, coffee shop and bakery, event barn, garden space (vegetables & flowers), possible micro brewery, tap room or retail space, future house. a. Restaurant (Backyard Bird) to serve free range, no growth hormone, antibiotic free, sourced from Colorado fried chicken. Possible live acoustic music featuring local artists Friday -Sunday located in lawn area in center of property. b. Coffee Shop (Coffee Shed) serving locally produced coffee and house -made baked goods. Utilizing eggs produced from chickens raised on property. c. Event Barn (The White Gable) will hold maximum 175 guests per event. Types of events will include weddings, private dinners and charity events. Some events may include live music or a DJ. The design and location of the barn has taken into consideration noise levels and impact on neighbors (i.e. music will be kept inside the barn and any open windows will be facing the center of the property and away from nearby neighbors. d. Garden space (Windmill Farms) 2 acres of gardens to include any and all produce, flowers and herbs capable of growing in the Colorado climate. All items will be used by all businesses located on the property. e. Possible micro -brewery, tap room or retail space — the building on the site plan is a place holder at this time. The usage for this building is currently unknown. f. Future house — Residence 2 may be residential for family members or, possible rental. 2. This proposal is consistent with the intent of Weld County Code, Chapter 22 of the comprehensive plan under section G2, which states: Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential, commercial and industrial uses should be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such development and should attempt to be compatible with the region. Our property is directly across from the Rocky Mountain Sports Park development and within an area that is seeing commercial growth. Our proposed commercial business will be a benefit to those travelling CR 74 on a daily basis. We will keep the overall aesthetics in line with a farm/agricultural feel, which is compatible with the region. 1 3. This proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 23 and the zone district which it is located under section 5, which states: Any use permitted as a Use by Right, an ACCESSORY USE, or a Use by Special Review in the COMMERCIAL or industrial zone districts, provided that the property is not a Lot in an approved or recorded subdivisions plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions. PUD development proposals shall not be permitted to use the special review permit process to develop. Our property is not located within a subdivision. Therefore, by right, we are able to submit for Use by Special Review in the commercial zone districts. 4. The types of land uses that surround the site are as follows: a. Property to the North: COMMERCIAL (RMSP) b. Property to the East: Residential c. Property to the South: Agricultural/Residential d. Property to the West: Agricultural/Residential The proposed use is consistent with the surrounding land uses because it will fall within residential with a single family dwelling, agricultural with 2 acres of gardens, farming and small farm animals AND commercial with an event barn, restaurant, coffee shop and potential brewery or retail space. 5. Hours will vary per business: a. Restaurant — Sunday -Saturday 11:00am-10:00pm b. Coffee shop/bakery— Sunday -Saturday 6:00am-2:OOpm c. Event Barn — events will mainly take place on Friday & Saturday evenings. 5:00 pm-12:00am. Day events held on Sundays 10:00am-6:00pm d. Micro Brewery, tap room or retail space (Place holder, times unknown) 6. Full Time employees —10 Part Time employees — 20 7. Shift employees — 5-10 8. 100-300 on any given day 9. N/A 10. Buildings a. Restaurant - single story b. Coffee shop/bakery - single story i. Restaurant & coffee shop are one building, however, they are separate businesses and share the kitchen space. Total combined = 4502 sq. ft. c. Event Barn — 4500 sq. ft. / two stories d. Micro Brewery, taproom, retail — 2,827 sq. ft./single story e. Future house — 2500 sq. ft. / single story Asphalt —1 acres Gravel — 0.5 acres Landscaping/Grass/Trees — 2 acres Gardens — 2 acres 2 11. 246 regular parking stalls and B handicapped 12. No current landscaping except natural grass. Landscaping will include screening along east parking area with a variety of shrubs and a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees both flowering and non -flowering. Area around the event barn and the open area between the restaurant/bakery and the event barn will have artificial turf. The overall look will be a natural beautiful look. 13. Currently east side is a wire fence. Will replace with split rail during construction of event barn if necessary. East side will be a natural split rail fence to match the west and south side. A partial split rail fence on the north side. 14. Parking will be screen by landscaping as described in #12. The east side will be the focus because the north side is facing CR 74. The only anticipated storage area would be for trash and that would have a fence surround which would be attached to the restaurant. 15. The buildings would continue to be used for their initial purpose as a restaurant/bakery and event barn. 16. Windsor Severance Fire and Rescue - We have discussed our project in detail with the fire marshal who has made all recommendations for fire protection. This includes one fire hydrant between the restaurant/bakery and event barn. The requirements are for the hydrant to be within 150' of the event barn (which will also have sprinklers) and within 300 feet of the restaurant. This appears on the civil engineer plans. There is also a fire hydrant placed to satisfy construction of the private residence. This is near the CR 74 outside of the 40' easement and the fire marshal said this could be used for the commercial properties in addition to the one in between the buildings. 17. Drainage and septic systems are described in detail in the civiil engineering plans. Traffic impact report is pending which will address turn lanes. Timeline: Architectural plans completed - estimate 1-2 months. Grading for construction and drainage would be begin prior to construction. Restaurant/Bakery will begin first approximately January 2019. Could be sooner depending on financing and weather. Septic systems would be installed at the appropriate time during construction. Estimate 9-12 months to complete - Landscape work would begin during final stages of building completion along with fencing if necessary. Event barn could begin at the same time as the restaurant/bakery depending on financing. Brewery/Retail has no estimate at this time and would be part of future development. 3 ENGINEERING 1. 100-300 on any given day 2. Will enter and exit same driveway on north side of property from either eastbound or westbound County Road 74. 3. 50% traffic will come from the East, 50% will come from the West. All traffic will enter the property on north side. 4. Highest traffic volume: a. Restaurant — Sunday -Saturday - Lunch and Dinner— 12:00pm-1:00pm AND 5:00pm- 8:00pm b. Coffee shop/Bakery — Sunday -Saturday - 7:00am-9:00 am AND 12:OOpm-1:00pm c. Event Barn — Friday/Saturday 5:00pm-6:00pm AND 10:OOpm-12:00am d. Micro Brewery/Retail (place holder) Unkown 5. Access is planned on Northside of property off County Road 74. Driveway is mapped for approximately middle of property to alignment with Rocky Mountain Sports Park. Working with Windsor and RMSP. 6. Property has slight grade to the South. Full drainage report and design attached. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1. Drinking water will be supplied through water tap through NWCWD. 2. Septic design attached. 3. N/A 4. Grease trap for restaurant. 5. Propane tanks for each building, totaling 4 tanks at 500 gallons each. 6. N/A 7. Floor drains, connected to restaurant plumbing and septic system. 8. N/A 9. N/A 10. N/A BUILDING 1. Structures to be built (no existing structures) a. Restaurant - slab on wood grade frame b. Coffee shop/bakery— slab on wood grade frame i. Restaurant & coffee shop are one building, however, they are separate businesses and share the kitchen space. Total combined = 4502 sq. ft. c. Event Barn — 4500 sq. ft. / slab on wood grade frame d. Micro Brewery, taproom, retail — 2,827 sq. ft./ slab on wood grade frame e. Future house — 2500 sq. ft. / slab on wood grade frame 2. There are no existing structures on the property. 4 3. Proposed Use: a. Restaurant b. Coffee Shop/Bakery c. Event Barn d. Micro Brewery, taproom, or retail e. Future residence MAP See attached. 5 Notice of Inquiry Development within a Coordinated Planning Agreement or intergovernmental Agreement (CPA or IGA) Boundary Date of Inquiry Municipality with CPA or IGA Severance CPA Name of Person Inquiring Nicole Smith Pro erty Owner 1 yyqq)J a i` �■+J■�. h e i �, _� , f ..l k f l i l '6i Y! T 7 9 r-- Diana Aungst daungst@weldgov.com Planner Legal Description W2NE4 5 6 67 LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -4582 0807-0510-0016 Parcel Number Nearest Intersection CH 74 and HWY 257 Restaurant, coffee and bakery shop, evert barn Type of Inquiry The above person inquired about developing a property inside your designated CPA or IGA boundary. This person has been referred to community by Weld County Planning to discuss development options on this siitm. Visit Chapter 19 of the Weld County Code for specifics on your agreement Weld County Comments Do you wish to annex? Name/Title of Municipality Representative �"�"kaiSioN lacke3/4-it-/ F eV AtAN1 Municipality Comments r Pito eaRerryc S% pa t= -item Mitureartaari•Cca GOA Jet k, L. Laeirra..AT-Thes k ' -- � w -- r-atserre t ?tart 1 ire to r ' it mittrin--ep-sta Signature of Weld County Planner A.Pezznineat ac+�''►�' Signature of Municipality Representative Please return the signed form to: Weld County Planning Department 1555 N 17th Avenue, Greeley, Co 80631 (970) 353-5100 x3540 n. (970)304-6498 fax LA ra Notice of Inquiry Development within a Coordinated Planning Agreement or Intergovernmental Agreement (CPA or IGA) Boundary Date of Inquiry 9/8/2017 Municipality with CPA or IGA Windsor CPA Name of Person Inquiring Nicole Smith Property Ownerell SUJede7t# Thaser Planner Diana Aun st daun st@weld ov,com Legal Description ption 2N E4 5 6 67 LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -4682 Parcel Number 0807-0510.0016 Nearest Intersection CR 74 and HWY 257 Type of Inquiry Restaurant coffee and bakery shop, event barn _.. The above person inquired about developing a property inside your designated CPA or IGA boundary. This person has been referred to community by Weld County Planning to discuss development options on this .site, Visit Chapter 19 of the Weld County Code for specifics on your agreement. Weld County Comments Do you wish to annex? Name/Title of Municipality Representative Municipality Comments Signature of Weld County Planner Signature of Municipality Representative Please return the signed form to: Weld County Planning Department 1555 N 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 353-6100 x3540 a* (970)304-6498 fax TM1 �1a*Woiul 0“; i, 02, veiny p t it Atm pup 3 e A0 111 ma itettifin Juul41,,,1 f = ittirinfilki14tirti itra Mons ` .f' ice.. . • k. • P.4 ht 56 le Access to this property will need to be studied as part of a development proposal. Normal minimum intersection spacing is 1/4 mile apart on a major arterial road like Harmony with closer spacing allowed on a case by case basis for right in right out movements. Valley View Cir. will be a major intersection currently planned as the primary access to the Rocky Mountain Sports Park currently under review. A traffic study will need to be completed for the site. Any approved access point will require Harmony Road improvements such as deceleration lanes, acceleration lanes and other access related access improvements identified in Windsor's street specifications and the traffic impact study. ' Jo 1s m T i g I BUILDING OWl SUMMARY ,{,.�. tic. E - 0 1 _ 1'fJ.� m m ligi d _ 1 SQUARE FEET nisi is Ifs 5 § WI !2, rn cc i 13, >3 c a. is PTIM Wrga*4 -ama a. t,* aIA a See Town response letter to Weld County from October of 2017. ernEa x PI to *it I Annexation of WCR 74 and the property across the street is in process. Therefore if is expected that annexation of this property will be possible without any problems With meeting 1:6 contiguity requirement. 4 WO" I ; ga ,... .•.l'. } P EI • a L l de, ore gral s I ktas i O PVPT UPTON. 1D W1121 wortsitiviwitiolain Sal a I 2 0 April 17, 2018 Weld County Planning .ept 1557 Kurth 1 t rreety, CO 130631 Alin: Diana Aungst Re: PRE1 •024 Dear Mt Ain This is a :building ing siginge 'FLIT er cite c`t nor t c rL'stau rant rBockyard. Bird) and c i°T&n stop ( Coffee ShLwt]unter review in the LISR ip flhcll ion'submitted. Thew wGuJtl be in n dcl i i pan to the allowed monument sign and would b I o d i sting,u [sh the two business_ There will net be a si on The , 1e barna See attocli J drawEngs with low -km and sgii;die (twtagc inforrnati n �. Pleas-kvi let me bloom if there is any adthiionnl informaii 1 x" "F:i u riNtaril Si acer eb , Cheryl weet a. _ g _ ems' •C i FA PROJECT vur of : T3) C -VA" By; R{BZ C-ECKED BY: Sidi ISSUED: 04117:' 00 aaspq td PH AWnOD 1s9M 172.9L SIGNAGE SPECS 2 3 eC utpluosad aged on alnfayo$ uoiSieau FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR WINDMILL FARMS PART OF THE NW 44 SEC 5, T6N, R67W WELD COUNTY COLORADO CASE NO. CHERYL SWEET THE WHITE GABLE 7674 WCR 74 WINDSOR, CO 80550 S58-735-7081 es ervt &v o, Lvuerievue Goods ledartn vut-s LAC. LL 127- So1Aik Delver .Avevdve Fort Luptolki GO 00(2.7_1 Original April 6, 2018 FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR WINDMILL FARMS PART OF THE NW 4, SEC 5, T6N, R67W WEL t COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared For: Cheryl Sweet 7674 WCR 74 Windsor, CO 80550 858-735-7081 Prepared By: WESTERN ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS inc LLC 127 South Denver Avenue Fort Lupton, CO 80621 (720) 685-9951 Contact: Chadwin F. Cox, P.E, C ri final: April 6, 2018 WECI Project No. 00.0289.001.00 Weld County Case Number: CERTIFICATIONS I hereby certify that this report and plan for the drainage design of Windmill Farms USR1 -00xx was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, for the owners thereof, in accordance with the provisions of Weld County Codes and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Design and Technical Criteria, and approved variances and exceptions hereto. I understand that Weld County does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others. Chadwin F. Cox, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 33802 Cheryl Sweet hereby certifies that the drainage facilities for Windmill Farms USR18- Ooxx design shall be constructed according to the design presented in this report. I understand that Weld County does not and will not assume liability for the drainage facilities designed and/or certified by my engineer, and that Weld County reviews drainage plans pursuant to Colorado revised Statutes Title 30, Article 28, but cannot, on behalf of Windmill Farms USR1 -00xx, guarantee that final drainage design review will absolve Windmill Farms or their successors and/or assigns of future liability for improper design. I further understand that approval of the USR1 8-00xx Site Plan, and/or Final Construction Plans do not imply approval of my engineer's drainage design. Windmill Farms Cheryl Sweet TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........1 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..........r.sa..0mo•••••i••••r•sr•••••fwmfs*sso•on,••••••••••••f•a•*••w 1 A. SITELOCATION.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.rrr.r.r.r.rrr.r.rar.rr Ni r. Ni r. r. rr r.r.r. r. rr r. r. ra Ni rr r. r.rrr.r.rar.rrr.r.rrr.r.rar.rrr.r.rrr.r. Ni r. ra Ni Ni rr r. r. ra Ni rr r. r. IL DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS . B. MINOR DEVELOPED DRAINAGE BAS 1. Basin Al (12.97 acres) rr. r.. 2. Basin ROW (0.95 acres)..........r.. S •trrttt•t••t••r•••••rttrr•rttt•t••ra•r••tt••****rrrt•ttit••• 4 4 6 6 7 IIL DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 7 A. REGULATIONS B. DRAINAGE STUDIES, OUTFALL SYSTEMS PLANS, SITE CONSTRAINTS C. HYDROLOGY 8 D. HYDRAULICS 9 E. WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT 9 F. GROUNDWATER 9 iv. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY DESIGN 10 A. B. C. D.. E. F. G. V. CONCLUSIONS A. B. C. D. VII STORMWATER CONVEYANCE FACILITIES 10 STORMWATER STORAGE FACILITIES 10 WATER QUALITY BP' S ..1 2 FLOODPLAIN 1 2 GROUNDWATER 12 ADDITIONAL PERMITTING .1 2 STORM SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 12 13 •••••000000004000•000001100111000400 ••••••••••• COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 13 VARIANCE S 13 DRAINAGE CONCEPT 13 ADDITIONAL ITEMS 13 REFERENCES 14 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Vicinity Map (S) Key Map (Goggle Earth) FEMA. Firmette Weld County GIS Legal Description Soil Survey Map & Soil Legend Geotechnical Study APPENDIX B UDFCD & Weld County Runoff & Rational Method References NOAA Atlas Rainfall - Point Precipitation Frequency WEC Rational Method Runoff Calculations APPENDIX C Empirical Detention Calculations (for Water Quality Calculations) UDFCD Modified FAA Detention Calculations (Based on 5 year Historic) WEC Pond S Design Stage -Storage Summary WEC Discharge Calculations UFDCD — UD-Detention Calculations (Hydrograph, EURV, & Stage -Storage methods) UDFCD — UD-Detention Calculations — WQCV, Restrictor Plate, Outlet, & Spillway Channel Capacities, etc. APPENDIX B Windmill Farms Historic/Existing Drainage Plan, Final Developed Drainage Plan, and Grading and Drainage Details (full size — 24 x 36) INTRODUCTI SN This study provides the final design for the construction of the Windmill Farms site (per __IISR18- 00 ) . The overall Windmill Farms site is an approximate 13.92 acres (12.97 net acres after ROW dedication) property as defined by the legal description in Appendix A. The proposed Windmill Farms USR is proposed on a currently undeveloped parcel with exception to a new residence permitted in 2017 and currently under construction. The project shall include a 4,502 sf Restaurant/Coffee Shop building to be built in Phase 1, a 4,500 sf Event Center to built in Phase 1 or Phase 2, two grain bin structure (less than 30 ft diameter) to be built in Phase 1 or 2, a Future 2,827 sf Brewery, and potentially a Future second residence (est 2,500 sf). Total expected future structures (totaling 19,965 sf). In addition to the proposed buildings a paved entry from WCR 74, all weather surfaced parking lot, concrete pedestrian walks, septic systems, and complete extended detention basin improvements will be constructed. Weld County Road 74 (Harmony Road) is paved and lies to the north. WCR 17 (Hwy 257) lies 1,460 feet cast and WCR 15 lies 3,210 feet west of the property. Severance is approximately 2 miles east, Timnath approximately 2 miles west, I-25 is just under 4 miles west, and Windsor lies just over 2 miles south. The entire Windmill Farms site and all adjacent and surrounding properties historically released to a natural drainageway named Lake Canal that combines with the Windsor Reservoir Outlet and drains to the Cache La Poudre River over 5 miles downstream. Based on initial coordination with i e County, no Final Drainage Studies for adjacent properties were known to exist. L GENERAL L LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Site Location The property lies in the Northwest 'A of Section S, Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. The overall wind sill Farms property nets 12.97 acres +1- not including WCR 74 current and future right of way (30 ft existing, 40 additional expected). WCR 74 lies along the northern border. This site is in a Non -Urbanizing area. It is a minimum of 2 miles from Timnath (west), Severance (east), and Windsor (south) and their Urban Growth Areas. Windmill Farms USR18-OOxx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case AL PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 1 of 14 A vicinity and key map of the site are included in Appendix A of this study as well as on the following page. The scales below are not accurate since the maps included herein are for exhibit purposes only. a en 110110.11 _ 57'302 55' 1 1660 4i,. 3000 CD 80 IP CR ea PP R! tryke Cargui iF eNorribbinr I 105 SCALE 1:24 000 0 e liGirrtRS U I 'OS a Era s L 4 MILES IOW IP 110Oa ant ILCIP 4400 5000 Q Ca ACI rt KM WOO 11100IP ITC, LUUUIIL7UR IIITLPYPI 10 FLIT NMI nd.J4SlCANV[ATC.glDATLUMV !Da Tin mip wit p udu .d to conform, with the Nato nil Ccei�still fdairam ItSTopa hodecl. Siowho& ?DI I. A one [ado Lo- f&c eSso tlMS *MA Oib redact k *Mt venien 01: 6.19 R YL'I WPC III•1a'Y.I 0 u Ind r 00 MP tit -s- 1ill ttrttptcnaw Iv WIVE OR *.4 JiWItL Lea+-a!O 1 1 Q, 1 8 I' killington .1 Cobb Like 39krn 4 fad Gallas iSaw ranee, t inland 1t, a ta-and I , afro quro&MCI. ES zti S >4`dnrlsnur 7 n, Irl L"5C1WC111' Wrg fi.lr4 0 1i tie? ass litecrig 40"JQ 104'52'3D" ROAD CLASSIFICATION Exprinsway Lera I Ctr'lwc tot f40Pr1irI+,May tort! head Ilan" AWO up Irientrba fir r 1 1.6 %cutc 9 I State RA4%'C TIMNATH, CO 2016 Specifically, the proposed Windmill Farms site is immediately west of Harmony Road (Weld County Road 74) and lies between WCR 15 N, d ' VCR 17 (Hwy 257). Tirnnath is west, Severance cast, and Windsor south. Windmill Farms U R 1 S-ooxx — Final Drainage inage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 2 of 14 The Google Earth Exhibit above shows the rural neighbor residences and farms that surround the property. Only an acreage subdivision lies to the east. Rocky Mountain Sports Park is proposed north of WCR 74 and this property. B. Description of Property The legal description for the property is Lot B of Recorded Exemption No. 0807-05-1 RE - 4682 as recorded November 26, 2007 (Reception No. 3519338). Currently this parcel has moderate to significant topographic relief— 28 feet from the northwest corner to the southeast corner. The property does not to appear to have been farmed in recent years and exists as pasture with moderate grasses and shrub vegetation. Existing slopes average range from 1.8% to 5.6% fro i northwest to the southeast (average of 2.7%). The historic slopes appear to be 2.2% based on the USGS Quad from northwest to southeast. Windmill i ndmill Farms USR18-ooxx - Final Drainage Report Weld County Case AL PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 3 of 14 The existing grades in general match the historical direction per USGS Quad maps. The property is in • i jority NRCS Unit Symbol 32 (Kim loam with 1 to 3% slopes) and in part NRCS Unit Symbol 52 (Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5% slopes) -- both of which are NRCS Soil type A. The adjacent basins to the west and eastare the same NRCS Unit Symbol 52 and the area to the south is NRCS Unit Symbol 32 (as is the majority of the Windmill property). Both soil types (32 & 52) are noted as well drained. Soils classifications were taken from Hydrologic Soil Type Map (Appendix A) USDA Soil Survey. IL DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. Major Drainage Basins The Windmill Farms Site (USR18-0 DXX) is solely within the Cache La Poudre River basin and all existing and developed drainage is tributary to the Cache La Poudre River. The historic and existing basins are shown on sheet 23 and 24 of 40. HISTORIC Basin II (12.97 ac) is the entire parcel that sheet flows from northwest to southeast overland. It appears and is assumed based on the existing topography and the USGS topography that the historic grades in this area were similar to existing conditions of 2.0 to 5.5% (average of 2.2% per USGS Quad mapping). As noted previously, the site is primarily NRCS Soil Type A. All runoff values presented herein have been prepared with two methods of check for time of concentration the UDFCD 2011 equation (L/180+10) and the recently revised UDFCD 2016 equation of: (18-l5i) + ELtravel/ (6 + 12)(So)^. 5)] . All values provided in this study are are as determined by the 2016 time of concentration check. In the case of Historic runoff calculations the 2011 UDFCD manual required no check for time of concentration. The Historic effective imperviousness value used was 2.0%. The minor (5yr) storm runoff is approximately 0.54 cfs, and the major storm runoff approximately 11.36 cfs. Basin ROW (0.95 ac) is the adjacent upstream basin that sheet flows from the center of WCR 74 (Harmony Road) south to the road side and irrigation ditch which flows east to the property line and then directly south. It is assumed based on the existing topography and the USGS topography that the historic grades in this area were similar to existingconditions of 2.2% on average. As noted previously, the offsite basins are NRCS Soil Type A as is this site. Windmill Farms USR 1 S-00xx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 4 of 14 Basin ROW runoff will not be effected by this project nor will its current flow pattern be disturbed. The historic path through this property will remain unchanged and runoff will pass through its current path. The Historic effective imperviousness value used for ROW was 2.0%. The minor (Syr) storm runoff is approximately 0.05 cfs, and the major storm runoff approximately 1.11 cfs. EXISTING Basin EX (12.97 ac) is the entire parcel (not including ROW) that sheet flows from northwest to southeast. The existing topography slopes at 2.7% on average. The upper portion generally steeper up to 5.5% and the lower portion closer to 2.0%. As noted previously, the site is primarily NRCS Soil Type A. Adjacent properties arc Soil Type A too. The Existing effective imperviousness value used (includes the current home under construction) was modeled as 3.22%. The minor (5yr) storm runoff is approximately 0.86 cfs, and the major storm runoff approximately 12.28 cfs. Basin ROW (0.95 ac) is the WCR 74 right of way parcel adjacent to the proj ect that flows from the road centerline south to the roadside and irrigation ditch which then flows cast to the property boundary and then heads south along the eastern boundary. This basin is approximately 589 feet long (west to east). The average slope from roadway centerline to the adjacent ditch is 10.9%. The travel slope of the ditch is much flatter at 0.6%. As noted previously, the site is solely NRCS Soil Type A. The Existing effective imperviousness value for Basin ROW was calculated as 22.02%. The minor (5yr) storm runoff is approx 0.55 cfs, and the major storm runoff approx. 2.20 cfs. EXISTING OFFSITE Basin OFF 'x' (n/a) could be mapped on either side of the property — but since neither adjacent property drains towards this site no basin mapping was performed. The adjacent (west and east) properties drain similar to Windmill Farms — from northwest to southeast towards the Cache La Poudre River. Any localized runoff north of WCR 74 is captured and routed under WCR 74 via a 12 inch diameter CMP culvert near the midpoint of the Windmill Farms property and joins the south roadside/irrigation ditch which heads east then south. Adj acent grades appear similar, and are confirmed by the perimeter field survey shot sand USGS topography. As noted previously, the adjacent basins are NRCS Soil Type A. The adjacent offsite basins will not be effected by this project and their historic paths (not through this site) will remain unchanged. Windmill Farms USR 18-00xx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 5 of 14 No further analysis was performed for the adjacent properties. B. Minor Developed Drainage Basins The Developed sub -basins related to this project are shown on sheet 24 of 40. This study provides the final developed drainage characteristics for the 12.97 acre site. The Developed basins for the Windmill Farms site (SPRl6-0024) are defined as Basins Al and ROW. Developed Basin ROW is Weld County 74 right of way (existing and expected future dedication) . Although Basin ROW is not expected to be modified in the developed condition, it was included in the developed analysis should through the USR process it be determined the future widening should be modeled it can easily be updated and included in this study. The build out maximum imperviousness for the fully developed site is 35.7%. Said build out imperviousness assumes all site accesses are asphalt, and includes over 500 feet additional expansion for each shown proposed or future building. In addition, for the purposes of providing the Owner future flexibility in addition of porches, building expansions, or other site paving — Pond S was modeled to attenuate and treat Basin A at a 40% impervious threshold. Each minor storm event referred to below is the 5 year event and each major storm event referred to below is the 100 year event. The 10 year event has also been calculated. Calculations are carried out to the hundredths for consistency purposes only. 1 Basin Al (12.97 acres) Basin Al is the entire site including the Restaurant, Coffee Shop, Barn Event Center, current residence, future residence, and possible future Brewery. Also included in the future developed condition the basin was modeled with all accesses and parking as asphalt. Runoff from Basin Al begins as roof runoff and then will be collected via curb/gutter and open swale to be directed through the center "Lawn" into a large (10 foot bottom width) but shallow Swale which continues to Pond S. Although the entire site was not broken into multiple sub -basins, Runoff from entire Basin Al was used to size the swale. Basin Al releases into Forebay S at Design Point 1. The developed effective imperviousness value calculated for Basin Al is 35.7% and the Rational runoff calculations were based on said build out condition. The minor (5yr) storm runoff is approximately 11.91 cfs, and the major storm runoff approximately 39.14 cfs. Windmill Farms U SR 18-00xx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 6 of 14 2. Basin ROW 0.95 acres Basin ROW is the WCR 74 right of way from the section line / centerline of the road south to the li it of future right of way (70 feet). Runoff from Basin ROW begins at the center of WCR 74, flows south to the adjacent roadside/irrigation ditch which then flows east to the eastern property boundary and then south via existing ditches. No modification of the existing system is proposed with exception to the 24" access culvert. Flows from this basin are designed to flow overland from WCR 74 to the existing roadside ditch. The release from Basin ROW to the existing ditches along the eastern side of Basin Al will occur at Design Point 2. The current developed effective imperviousness value calculated for Basin ROW is 22.02. The minor (5yr) storm runoff is approximately 0.45 cfs, and the major storm runoff approximately 1.78 cfs. Ili DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations The calculations provided. in this letter report have been prepared in conformance with the "Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Ma nuals Volumes 1, 2, and 3" (WCSDC - Ref 1) adopted by Weld County October, 2006 and "Urban Drainage Flood Control District (UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes I thru III" (Ref 2), unless otherwise noted. All design elements outlined in this letter report, and illustrated in the construction plans, are proposed as final conditions (as directed, assumed, or otherwise prepared) in order to complete the development of this Project. B. Drainage Studies, Outfall Systems Plans, Site Constraints No apparent Final Drainage Study appears to have been prepared as part of this property in the past. Coordination with County staff previously confirmed no Final Drainage Report is known to exist for this property or immediately surrounding properties. The constraints identified as part of the design of this project included the following: • lack of existing storm drainage infrastructure in the area status of expected future annexation of WCR 74 and possibly adjacent properties to Windsor Windmill Farms USR18-00xx— — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case AL PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 7 of 14 C. Hydrology The rainfall intensity information was obtained from the NOAA Atlas using 1 hour rainfall depths as taken from UDSDC Manual Vol 1 (Ref 2). The "Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals Volumes 1, 2, and 3" (WCSDC - Ref 1) adopted by Weld County October, 2006 identifies the 100 year and 10 year event storm rainfall data per USDCM (Ref 2) Tables R -1 through RO-6 or by NOAA Atlas if USDCM Tables RO-1 through RCS -12 do not include that area of Weld County. Upon review of the aforementioned County Standard (Ref 1), the NOAA AA Atlas Data derived data per the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (Vol 1) Figures RA -1 through RA -6 for 1 hour rainfall depths at 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year events are as follows: DESIGN STORM 2 5 10 100 WEC Derived from USDCM NOAA Atlas 1 -hr Event (inches) 0.85 1.13 1.41 2.80 The temporal distribution derived fro I e NOAA Atlas by WEC for the 1 -hour design storm was 2.80 inches rainfall depth for the 100 -year storm, 1.41 inches rainfall depth for the 10 - year storm, and 1.13 inches rainfall depth for the 5 year storm. The Rational Method for storm -water runoff calculations, using the equations as described in the UDFCD (Reference 2) Criteria Manual Chapter 5 Runoff was used to calculate stormwater flows within this study. The run-off coefficient 'C' values were obtained from the UDFCD (Reference 2) Criteria Manual as well based on the predominate NRCS Soil Type. It appears no on site water quality or detention has been provided or maintained for any of the adjacent or neighboring properties (currently pri drily undeveloped, d when developed said sites are rural residential and large acreage). I The use of weighted runoff coefficients is to accurately portray the proposed final conditions of the maximum build out (maximum lot coverage) for this project based on the best available information at this time. Sole use of Table RO-5 is applicable for Master Plan Drainage analysis including projects of this type — however calculation of proposed final conditions using weighted runoff coefficients provides a more thorough and accurate analysis. Windmill Farms USR 1 S-ooxx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 8 of 14 The site has been modeled as though all site roads, parking lots, and accesses will be paved in the future. An adjustment of the buildout Imperviousness from 35.7 to 40% was noted above and was included in Pond S storage design. No offsite basins have been modeled. It is understood that some portion of the property north of WCR 74 will drain south under WCR 74 and continue as it currently does. It is the expectation of this study that any development or improvements to the property north will require them to provide treatment and attenuation. In short this project will not affect the existing conditions. D. Hydraulics The conveyance of onsite site stormwater occurs overland through gravel access areas and pasture areas ultimately is conveyed to Pond S. There are no major drainage ways on this site or immediately adjacent. The Cache La Poudre River lies approximately 5+ miles to the south. E. Water Quality Enhancement Water quality capture volume calculations have been performed based on all developed Basin (Basin Al) in accordance with the UDFCD Criteria Manual (Reference 2). F. Groundwater A Project Geotechnical Report has been completed and is included in Appendix A. Two separate Engineered Septic designs have also already been completed by Soilogic for the two proposed buildings (Restaurant/Coffee and Barn Event Center). Groundwater was encountered in Borings 1 and 2 at depths of 9 and 6.5 feet respectively. However no groundwater was encountered during drilling of Borings 3 through 8 up to 15 feet in depth. Groundwater was measured in most holes 6 days after drilling between 8 and 11 feet below grade. Groundwater presence will not affect Pond S design — as Pond S bottom will only be between 12 and 24 inches below existing grade. Developed runoff is not anticipated to increase groundwater levels in this area due to the adequate conveyances designed. Windmill Farms USR 18-0oxx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 9 of 14 IV. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY DESIGN A. Stormwatcr Conveyance Facilities Runoff analysis for stormwater management has been included and presented in this report. No Master study exists for this area. Calculations for empirical water quality volume and UDFCD Modified FAA minor and major storm attenuation based on the 2016 UDFCD calculation of the Historic Basin H 5 and 100 year events. The 5 year historic rate was utilized for the Modified FAA method to determine the Major stormwater storage volume as well, as required by Weld County Drainage Criteria for non -urbanized areas. In general the runoff from pervious areas and all disturbed areas as part of this project will be routed overland and ultimately captured by the Lawn Swale and directed to Pond S. Capacity calculations for concrete pans and the proposed Swale are included in Appendix C. B. Stormwatcr Storage Facilities Stormwatcr storage (water quality and detention) is currently proposed in Pond S. UDFCD Criteria Volumes (Ref 2) were referenced for determining allowable empirical release rates based on imperviousness, acreage, and NRCS Soil Type. Pursuant to Weld County Drainage Criteria for sites without formal drainage outfalls — the developed 100 year release has been designed to attenuate to the Historic 5 year release for the site using the Modified FAA storage volume method. As noted above — the 5 and 100 year attenuated release was based on the 2016 UDFCD Basin Historic 5 year rate of 0.54 cfs. The same release was utilized with the Modified FAA method to determine both the Minor and Major stormwater storage volumes. All calculations are included in Appendix C. Basin ROW is not proposed to receive any significant additional imperviousness as part of this project beyond the paved entryway and therefore was not attenuated. Further, Basin ROW receives some runoff from north of WCR 74 — and both are routed around Windmill Farm improvements. The Existing release rate from Basin Historic H per the 2016 UDFCD time of concentration calculation is 0.54 cfs and was used for the allowable Modified FAA release for both the 10 and 100 year events. For the developed basin Al and a buildout maximum imperviousness of 40% - the Modified FAA volume for the Historic 5 year rate of 0.54 cfs for the major event equated to 31,307 eft (not including the water quality capture volume) . The Modified FAA volume for a release not to exceed the same Historic 5 year rate of 0.54 cfs was calculated as 75,022 eft (not including '/2 the empirical water quality capture volume). Windmill Farms U SR 18-00xx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 10 of 14 The rainfall IDF values were not modified from the Denver area values. The total volumes used for identifying actual water surface elevations based on the Pond S stage storage characteristics were 10,161 cf (empirical wqcv), 41,468 cf (10 yr plus wqcv), and 80,102 cf (100 yr plus 50% wqcv). The corresponding water surfaces for Pond S are 4907.56 (wqcv), 4909.85 (10yr plus wqcv), and 4912.00 (100 yr plus 50% wqcv). The Empirical and Modified FAA storage volume methods are included in Appendix C. Comparison of the UDFCD Modified FAA major storm volume calculations to the empirical method are dramatically different based on the constraint of the developed release to be held at or below the 5 year existing/historic rate. The empirical releases for the 10 year and 100 year events for NRCS Soil Types A are 0.23 cfs per acre and 0.85 cfs per acre. The calculated required empirical volumes for the water quality (WQCV) volume, minor (10 year), and major (100 year) events were 10,161 cf, 30,556 cf (w/ 100% wqcv), and 45,532 cf (w/ 50% wqcv) respectively. Pond S is required to release in similar manner to the historic and existing release path (sheet flow). The Pond has been designed to release low flows (10 year and more frequent events) into an ungrouted riprap section downstream of the pond outfall. It is expected all low flows will release into the ungrouted riprap section, many will infiltrate, moderate continual release will be spread at the grade wall to be built just upstream of the southern property line. The minor release is accomplished by a rectangular weir located above the water quality volume. However — since this is a non urbanized area the 100 year event restriction (to Historic 5 year rate) is less than the allowable WQCV or 10 year events and will therefore limit all flows to the required Historic rate. The major release will be regulated by a standard orifice plate to be placed over the 18" diameter pipe existing the second cell of the outlet structure. An emergency spillway (60 foot in length) is proposed to pass at minimum 2 times the developed flows from Basin Aland ROW should the Basin ROW ditch system somehow overflow and enter Basin Al. Said emergency overflow wall is required to less than 6 inches in depth (beginning at 4912.00) for a Pond S crest requirement of 4913 (based on 1 foot of freeboard). 1 foot of freeboard was achieved and an emergency overflow wall and downstream soil riprap section was included in the Pond design. Windmill Farms USR 18-0oxx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 11 of 14 C. Water Quality BP's Appropriate B p's in accordance with current UDFCD Volume III criteria (Ref 2) have been proposed for this proj ect including a forebay, micropool, initial surcharge, and staged extended detention basin release. D. Floodplain This project does not lie within a floodplain. The current FIRM for this property shows the entire parcel as Zone X "Area of Minimal Flood Hazard", see FIRM Map 080266. See also the FIRMETTE map included Appendix A. E. Groundwater Runoff is expected moderately infiltrate the gravel covered site under most minor events. Under multiple minor events or major events runoff is expected to sheet flow west to the Lawn Swale and be routed to proposed Detention Pond S. Minimal effect to the groundwater is expected. Typical commercial geotechnical reports recommend the building design to incorporate foundation drains and sump pumps for protection against groundwater. F. Additional permitting No additional permitting is anticipated. G. Storm System Maintenance This section defines the maintenance responsibilities for Windmill Farms USR18-00XX: Pond S — including but not limited to mowing, weed control, cleaning and removing debris or transported vegetation (branches, leaves, etc), removing accumulated sediment, adding erosion control, and replacement of any damaged or failing improvements. Improvements in Pond S include the outlet structure, the pond banks, pond bottom., forebays, trickle pan, emergency spillway, outfall channel, and access road. • Swale Al-- including but not limited to mowing, weed control, cleaning and removing debris, removing accumulated sediment, adding erosion control, and replacement of any damaged or failing improvements. Improvements for Swale Al include the concrete pan and adjacent grades and vegetation. Windmill Farms I_TR 1 S-ooxx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 12 of 14 Basin Al — including but not limited to mowing, weed control, cleaning and removing debris, removing accumulated sediment, adding erosion control, and replacement of any damaged or failing improvements. Improvements for Basin Al beyond Pond S and Swale Al include the on site grading, on site native grass, and proposed concrete curb adjacent to all proposed Buildings, parking, and access. Frequency of inspections and maintenance are as follows: • Pond 5, Swale Al, and Basin Al should be inspected monthly or within 24 hours of each measureable precipitation event. • Any damaged or lost material (riprap) should be replaced immediately • Mowing should occur monthly or more often depending upon growth. • Weed control should occur a minimum of two times per spring/summer/fall season • Cleaning beyond inspections noted above should occur at a minimum of annually V. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with standards This Drainage Study for the Windmill Farms USR1 -OOXX located in Weld County was prepared in conformance with the Weld County Storm criteria (Ref 1) and the Urban Drainage Flood Control District Storm Drainage Design and Technical Criteria (Reference 2) . This drainage design and concept quantifies the requirements to manage stormwater runoff. B. Variances No variance is proposed or requested. C. Drainage concept The intent of this design is to provide the drainage analysis necessary for attenuation of the runoff generated by the Windmill Farms USR. D. Additional Items No additional items were considered at this time. Windmill Farms USR 18-00xx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 13 of 14 VI. REFERENCES 1. Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria Addendum to the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Weld County Code Article X1 a n 1 Appendix 81_, October 2006 2, Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes I -III, Denver Regional Council of Governments, June 2001, Rev April 2008 and all subsequent updates 3. Weld County En ineerin Construction Criteria, April 2012 C:\Users\Chadwi n0S 15\Desktop\WEC working fblder,Windmill Farms\Drainage'\20180406 Windmill. Farms FDR.doc Windmill Farms UR 1 S-00xx — Final Drainage Report Weld County Case # PL xxx April 6, 2018 Page 14 of 14 APPENDIX A I lei 4-4 hTo 62 CZ it 0 GagPi Q? CC ct C.) I1 0 Cin 614 co di 44 GV CIO r"`, CA Cr r gi c,4 •roi A CO /;rt" Y / — Co Co NI! 0 W��liiiiYY' T� I'1 . d P' 1/4 siS INS Lfl CO pax' ono) to i W r 5 - CO I' Ih 0 In a CO LC) a C I - En Lt) can Lt) ROAD CLASSIFICATION Local Connector Local Road Secondary Hwy y State Route 0 J 8 SCALE 1:24 000 0 N 0 0 CV T KILOMETERS O 0 r m O O U) u) FLLI C7- J La O O 0 to O 0 r U, I I f C7 C7 0 CJ r C7 0 C O C C7 c0 C7 C7 O R C7 a - CO C3 0 O— a 0 0 C7 0 CJ r CI I CI C7 r H LU LU li C C - .) C C z s� Ca C 0 L O L 5 Severance O C) I z 2 6 Loveland B Bracewell CD N Cr] to co CV N. N— (0 CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET op co O) r NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF produced to conform with the r r O N 1_ Ct C Ct t a 0 L a 0 a 0 H U) E as L O) 0 1A a CL 47, Ct U- m 0 i- 0 To To Z r cc; d O .en aD i1 L .C/1 i a 0 u0 4- a) 0 O en ch CIS a) w= 0 c▪ 4 -D CIS 4- a) E cC w ce a z z d 0�.��.�aayy J J W C 2 W a z W W J a W J W u_ a_ W tr W a� a� Ct u_ >b CO J c 0 z Regulatory Floodway Zone AE, AO, AN, VE AR CI CO O w < J o d icE 41) 4) y ,E o N ' co ) CO 4a le. _ 2 13 v a 0 Cli Wm O it it it c C C 03 03 Q {43 Ta 03 +a0 XX r4' a g Tao. 03 ri Q 5 v c Future Conditions 1% Annua Chance Flood Hazard Zane 4r -' N 4) 4> 13 J 'et .a -o 0 O a "C U. 01 0 rr E Q 3 o lisa. ti. 03 CI; 4 J C Flood Hazard Area of Minima Effective LOMRs Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer ra 0 u. e'C .13 'Fes � I _ LL C3 re W < Et Ccc o w a 0 LL NO SCREEN OTHER AREAS Cross Sections with 1% Annua N O N u. 03 4, a a ? J fits W ��„1 41 4) W M C it C � � 03 .„ Lc, 6 Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Transect Baseline Profile Baseline I Hydrographic Feature CC fan W W Cr I- C IL z Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available I a I MAP PANELS '''' R g— Q £ti5 ° y k— H E T., 113 iSS = . '' 0 a- CI stel _ E c C e 411 tv O tom-+ G QS 1 r 's - 5 cc 3 co 0 iti 13 0 C 13 .50N4 A) : 7 to Eft; c ✓ 413 a• l (1;> W p ▪ C) f c y 1) ji th AM ›% a. taa. 45 I:aict. aay it C.7 te • L a at to 72 to ti- LU C C+-' �! ':� ..r {a! '�'' II: lEcia V- L^ •0 �} �,} .1-4-:: = ZSF.t-� L. L!q a?`� +Li th cly h 0 s2t, 13 Ts SC ▪ 2 d? J r • 13 ito Z Opt% f.? (Z= t 4) > i. C 0 >, t t C.C �' �A C. 0 C tU i phi fl? .E L t i n I— dD 4- 104°54'34.38"W LINO L ciAl 70 - F7 c.= +3 ... t 17mu :`_ 42, 04, %1I' a. et. b j L rarer L { ta C') v C 4) L1 O C C le ✓ CD £D ■ ✓ C C C +I MPS" I L990PC Ir LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGAL DESCRIPTION from First American Title Insurance Company Certificate of Conveyances dated November 8, 2017: LOT B OF RECORDED EXEMPTION NO. 0807-05-1 RE -4682, RECORDED NOVEMBER 26, 2007 AT RECEPTION NO. 3519338. COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO. USDA United States a -a Department of Agriculture RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Windmill Farms April 2, 2018 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gavlwpsl portallnreslmainlsoils/health!} and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.govllacator/app?agency=nres) or your N RCS State Soil Scientist (h ttp ://www. n res .0 sd a. g ovlwpsrpo rtal/nres/detail /so i is/conta ctu s!? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the N RCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 5 Soil Map 8 Soil Map 9 Legend 10 Map Unit Legend 11 Map Unit Descriptions 11 Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 13 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 13 52 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 14 References 16 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only► a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy► of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 40° 31' 25" N 0 40° 31' 8" N 104O 55 1" \ 104O 5S 1" VII A 507110 507110 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 507170 Map Scale: 1:2/630 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. y _ Meters 35 70 140 210 Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: W GS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WG584 507410 507410 LU C 40° 31' 25" N 40° 31'8"N 9 Resource Report Custom Soi z O 2 LL z a ct 2 a z W 0 CE 2 were mapped at 0 L E C) ro C,, G 11 nterest (AOl) its Doirp Area of Interest (AO!) Map may not be valid at this scale -o ED ta 13 >i Net C 0 w c) L ea 13 E E CM C n 0 fl3 C C: ca 0 CO CIJ E cat) C a) Ira C)E C cL°3 cis cu 0 CD Very Stony Spot Uf a coc! L O C7 0) CL C� 2 ,5 ,5 ,5 co 0) Co Map Unit Lines Ht Map Unit Points Special Line Features I Point Features a" to z C.} C a, Water Features Transportation Resources Conservation Service s`co Co co co to t w -a Cam} p a) 121 . a — (D V CO 10 t Nes 03 o ° _2 L 2 2 L Z WI s F.1..)-Cco GO L a 0 D a o 2 a :13 •v -Ca 2 .Q c L ,� c� • tgi ii coo uasa)a a co a r as ege c) (7* a) *.E° cOMD L L '4V C35 Erk 95 :3 tj3 2 0 CD (D CD 87 0 CJ C L a' 2 0 o.4}y 3 " an,Q C C C6 2 r ' in 8 r u) C,0 m a:5 C q F- C> 1 US Routes LO 0 a a m � J t a 0 cis co 0 •zz i 8 C]. a , c .. it 5 O o a T3 — — — — o D 's fn 1, CD C m Cn CO O 0 (3 0 J J I I Q O Cl- CiS 445 Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry aneous Water o vict L a 0 co N- �� C L (d a r 6 -aci Dc 0.0 ea (.O CO CO Rock Outcrop a) Cti CIO a_ E 2 1, 03 a • tu- 3 as a_O cti 0 cO r Mar 20, 2015 —Oct mages were photographed: .C) Cg co c V •F -a 0 r N a) cp E 4} Cl) E cla 7t) a •- a cts E C!) ES 'CI o -a2 -c ka a_2 a a N15 Ed-) g O la t a , a " T2. ( a E >a _ L t37 C E CO E 4- a V Lu ea > 4) 0 C C •a 03 4) C 73 0 co C to L ti) co J �� Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 32 Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 27.5 76.6% 52 Otero sandy loam, percent slopes 3 to 5 8.4 23.4% Totals for Area of Interest 35.9 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every► map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, 11 Custom Soil Resource Report onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 32 Kim loam, 'I to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 362b Elevation: 4,900 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 125 to 150 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Kim and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Kim Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile HI - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 40 inches: loam H3 - 40 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 inlhr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 15 percent Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (non irrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R057BY002CO) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Otero Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 52 Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 3631 Elevation: 4,700 to 5,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost -free period: 130 to 180 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Otero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit. Description of Otero Setting Landform: Plains Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Eolian deposits and/or mixed outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: sandy loam H2 - 12 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: Sandy Plains (R067BY024CO) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Kim Percent of map unit: 12 percent Hydric soil rating: No Vona Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. BS -79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, O.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ n res/d etai I/natio na I/so i l s/?cid =nres 142 p2_0542 62 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils!?cid=nres 142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcsidetailisoils/ home/?cid=nres 142p2_053374. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.goviwps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/land use/rang ep astu re/?cid = ste l prd b 10430 84 16 Custom Soil Resource Report U nited States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. N ational soil surrey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ n res/detail/soils/scientists!?cid =nres 142 p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 2 96 . http: //www. n res . usd a. gov/wps/porta I/nres/deta i I/nation al/soils/? cid =nres 142 p2_053624 U nited States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov"InternetiFSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2 052290.pd f 17 Sc LOGIC February 8, 2018 Cheryl Sweet 7674 County Road 74 Windsor, Colorado 80550 Re: Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74 Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 Dear Mrs. Sweet: Soilogic, Inc. (Soilogic) personnel have completed the geotechnical subsurface exploration you requested for the proposed event center and restaurant/coffee shop buildings to be constructed on Lot B of Recorded Exemption RE -4682 near Windsor, in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado. The results of our subsurface exploration and pertinent geotechnical engineering recommendations are included with this report. The subsurface materials encountered in the completed site borings consisted of a thin mantle of vegetation and topsoil underlain by apparently -natural brown/beige lean clay with varying amounts of sand containing trace to minor amounts of gravel. The lean clay varied from very soft to hard in terms of consistency, typically exhibited low swell potential at current moisture and density conditions and extended to the maximum depths explored in borings B-6, B-7 and B-8 at depths ranging from about 5 to 10 feet below present site grades. One sample of the apparently -natural near -surface lean clay soils obtained from boring B-5 at a depth of about 4 feet below ground surface exhibited moderate swell potential. At the locations of borings B-1 through B-5, the lean clay extended to depths of about 7 to 11 feet below present site grade, where it was underlain by brown/olive/gray/rust siltstone/claystane bedrock. The bedrock varied from medium hard to hard in terms of relative hardness, exhibited low swell potential at current moisture and density conditions and extended to the maximum depths explored in these borings at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 15 feet below present site grade. Soilogic, Inc. 3522 Draft Horse Court • Loveland, CO 80538 • (970) 535-6144 P.O. Box 1121 • Hayden, CO 81639 • (970) 276-2087 Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 2 Groundwater was measured in borings B-1 and B-2 at depths of about 9 and 61/2 feet below ground surface respectively, when checked immediately after completion of drilling. Borings B-3 through B -S remained dry to the depths explored (5 to 15 feet below ground surface) at that time. When checked about 6 days after drilling, groundwater was measured in borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 at depths of about 8, 6 and 11 feet below ground surface respectively. A wet cave-in was measured at a depth of about 15 feet below ground surface at the location of boring B-4 and dry cave-ins were measured in borings B-5 through B-8 at depths ranging from 4'/ to 11 feet below present site grade at that time. Very soft and compressible lean clay soils were encountered near surface in boring B-6. Careful observation of all foundation bearing materials should be completed at the time of construction to ensure all footing foundations will be supported on like materials with suitable strength. If more extensive zones of very soft and compressible lean clay are encountered at that time, extending footing foundations to bear on suitable strength soils at greater depth, overexcavatian/backfill or other approved stabilization procedures may be required to develop consistent foundation. bearing. Care should be taken at the time of construction to avoid disturbing the foundation bearing and floor slab subgrade soils and the need for corrective action. To reduce the potential for disturbing the foundation soils and the requirement for corrective work, consideration should be given to performing foundation excavations remotely with a track -hoe. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, results of laboratory testing and proposed construction, it is our opinion the proposed event center and restaurant/coffee shop buildings could be designed and constructed using conventional spread footing foundations bearing on natural, undisturbed lean clay. Care will be needed at the time of construction to ensure all footing foundations bear on natural, undisturbed lean clay with suitable strength and low volume change potential. Although most of the lean clay soils encountered in the test borings drilled for this exploration exhibited no to low swell potential at current moisture and density conditions, one sample obtained from boring B-5 at a depth of about 4 feet below ground surface exhibited moderate swell potential. If/where expansive lean clay is identified underlying footing foundations at the time of excavation, extending footing foundations to bear on natural, undisturbed lean clay with low swell potential at slightly greater depth, or extending overexcavation/backfill procedures to low swelling lean clay to redevelop foundation bearing would be required. Overexcavation/backfi ll procedures extended to natural, undisturbed lean clay with low volume change potential should also be completed Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 3 below building floor slabs if/where expansive and/or compressible lean clay is identified. Similar methods should be used in order to develop LVC-potential pavement and exterior flatwork subgrades if/where expansive and compressible lean clay soils are identified underlying these improvements. The averexcavatian/backfill procedures would help develop LVC-potential foundation, floor slab/flatwark and pavement support across building footprints and pavement areas and reduce the potential for total and differential movement of those supported elements subsequent to construction. Based on the results of completed laboratory testing, the natural site lean clay soils appear suitable for use as low volume change (LVC) fill and overexcavation/backfill (if/where required) to develop the site. Other opinions and recommendations concerning design criteria and construction details for the proposed site improvements are included with this report. Pavement section design options are also included. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed information or if we can be of further service to you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very Truly Yours, Soil ogic, Inc. Alec Kaljian, E.I. Project Engineer Reviewed by: Darrel DiCarlo, F.E. Senior Project Engineer GEOTECLINICAL SUBSURFACE E FL I RATION REPORT WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO SOILOGIC 17-1360 February 8, 2018 INTRODUCTION This report contains the results of the completed geotechnical subsurface exploration for the proposed event center and restaurant/coffee buildings to be constructed on the Windmill Farms property, a parcel of land described as Lot B of Recorded Exemption RE - 4682, located at 7674 County Road 74 near Windsor, in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado. The purpose of our exploration was to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the completed site borings and develop the test data necessary to provide recommendations concerning design and construction of proposed building foundations and support of floor slabs, exterior flatwork and site pavements. The conclusions and recommendations outlined in this report are based on the results of the completed field and laboratory testing and our experience with subsurface conditions in this area. PROPOSED o ON TRUC TION We anticipate the event center building will be a single or two-story steel or wood -frame structure constructed as slab -on -grade, encompassing a plan area of approximately 4,500 square feet. We understand the proposed restaurant/coffee shop building will be a single - story wood or steel -frame structure constructed as slab -on -grade, encompassing approximately 3,400 square feet. Foundations loads for the buildings are anticipated to be relatively light, with maximum continuous wall loads on the order of 3 to 4 kips per lineal foot and individual column loads less than 75 kips. Site drive and parking area pavements are also anticipated as part of the proposed site improvements. Traffic loading on site pavements is expected to consist of low volumes of light passenger vehicles, with occasional trash and delivery truck traffic. Wastewater generated by the buildings will be disposed of through an on -site wastewater treatment system (OWTS). Small grade changes (on the order of 2 feet or less) are anticipated to develop finish site grades in building and pavement areas. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The development parcel includes an approximate 13.9 -acre parcel of land identified as Lot B of Recorded Exemption RE -4682, located at 7674 County Road 74 near Windsor, in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado. At the time of our exploration, the site was moderately vegetated with native weeds and grasses and sloped slightly downward to the south, with the maximum difference in ground surface elevation across the site estimated to be on the order of 15 to 20 feet based on review of available USGS topographical maps. Evidence of prior building construction was not observed within the proposed areas of construction by Soilogic personnel at the time of our site exploration. SITE EXPLORATION Field Exploration To develop subsurface information for the proposed site improvements, a total of eight (8) soil borings were completed. Four (4) borings were advanced in the areas of the proposed event center and restaurant/coffee shop buildings to a depth of approximately 15 feet below present site grade. Four (4) additional borings were completed in the site pavement area to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 10 feet below ground surface. The boring locations were established in the field by Soilogic, Inc. (Soilogic) personnel based on a provided site plan, using a mechanical surveyor's wheel and estimating angles from identifiable site references. The boring locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. A diagram indicating the approximate boring locations is included with this report. Graphic logs of each of the auger borings are also included. The test holes were advanced using 4 -inch diameter continuous flight auger powered by a truck -mounted CME-45 drill rig. Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained at regular intervals using California barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM specification D-1586. As part of the D-1586 sampling procedure, the standard sampling barrel is driven into the substrata using a 140 -pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a distance of 12 inches is recorded and helpful in estimating the consistency, relative density or hardness of the Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption E -A 682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 3 soils/bedrock encountered. In the California barrel sampling procedure, lesser disturbed samples are obtained in removable brass liners. Samples of the subsurface materials obtained in the field were sealed and returned to the laboratory for further evaluation, classification and testing. Laboratory Testing The samples collected were tested in the laboratory to measure natural moisture content and were visually and/or manually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS group symbols are indicated on the attached boring logs. An outline of the USCS classification system is included with this report. Classification of bedrock was completed through visual and tactual observation of disturbed samples. Other bedrock typescould be revealed through petrographic analysis. As part of the laboratory testing, a calibrated hand penetrometer (CliP) was used to estimate the unconfined compressive strength of essentially -cohesive specimens. The CHP also provides a more reliable estimate of soil/bedrock consistency than tactual observation alone. Dry density, Afterberg limits, -200 wash and swell consolidation tests were completed on selected samples to help establish specific soil/bedrock characteristics. Atterberg limits tests are used to determine soil/bedrock plasticity. The percent passing the #.00 size sieve (-200 wash) test is used to determine the percentage of fine-grained materials (clay and silt) in a sample. Swell/consolidation tests are performed to evaluate soil/bedrock volume change potential with variation in moisture content. Water Soluble Sulfates (WS 5) tests were completed on selected soil samples to evaluate corrosive soil characteristics with respect to buried concrete. The results of the completed laboratory tests are outlined on the attached boring logs and swell/consolidation test summaries and/or discussed subsequently in this report. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface materials encountered in the completed site borings consisted of a thin mantle of vegetation and topsoil underlain by apparently -natural brown/beige lean clay with varying amounts of sand with trace to minor amounts of gravel. The lean clay varied from very soft to hard in terms of consistency, typically exhibited low swell potential at Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption E -A 682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 4 current moisture and density conditions and extended to the maximum depths explored in borings B-6, B-7 and B-8 at depths ranging from about 5 to 10 feet below present site grades. One sample of the apparently -natural near -surface lean clay soils obtained from boring B-5 at a depth of about 4 feet below ground surface exhibited moderate swell potential. At the locations of borings B-1 through B-5, the lean clay extended to depths of about 7 to 11 feet below present site grade, where it was underlain by brown/olive/gray/rust siltsto e/claystone bedrock. The bedrock varied from medium hard to hard in terms of relative hardness, exhibited low swell potential at current moisture and density conditions and extended to the maximum depths explored in these borings at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 15 feet below present site grade. The stratigraphy indicated on the included boring logs represents the approximate location of changes in soil and bedrock types. Actual changes may be more gradual than those indicated. Groundwater was measured in borings B-1 and B-2 at depths of about 9 and 61/2 feet below ground surface respectively, when checked immediately after completion of drilling. Borings B-3 through B-8 remained dry to the depths explored (5 to 15 feet below ground surface) at that time. When checked about 6 days after drilling, groundwater was measured in borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 at depths of about 8, 6 and 11 feet below ground surface respectively. A wet cave-in was measured at a depth of about 15 feet below ground surface at the location of boring B-4 and dry cave-ins were measured in borings B-5 through B-8 at depths ranging from 41/4 to 11 feet below present site grade at that time. Groundwater level information is indicated in the upper right-hand corner of the attached boring logs. Groundwater levels will vary due to seasonal variations in precipitation, site development, irrigation practices and other hydrologic conditions. Perched and/or trapped groundwater conditions may also be encountered at times throughout the year. Perched water is commonly encountered in soils overlying less permeable soil layers and/or bedrock. Trapped water is typically encountered within more permeable zones of layered soil and bedrock systems. The location and amount of perched and/or trapped water can also vary over time. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 5 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Very soft and compressible lean clay soils were encountered near surface in boring B-6. Careful observation of all foundation bearing materials should be completed at the time of construction to ensure all footing foundations will be supported on like materials with suitable strength. If more extensive zones of very soft and compressible lean clay are encountered at that time, extending footing foundations to bear on suitable strength soils at greater depth, overexcavation/backfill or other approved stabilization procedures may be required to develop consistent foundation bearing. Care should be taken at the time of construction to avoid disturbing the foundation bearing and floor slab subgrade soils and the need for corrective action. To reduce the potential for disturbing the foundation soils and the requirement for corrective work, consideration should be given to performing foundation excavations remotely with a track -hoe. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, results of laboratory testing and proposed construction, it is our opinion the proposed event center and restaurant/coffee shop buildings could be designed and constructed using conventional spread footing foundations bearing on natural, undisturbed lean clay. Care will be needed at the time of construction to ensure all footing foundations bear on natural, undisturbed lean clay with suitable strength and low volume change potential. Although most of the lean clay soils encountered in the test borings drilled for this exploration exhibited no to low swell potential at current moisture and density conditions, one sample obtained from boring B-5 at a depth of about 4 feet below ground surface exhibited moderate swell potential. If/where expansive lean clay is identified underlying footing foundations at the time of excavation, extending footing foundations to bear on natural, undisturbed lean clay with low swell potential at slightly greater depth, or extending overexcavationibackfill procedures to low swelling lean clay to redevelop foundation bearing would be required. Overexcavation/backfill procedures extended to natural, undisturbed lean clay with low volume change potential should also be completed below building floor slabs if/where expansive and/or compressible lean clay is identified. Similar methods should be used in order to develop LVC-potential pavement and exterior flatwork subgrades if/where expansive and compressible lean clay soils are identified underlying these improvements. The averexcavatian/backfill procedures would help develop LVC-potential foundation, floor slab/flatwark and pavement support across Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption E -A 682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 6 building footprints and pavement areas and reduce the potential for total and differential movement of those supported elements subsequent to construction. Site Development All existing topsoil and vegetation should be completely removed from the building, exterior flatwork and pavement areas. Expansive and/or compressible near -surface lean clay subgrade soils identified within proposedbuilding, site pavement and exterior flatwork areas should also be completely removed to natural, undisturbed lean clay with low volume change potential at this time. After stripping and completing all cuts .and removal procedures and prior to placement of any new fill, removal area backfill, exterior flatwork or site pavements, we recommend the exposed subgrades be scarified to a depth of 9 inches, adjusted to within -1% to +3% of optimum moisture content and uniformly re - compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density (AST(ASTM D698). Fill and overexcavation/backfiil soils required to develop the site should consist of approved low volume change (L) soils free from organic matter, debris and other objectionable materials. Based on results of the completed laboratory testing, it is our opinion the site lean clay could be used as fill and/or overexcavation/backfill to develop the site provided the proper moisture content is developed in the materials at the time of placement and compaction. If it is necessary to import additional material to the site for use as fill, those materials should consist of approved, relatively impervious LVC materials. We recommend suitable fill materials be uniformly placed and compacted in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, moisture conditioned and compacted as recommended for the scarified subgrade soils above. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing the reconditioned subgrade soils and placed fill materials prior to placement of any overlying improvements. Soils which are allowed to dry or out or become wet and softened or disturbed by the construction activities should be removed and replaced or reworked in place prior to concrete placement and/or paving. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption E -A 682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 7 Foundations Based on the materials encountered in the completed site borings and results of field and laboratory testing, it is our opinion the proposed event center and restaurant/coffee shop buildings could be supported by continuous spread footing and isolated pad foundations bearing on natural, undisturbed, lean clay with low swell potential and/or properly placed and compacted overexcavatianibackfill (iflwhere required) developed as outlined above. For design of foundations bearing on natural, undisturbed, medium stiff to hard lean clay with volume change swell potential and/or properly placed and compacted overexcavation/ backfill (if completed), we recommend using a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. As a precaution, we recommend the footing foundations be sized to maintain a minimum dead -load pressure of 500 psf (or as high as practical) on the bearing soils. Exterior footings shall bear a minimum of 30 inches below finished adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed strip footings have a minimum width of 12 inches and isolated pad foundations have a minimum width of 4 inches in order to facilitate construction and reduce the potential for development of eccentrically loaded footings. Actual footing widths should be designed by a structural engineer. Backfill placed adjacent to foundation walls should consist of INC potential and relatively impervious soils free from organic matter, debris and other objectionable materials. The site lean clay could be used as backfill in this area provided the proper moisture content is developed in those materials at the time of placement and compaction. We recommend the site lean clay or similar backfill soils be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted in moisture and compacted as previously outlined in the "Site Development" section of this report. For design of footing foundations and foundation walls to resist lateral movement, a passive equivalent fluid pressure value of 250 pcf could be used. The top 30 inches of subgrade could be considered a surcharge load but should not be used in the passive resistance calculations. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 could be used between foundation Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 8 and floor slab concrete and the bearing soils to resist sliding. The recommended passive equivalent fluid pressure value and coefficient of friction do not include a factor of safety. We estimate settlement of footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined above and resulting from the assumed structural loads would be less than 1 inch. Differential settlement could approach the amount of total movement estimated above. If water from any source is allowed to infiltrate the foundation bearing soils, additional movement of the foundations could occur. Seismic Design Based on the results of this investigation and Soilogic review of the International Building Code (IBC - 2003), a soil profile type D could be used for the site strata. Based on our review of United States Geologic Survey (USGS) mapped information, design spectral response acceleration values of SDS = .203 (20.3%) and SDI = .090 (9.0%) could be used. At -Grade Floor Slabs, Exterior Flatwork and Site Pavements In slab -on -grade, exterior flatwork and site pavement areas, those slabs/pavements could be supported directly on reconditioned natural site soils and/or properly placed and compacted fill or overexcavation/backfill (if/where required) developed as outlined in the "Site Development" section of this report. A modulus of subgrade reaction (k) value of 150 pci could be used for design of at -grade floor slabs supported on reconditioned natural site lean clay and/or properly placed and compacted fill. Disturbed subgrades or subgrade soils that have been allowed to dry out or become wet and softened should be removed and replaced or reconditioned in place prior to floor slab construction. Floor slabs should be designed and constructed as floating slabs, separated from foundation walls, columns and plumbing and mechanical penetrations by the use of block outs or appropriate isolation material. Additionally, we recommend all partition walls supported above slabs -on -grade be constructed as floating walls to help reduce the potential for differential slab -to -foundation movement causing distress in upper sections of the structure. A minimum one and one-half (1'/4) inch void space is recommended beneath all floating walls. Special attention to door and stair framing, drywall installation and trim Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 9 carpentry should be taken to isolate those elements from the floor slab, allowing for some differential floor slab -to -foundation movement to occur without transmitting stresses to the overlying structure. Depending on the type of floor covering and floor covering adhesive used in finished slab - on -ground areas, a vapor barrier may be required immediately beneath the floor slab to maintain flooring product manufacturer warranties. A vapor barrier would help reduce the transmission of moisture through the floor slabs. However, the unilateral moisture release caused by placing concrete on an impermeable surface can increase slab curl. The amount of slab curl can be reduced by careful selection of an appropriate concrete mix. Slab curl cannot be eliminated. We recommend the owner, architect and flooring contractor consider the performance of the slab in conjunction with the proposed flooring products to help determine if a vapor barrier will be required and where best to position the vapor barrier in relation to the floor slab. Additional guidance and recommendations concerning slab -on - grade design can be found in American Concrete Institute (ACI) section 302. Subgrade soils expected to receive floor slabs, exterior flatwork and pavements should be evaluated closely immediately prior to concrete placement. If areas of disturbed, wet and softened, or dry subgrade soils are encountered at that time, reworking of those materials or removal/replacement procedures may be required. Some movement of site pavements and exterior flatwork should be expected as the moisture content of the subgrade soils increases subsequent to construction. Based on results of the completed field and laboratory testing, we expect the amount of movement of pavements and exterior flatwork supported on reconditioned natural site soils and/or properly placed and compacted fill and/or overexcavation/backfill would be limited. Care should be taken to ensure that when site pavements and exterior flatwork move, positive drainage will be maintained away from the structure. Pavements The site lean clay would be subject to low remolded shear strength. A resistance value (R - value) of 5 was estimated for the site lean clay and used in the pavement section design. Traffic loading on site pavements is expected to consist of low volumes of light vehicle Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 10 traffic and occasional heavier trash, delivery and emergency vehicle traffic. Equivalent 18 -kip single axle loads (ESAL 's) were estimated for the quantity of site traffic anticipated. Two (2) general design classifications are outlined below in Table I. Standard duty pavements could be considered in automobile drive and parking areas. Heavy duty pavements should be considered for access drives and other areas of the site expected to receive higher traffic volumes or heavier trash, delivery and emergency truck traffic. Proofrolling of the pavement subgrades should be completed to help identify unstable areas. Areas which pump or deform excessively should be mended prior to asphalt, PCC or aggregate base course placement. Isolated areas of subgrade instability can be mended on a case -by -case basis. If more extensive areas of subgrade instability are observed and depending on the in -place moisture content of the subgrade soils immediately prior to paving, the time of year when construction occurs and other hydrologic conditions, overall stabilization of the subgrade soils may become necessary to develop a suitable paving platform. If required, we recommend consideration be given to stabilization of the pavement subgrades with Class C fly ash. With the increase in support strength developed by the fly ash stabilization procedures, it is our opinion some credit for the stabilized zone could be included in the pavement section design, reducing the required thickness of overlying asphaltic concrete and aggregate base course. Fly ash stabilization can also eliminate some of the uncertainty associated with attempting to pave during periods of inclement weather. Pavement section design options incorporating some structural credit for the fly ash -stabilized subgrade soils are outlined below in Table I. TABLE I - PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN Standard Duty Heavy Duty Option A — Composite Asphaltic Concrete (Grading S or SX) 4" 5" Aggregate Base (Class 5 or 6) 6" 8" Option B — Composite Stabilized Subgrade on Asphaltic Aggregate Concrete Base (Class (Grading S or SX) 5 or 6) 3" 4" 4" 6" Fly Ash Stabilized Subgrade 12" 12" Option PCCP C - Portland Cement Concrete Pavement 5" 6" 4 Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 11 Asphaltic concrete should consist of a bituminous plant mix composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler, binders and additives (if required) meeting the design requirements of the governing entity. Aggregate used in the asphaltic concrete should meet specific gradation requirements such as Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) grading S CA -inch minus) or S (1/2 -inch minus) specifications. Hot mix asphalt designed using "Superpave" criteria should be compacted to within 92 to 96% of the materials Maximum Theoretical Density. Aggregate base should be consistent with CDOT requirements for Class 5 or Class 6 aggregate base, placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted to within ±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the materials standard Proctor maximum dry density. If fly ash stabilization procedures will be completed, we recommend the addition of 12% Class 'C' fly ash based on component dry unit weights. A 12 -inch thick stabilized zone should be constructed by thoroughly blending the fly ash with the in -place subgrade soils. Some "fluffing" of the finish subgrade level should be expected with the stabilization procedures. The blended materials should be adjusted in moisture content to within the range of±2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density within two (2) hours of fly ash addition. For areas subjected to truck turning movements and/or concentrated and repetitive loading such as dumpster or truck parking and loading areas, we recommend consideration be given to the use of Portland cement concrete pavement with a minimum thickness of 6 inches. The concrete used for site pavements should be entrained with 4% to 8% air and have a minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Woven wire mesh or fiber entrained concrete should be considered to help in the control of shrinkage cracking. The proposed pavement section designs do not include an allowance for excessive loading conditions imposed by heavy construction vehicles or equipment. Heavily loaded concrete or other building material trucks and construction equipment can cause some localized distress to site pavements. The recommended pavement sections are minimums and periodic maintenance efforts should be expected. A preventative maintenance program can help increase the service life of site pavements. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 12 Corrosive Soil Characteristics We measured the soluble sulfate concentration for two (2) representative samples of the subsoils which will likely be in contact with structural concrete. The sulfate concentrations measured in the samples varied from 0.015 to 0.05 percent by weight. ACI rates the measured concentrations as being defined as a "negligible risk" category for concrete sulfate attack; therefore Type I cement should be suitable for concrete members on and below grade. As an added precaution, Type III Portland cement could be considered for additional sulfate resistance of construction concrete. Foundation concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. Drainage Positive drainage is imperative for satisfactory long-term performance of the proposed event center and restaurant/coffee shop buildings and associated site improvements. We recommend positive drainage be developed away from the structures during construction and maintained throughout the life of the site improvements, with twelve (12) inches of fall in the first 10 feet away from the buildings. Shallower slopes could be considered in hardscape areas. In the event that poor or negative drainage develops adjacent to the buildings over time, the original grade and associated positive drainage outlined above should be immediately restored. Care should be taken in the planning of landscaping to avoid features which could result in the fluctuation of the moisture content of the foundation bearing and flatwork and pavement subgrade soils. We recommend watering systems be placed a minimum of 5 feet away from the perimeters of the site structures and be designed to discharge away from all site improvements. Gutter systems should be considered to help reduce the potential for water ponding adjacent to the structures, with the gutter downspouts, roof drains or scuppers extended to discharge a minimum of 5 feet away from structural, flatwork and pavement elements. Water which is allowed to pond adjacent to site improvements can result in unsatisfactory performance of those improvements over time. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Windmill Farms (Lot B, Recorded Exemption RE -4682) 7674 County Road 74, Weld County (Windsor), Colorado Soilogic Project # 17-1360 13 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared based upon the data obtained from the completed site exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and any other information discussed. The completed borings provide an indication of subsurface conditions at the boring locations only. Variations in subsurface conditions can occur in relatively short distances away from the borings. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur across the site or away from the borings. If variations in the subsurface conditions anticipated become evident, the geotechnical engineer should be notified immediately so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any biological or environmental assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants or hazardous materials or conditions. Other studies should be completed if concerns over the potential of such contamination or pollution exist. The geotechnical engineer should be retained to review the plans and specifications so that comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. The geotechnical engineer should also be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of care for the profession. No warranties express or implied, are made. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid in the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, unless those changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified and verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. FEBRUARY 2018 PROJECT # 17-1360 BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM S V OLCEIC 1 ON I GN Elev. _ 4929.34' ' Mailboxes 12" C.M.P? I Elev. = 4929.62'11 FD. 25619 GRAVEL SURFACE— —f 30' Access and Utility Easement For the Benefit of Lot A and Lot B, RE-3303-- REC. No. 3151773 REC. No. 2959092 RQFILE PIT 2 L TH0MPS0N 10' f1 I 1 I r► I GRAVEL 1 SURFACE — I I, r ' r4 f I I• ' r I r 1 I 10' FD. NO. 6 REAM I I I Il Water;1 Spigot r'! I , rr I' I? I' r I a r; i'l 10.00 '—Water Meter Pit jjj''•.f _ j -ll 4 ♦ • GATE - 30x8 1 r Test Hot t s Test Hole / J I / re --"rj j 1 j. / jj / / ore —a/ / j / r tf / rr ✓ �r j 1r DETENTION POND yr_ Irrigation Valve FD. 37881 ED. 57881 emir I to 1'70Apt Wa in 40' FR0W J FD. NO. 6 REAM N NOT TO SCALE WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO WINDMILL LOG OF BORING B-1 7674 COUNTY (LOT ROAD B, RECORDED WELD Project February 17-1360 2018 (WINDSOR), EXEMPTION COLORADO RE -4682) SO 1 FARMS 74, COUNTY # LOGIC Sheet 111 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 1/23/2018 Auger Type: 4" CFA During Drilling 9.0' Finish Date 1/23/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 9.0' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG & ZG 6 Days After Drilling 8.0' in tei 40 SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth Q "N" MC DD Estimated qu % Swell @ Swell Pressure Atterberg rg Limits % Passing # 200 Sieve = (ft) to (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI ( .Y0) 6" VEGETATION & TOPSOIL - 1 2 3 CS 13 11.4 124.9 9000+ None <500 - - - 4 CL LEAN CLAY with varying 5 CS 11 14.1 113.9 600O None <500 - - - amounts of SAND - brown, beige 6 stiff - trace to minor GRAVEL 7 8 9 10 CS 15 22.6 10'1.6 9000+ - - - - 11 12 SI LTSTON E/CLAYSTON E - brown, olive, gray, rust 13 medium hard - 14 15 CS 50 19.2 110.5 9000+ - - - - - OF BORING (a 15.0' - BOTTOM 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WINDMILL LOG OF BORING B-2 7674 COUNTY (LOT ROAD B, RECORDED WELD Project February 17-1360 2018 (WINDSOR), EXEMPTION COLORADO RE -4682) SO 1 FARMS 74, COUNTY # LOGIC , Sheet 111 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 1/23/2018 Auger Type: 4" CFA During Drilling 6.5' Finish Date 1/23/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling 6.5' Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG & ZG 6 Days After Drilling 6.0' in tei 40 SOIL DESCRIPTION Dept Q "N" MC DD Estimated qu % Swell @ Swell Pressure Atterberg Limits % Passing # 200 Sieve = (ft) to (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI (0 4) 6" VEGETATION & TOPSOIL - 1 2 CL LEAN CLAY with varying 3 amounts of SAND - brown, beige 4 very stiff - trace to minor GRAVEL 5 CS 25 17.7 - N/A - - - - - 6 7 8 9 10 CS 38 19.7 102.7 9000+ 0.8% 1300 - - . SILTSTONE/CLAYSTONE N E/CLAYSTON E - r r brown, olive, gray, rust 11 medium hard - 12 13 14 15 CS 50 17.3 113.1 9000+ - - - - - OF BORING (a 15.0' - BOTTOM 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WINDMILL LOG OF BORING B-3 7674 COUNTY (LOT ROAD B, RECORDED WELD Project February 17-1360 2018 (WINDSOR), EXEMPTION COLORADO RE -4682) SO 1 FARMS 74, COUNTY # LOGIC Sheet 111 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 1/23/2018 Auger Type: 4" CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 1/23/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG & ZG 6 Days After Drilling 11.0' in tei 40 SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth Qt- "N" MC DD Estimated qu % Swell @ Swell Pressure Atterberg rg Limits % Passing # 200 Sieve = (ft) to (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI (0 4) 6" VEGETATION & TOPSOIL - 1 2 CL LEAN CLAY with varying 3 amounts of SAND - brown, beige 4 very stiff - trace to minor GRAVEL 5 CS 36 6.6 127.9 9000+ None <500 - - - 6 7 8 9 I . 10 CS 50/9 12.7 120.8 9000+ 0.5% 1200 - - - N E/CLAYSTON E SILTSTONE/CLAYSTONE - brown, olive, gray, rust 11 medium hard to hard - 12 13 14 I 15 CS 50/10 17.1 114.0 9000+ - - - - - OF BORING @ 15.0' - BOTTOM 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WINDMILL LOG OF BORING B-4 7674 COUNTY (LOT ROAD B, RECORDED WELD Project February 17-1360 2018 (WINDSOR), EXEMPTION COLORADO RE -4682) SO 1 FARMS 74, COUNTY # LOGIC Sheet 111 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 1/23/2018 Auger Type: 4" CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 1/23/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG & ZG 6 Days After Drilling Wci @ 15.0' in tei 40 SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth Q "N" MC DD Estimated qu % Swell @ Swell Pressure Atterberg rg Limits % # Passing 200 Sieve = (ft) to (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI ( lo) 6" VEGETATION & TOPSOIL - 1 2 CL LEAN CLAY with varying 3 CS 19 5.5 102.7 9000+ 0.4% 1000 - - - amounts of SAND - brown, beige 4 stiff to very stiff - trace to minor GRAVEL 5 CS 18 7.4 115.0 9000+ 0.1% 800 - - - 6 7 8 9 10 CS 41 19.1 108.5 9000+ - - - - SILTSTONE/CLAYSTONE N E/CLAYSTON E 11 brown, olive, gray, rust - medium hard to hard 12 13 14 15 CS 50/8 17.3 112.5 9000+ - - - - - OF BORING @ 15.0' - BOTTOM 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WINDMILL LOG OF BORING B-5 7674 COUNTY (LOT ROAD B, WELD Project February RECORDED 17-1360 2018 (WINDSOR), EXEMPTION COLORADO RE -4682) SO 1 FARMS 74, COUNTY # LOGIC Sheet 111 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 1/23/2018 Auger Type: 4" CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 1/23/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG & ZG 6 Days After Drilling Dci @ 11.0' - a in tei 40 SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth Qt- "N" MC DD Estimated qu % Swell @ Swell Pressure Atterberg rg Limits % # Passing 200 Sieve = (ft) to (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI (0 4) 6" VEGETATION & TOPSOIL - 1 2 CL LEAN CLAY with varying 3 CS 32 2.3 106.3 9000+ None <500 - - - amounts of SAND - brown, beige 4 very stiff to hard - trace to minor GRAVEL 5 CS 40 3.7 121.4 9000+ 4.3% 4000 - - - 6 7 8 SI LTSTO N E/CLAYSTON E - brown, olive, gray, rust 9 medium hard - 10 CS 48 18.9 109.4 9000+ - - , - - BOTTOM OF BORING @ 10.0' - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WINDMILL LOG OF BORING B-6 7674 COUNTY (LOT ROAD B, RECORDED WELD Project February 17-1360 2018 (WINDSOR), EXEMPTION COLORADO RE -4682) SO 1 LOGIC FARMS 74, COUNTY # Sheet 111 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 1/23/2018 Auger Type: 4" CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 1/23/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG & ZG 6 Days After Drilling Dci @ 4.5' in tei 40 SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth Q "N" MC DD Estimated qu % Swell @ Swell Pressure Atterberg rg Limits % # 200 Passing Sieve = (ft) to (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI (lfo) 6" VEGETATION & TOPSOIL - 1 CL LEAN CLAY with varying 2 amounts of SAND - brown, beige 3 CS 2 19.3 106.4 1000 None <500 - - - very soft to medium stiff - trace to minor GRAVEL 4 5 CS 9 21.3 104.2 3000 - - 33 13 80.5% OF BORING @ 5.0' - BOTTOM 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WINDMILL LOG OF BORING B-7 7674 COUNTY (LOT ROAD B, WELD Project February RECORDED 17-1360 2018 (WINDSOR), EXEMPTION COLORADO RE -4682) SO 1 LOGIC FARMS 74, COUNTY # Sheet 111 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 1/23/2018 Auger Type: 4" CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 1/23/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG & ZG 6 Days After Drilling Dci @ 6.0' - a in Qt- Estimated Swell % Passing 40 SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth "N" MC DD qu % Swell @ Pressure Atterberg rg Limits # 200 Sieve = (ft) to (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI (lfo) 6" VEGETATION & TOPSOIL - 1 CL LEAN CLAY with varying 2 amounts of SAND - brown, beige 3 CS 11 11.4 123.3 9000+ None <500 - - - stiff - trace to minor GRAVEL 4 5 CS 13 19.7 102.8 5000 - - 36 19 54.8% OF BORING @ 5.0' - BOTTOM 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WINDMILL LOG OF BORING B-8 7674 COUNTY (LOT ROAD B, RECORDED WELD Project February 17-1360 2018 (WINDSOR), EXEMPTION COLORADO RE -4682) SO 1 LOGIC FARMS 74, COUNTY # Sheet 111 Drilling Rig: CME 45 Water Depth Information Start Date 1/23/2018 Auger Type: 4" CFA During Drilling None Finish Date 1/23/2018 Hammer Type: Automatic After Drilling None Surface Elev. - Field Personnel: ZG & ZG 6 Days After Drilling Dci 8.5' in tei 40 SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth Q "N" MC DD Estimated qu % Swell @ Swell Pressure Atterberg rg Limits % Passing # 200 Sieve = (ft) to (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL PI ( lo) 6" VEGETATION & TOPSOIL - 1 2 3 CS 23 6.3 104.4 9000+ 1.1 % 1800 - - - 4 CL LEAN CLAY with varying amounts of SAND 5 CS 41 3.3 116.5 N/A 0.4% 650 - - - brown, beige - very stiff to hard 6 trace to minor GRAVEL - 7 8 10 CS 39 8.7 120.8 9000+ - - , - - BOTTOM OF BORING @ 10.0' - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 0 C Ca C tJ3 C 6 4 2 0 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 10 - 12 10 100 1000 Applied Load (psf) 100 00 100000 Sample ID: B -'I @ 2 Sample Description: Brown/Beige Sandy Lean Clay (CL) (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 11.4% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 13.5% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing #200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density (pcf) 124.9 50 LOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 6 0 4 2 C Ca C t/3 C C - 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 - 12 4 sitter 14a tad 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B -'I @ 4 Sample Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) with trace to minor Gravel Initial Moisture 14.1% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 14.5% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing #200 -, Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density (pcf) 113.9 V SOILOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 0 C CO C Cif) C C 6 2 0 - 2 - 4 - 6 _8 - 10 - 12 "212:03�,�.P A2.4 K `BUY_ 10 100 1000 Applied Load (psf) 10000 100000 Sample ID: B-2 @ 9 Sample Description: Gray/Rust Siltstone/Claystone Initial Moisture 19.7% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 23.7% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf 0.8% % Passing #200 - Swell Pressure (psf) 1,300 Dry Density (pcf) 102.7 50 LOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 0 C Ca C tJ3 C C 6 4 2 0 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 10 - 12 10 100 1000 Applied Load (psf) 100 00 100000 Sample ID: B-3 @ 4 Sample Description: Beige Lean Clay with Sand (CL) and trace to minor Gravel (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 6.6% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 10.9% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing #200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density (pcf) 127.9 V. 50 LOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 0 C Ca C C C 6 2 0 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 - 12 10 100 1000 Applied Load (psf) 10000 100000 Sample ID: B-3 @ 9 Sample Description: Gray/Rust Siltstone/Claystone Initial Moisture 12.7% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 16.4% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf 0.5% % Passing #200 - Swell Pressure (psf) 1,200 Dry Density (pcf) 120.8 50 LOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 0 C Ca C tl3 C 6 2 0 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 - 12 O 7 vats(.? . J 10 100 1000 Applied Load (psf) 10000 100000 Sample ID: B-4 @ 2 Sample Description: Beige Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Initial Moisture 5.5% Liquid Limit Final Moisture 21.2% Plasticity Index % Swell @ 500 psf 0.4% % Passing #200 Swell Pressure (psf) 11000 Dry Density (pcf) 102.7 V SqLOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY Sample ID: B-4 @ 4 Sample Description: Brown/Beige Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Initial Moisture 7.4% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 16.8% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf 0.1% % Passing #200 - Swell Pressure (psf) 800 Dry Density (pcf) 115.0 50 LOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY Sample ID: B-5 @ 2 Sample Description: Beige Sandy Lean Clay (CL) with Gravel Initial Moisture 2.3% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 15.6% Plasticity Index % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing #200 -, Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density (pcf) 106.3 Y _ SO�LOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY Sample ID: B-5 @ 4 Sample Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) with Gravel Initial Moisture 3.7% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 20.0% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf 4.3% % Passing #200 - Swell Pressure (psf) 4,000 Dry Density (pcf) 121.4 50 LOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 0 C Ca C tJ3 C C 6 4 2 0 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 - 12 O 10 100 1000 Applied Load (psf) 100 00 100000 Sample ID: B-6 @ 2 Sample Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) with trace to minor Gravel Initial Moisture 19.3% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 17.7% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing #200 -, Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density (pcf) 106.4 V SOILOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY Sample ID: B-7 © 2 Sample Description: Beige Sandy Lean Clay (CL) with trace to minor Gravel (Swell Only) Initial Moisture 11.4% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 12.6% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing #200 - Swell Pressure (psf) <500 Dry Density (pcf) 123.3 7 SqLOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 10 8 0 C Ca C C C 6 2 0 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 - 12 10 100 1000 Applied Load (psf) 10000 100000 Sample ID: S-$ @ 2 Sample Description: Brown/Beige Sandy Lean Clay (CL) with trace to minor Gravel Initial Moisture 6.3% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 22.5% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf 1.1% % Passing #200 - Swell Pressure (psf) 1,800 Dry Density (pcf) 104.4 V. 50 LOGIC WINDMILL FARMS (LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION RE -4682) 7674 COUNTY ROAD 74, WELD COUNTY (WINDSOR), COLORADO Project # 17-1360 February 2018 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY Sample ID: B-8 @4 Sample Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand (CL) and trace to minor Gravel Initial Moisture 3.3% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 18.1% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf 0.4% % Passing #200 - Swell Pressure (psf) 650 Dry Density (pcf) 116.5 V. 50 LOGIC UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification Group Symbol Group Name Coarse Grained Soils Gravels Clean Gravels Cu a 4 and 1 s Cc s 3E GW Well graded gravel' More than 50% retained More than 50% of coarse Less than 5% fines Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E GP Poorly graded gravel' fraction retained on on No, 200 sieve No. 4 sieve Gravels with Fines More Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel'.°." than 12% fines' Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelFG" Sands Clean Sands Cu a 6 and 1 s Cc s 3E SW Well graded sand' 50% or more of coarse Less than 5% fines' Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc 3E SP Poorly graded sand' fraction passes No, 4 sieve Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandy' More than 12% fines' Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandy"' Fine -Grained Soils Silts and Clays Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line' CL Lean clat" 50% or more passes the Liquid limit less than 50 PI < 4 or plots below "A" line ML SiItK`m No. 200 sieve Organic Liquid limit dried - oven Organic claf'-TMM < Q.75 OL Liquid limit - not dried Organic siltK.`." Silts and Clays Inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat cla/`M Liquid limit 50 or more PI plots below "A" line MH Elastic siltKt`t" Organic Liquid limit - oven dried ` M Organic clayK.P 0.75 OH Liquid limit - not dried Organic siltK.L" ° Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the B If field sample or boulders, °Gravels with gravel with graded gravel DSands with sand with silt, sand with silt, ECU = D60/Dio material contained or both" to 5 to 12% silt, GW-GC with silt, 5 to 12% fines SW -SC SP -SC Cc = passing cobbles group fines well GP -GC require well graded poorly P3Of require graded graded name. the 3 -in. or boulders, dual gravel poorly graded dual sand sand (75 -mm) sieve or both, add symbols: GW-GM with clay, GP -GM gravel with clay. symbols: SW-SM with clay, SP-SM with clay "with well well poorly "If fines cobbles ' If soil contains J If Atterberg graded K If soil contains poorly gravel," L If soil contains graded "sandy" graded ""If soil contains "gravelly" N PI a 4 and are whichever to to organic, limits group group plots a 15 a a on add 15% plot to 29% is 30% name. 30% name. or "with gravel, in shaded predominant. plus plus above organic add "with area, plus No. 200, No. 200 predominantly No. 200, "A" line. fines" to group gravel" to soil is a CL add "with predominantly group -ML, sand" sand, name. gravel, name. silty clay. or "with add add Die x D6o F If soil contains a 15% sand, add "with sand" to group G If fines classify as CL -ML, use dual symbol GC -GM, ° PI name. R PI or SC-SM. ° PI < 4 plots plots or plots on below below "A" line. or above "A" line. "A" line. 60 For soils at coarse classification and fine-grained -grained of fine-grained fraction soils _" r - s e•-• 5c Equation of "A" - line ,� . \+ a Horizontal Pl=4 LL=2&.5. 0. at to then Pl=0.73 (LL. 2O) _ j . _. _- x 4 • -,' O+ a Equation of "t" - Me ,-' Z Vertical at 11=16 Ito PI=7, r .- Otelb r y 30 then P1=0.9 (LL -S) r co 20 erre ICE r 1 fir/ MH or OH a. �` . fi s 10 f ---- 7 i = _ _ ail— ML OL 4 or 0 1I 15 20 30 40 LIQUID 50 LIMIT 60 ALL) 70 80 90 100 11 GENERAL NOTES DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon -1 %" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted ST: Thin -Walled Tube — 2.5" O.D., unless otherwise noted RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted CS: California Barrel - 1.92" I.D., 2.5" O.D., unless otherwise noted BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample HS: PA: HA: RB: WB: Hollow Stem Auger Power Auger Hand Auger Rock Bit Wash Boring or Mud Rotary The number of blows required to advance a standard 2 -inch O.D. split -spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18 -inch penetration with a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the "Standard Penetration" or "N -value". For 2.5" O.D. California Barrel samplers (CB) the penetration value is reported as the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches, reported as "blows per inch," and is not considered equivalent to the "Standard Penetration" or "N -value". WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL: Water Level WCI: DCI: AB: Wet Cave in Dry Cave in After Boring WS: WD: BCR: ACR: While Sampling While Drilling Before Casing Removal After Casing Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non -plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse -grained soils are defined on the basis of their in -place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. FINE-GRAINED SOILS Blows/Ft. <3 3-5 6-10 11-18 19-36 > 36 Blows/Ft. 0-2 3-4 5-8 9-15 16-30 > 30 Consistency, Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard COARSE -GRAINED SOILS Blows/Ft. 0-5 6-14 15-46 47-79 >79 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL Descriptive Terms of Percent of Other Constituents Dry Weight Trace < 15 With 15 — 29 Modifier > 30 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Descriptive Terms of Other Constituents Trace With Modifiers Percent of Dry Weight <5 5-12 >12 ffial Blows/Ft. <3 4-9 10-29 30-50 > 50 Relative Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Blows/Ft. < 24 24-35 36-60 61-96 > 96 BEDROCK faai Blows/Ft. < 20 20-29 30-49 50-79 >79 GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Major Component of Sample Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Consistent Weathered Firm Medium Hard Hard Very Hard Particle Size Over 12 in. (300mm) 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm) 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm) #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm) Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm) PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Term Non -plastic Low Medium High Plasticity Index 0 1-10 11-30 30+ so cciic APPENDIX B Rational Method Runoff Calculations Runoff Chapter 6 The time of concentration. I, is the sum of the initial (overland) glow time. Ir, and the channelized flow time, If,. as per Equation 6-2 2.4.3 First Design. Point Time of Concentration in Urban Catchments Equation 6-4 was solely determined by the waterway characteristics and using a set of empirical formutas. A calibration study between the Rational Method and the Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure ( UHP) suggests that the time of concentration shall be the lesser o f the values calculated by Equation 6- 2 and Equation 6-5 (Ciuo and Urbonas 2013). =(18—I51)+ 'Where: 600041 ± 1 24, Equation -.5 — minimum time of concentration for fist design point when less than to from Equation 6- I - Li length of flow path (f = imperviousness (expressed as a decimal) S,1 = slope of flow, path (ft/fl). Equation 6-5 is the regional time of concentration that warrants the best agreement on peak flow predictions between the Rational Method and CU1-P . It was developed using the UDFCD database that includes 295 sample urban catchments under 2-, 5-, 10-, 50, and 101-yrr storm events (MacKenzie 2010), It suggests that both initial flow time and channelized flow velocity are directly related to the catchment's imperiousness (Quo and MacKenzie 2013). The first design point is defined as a node where surface runoff enters the storm drain system, For example, all inlets are "first design points" because inlets are designed to accept flow into the storm drain. Typically, but not always. Equation 6-5 will result in a lesser time of concentration at the first design point and wN ill govern in an urbanized watershed_ For subsequent designpoints, add the travel time tot' each relevant segment downstream, 2.4.4 Minimum Time ofConcentration Use a minimum it. value of 5 minutes for urbanized areas and a minimum tt, value of 10 minutes for areas that are not considered urban. Use minimum values even when calculations result in a lesser time of concentration 2.4.5 Common Errors in Calculating Time of Concentration A common mistake in urbanized areas k to assume travel velocities that are too slow. Another common error is to not check the runoff peak resulting from only part of the catchment. Sometimes .a lower portion of the catchment or a highly impenious area produces a larger peak than that computed for the hale catchment. This error is most often encountered when the catchment is long or the upper portion. contains tains grassy open landand the lower portion ismore developed., 66 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District January 20 16 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual' Volume I Runoff Chapter 6 Table 6-5. Runoff coefficients, C - Total or Effective % i ran u erviousncsc - R.C Hydrologic Soil Group A 2-yr 5-yr ! 10-yr 25-yr 1 50-yr I 10O-\ r 0.02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0+02 0,17 1% 5% 0.04 0.05 0.05 0:05 0.05 0.19 1+ 0409 0.09 0.1 0.23 0,09 0.1..E 0.14 �,�. L-� 0.14 0.14 0.28 0.18 0.19 0.1 0.19 0.19 0.32 021 0.x'`3 + . 0.24 ' 0.?4 0.36 30% 0.27 0.28 }.28 0.28 0.29 0.4 031 0.3.3 ' ...3 0.3, 0.33 0.44 0,36 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.--18 ° 0.4 0.4.E , 0.42 0 42 0.43 0.52 _. 0,45 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.56 0.48 ° 0.49 0.51 ' 0. 2 0.52 0.52 0.6 ° 0.53 0.56 0i56 0.57 0.57 I 044 % 0.58 0.6 ' 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.68 !!U 0.62 0,63 I 0.66 0, .61 0.72 % 0.67 O . 7 0.71 0 . 71 0.711 0,76 [!] 7.1 % 0.7 I 00. L�. 74 0.75 I0.76 0.76 0..8 7 0.76 0: 79 - 0: 8 0.8 0.81 0 S4 90 1j�1,�' . 0. 4 0.85 0.85 ]((�Imo{ 0.86 - _ 0.88 5% 0.85 0.88 0.89 0,9 0.9 052 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.96 art 1. r ffe ti ° � �� a ►lay ilcNRCS H drolo.ie Soil Cron 1 B 2% 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.24 0.38 0.46 5% 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.27 0.39 0.48 10% 0.09 0.09 0.1 I 0.3 0.42 0.ti 15% f i 3 0.14 0.25 0.34 0.45 0.5.E % 0.18 0.19 0.29 0.37 0.48 0.55 0/ 0;1,' 0.23 0.33 041 0.51 0.58 0,27 0.28 0.37 0.44 0.54 0.6 0.31 0.33 0.41 0.48 0.57 0.63 % 036 037 0.45 0.51 5% 0.4 0.42 0.49 0.55 . 0.45 0.47 0i3 0.58 0.49 0.51 0.57 0.62 0.53 0.56 0.6 % 0.58 0.6 _0.61 0.65 0.69 70 0.62 0,65 0.69 0.72 75%. 0.67 0.7 0.73 0.76 .8I 82 80% 0.7 i 0.74 0,77 0.79 0.84 0.85 85% U.76 0.19 0.83 0.87 0.87 0.81 90% 0.8 0.84 0.85 O86 0.89 0.9 9.5°.0 0.85 0.88 019 0.9 0.92 0.92 100110 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.94 6 _ I c ) Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume I January 2016 Chapter 6 Runoff Table 6-5. Runoff coefficients, c (continued) NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D Total or Effective % 1 tin eniou.sness .-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25- r 5[ -yr 100-yr 0.02 0.07 0,22 0,32 0.43 0.52 % 0.04 0. ■ 0.24 0J4 0.45 0.53 0,09 0.14 0.27 0.3'7 0.47 0.55 15% 0.13 0.18 0.31 0..41 0.5 0.58 20% O. I 8 0.23 0,35 044 0.53 0.6 25% 0.22 0.27 0.39 0.47 0.55 0.62 30% 0 2 031 0A2 0.5 0.58 0.64 35% 031 0.36 MAl 0.53 0.61 .67' 0.36 0.4 0.5 037 0.63 x.69 4 a OA 0.44 1 0.53 0.6 0.66 0,71 0.45 0.49 657_ 0.63 0.69 0.49 0.53 0.61 1 0,66 0.72 0.76 i° a 0.53 0.57 0.64 0,.69 I 0►.74 - 0.78 65% 0.58 0.62 0.68 0.73 I 0.77 0.8 70% 0.61 0.6 0.72 0,76 ' 00.8 0.8 75% 0.67 0.7 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.85 80% 0.71 0f 7, 0,7') 0.82 0,85 0.87 85% 036 0a79 0.83 0..85 0.88 0,89 90% 0.8 1.^ . L" 0,87 0.8 9 0.9 0.91 95% 0.85 0.88 0.9 0.93 0:94 100% 0.8.E 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.96 1 00 0.80 0.60 O ,wi,tr 0.40 C C2 0.20 0.00 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Watershed Percentage imperviousness, 100 -'r _ _5- yr —CI— 10-yr . 5O-yr 100-yr Figure 6-1. Runoff coefficient vs. watershed imperviousness NRCS u C A January 2016 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 6-11. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1 Precipitation Frequency Data Server NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 WINDSOR Station ID: 05-9147 Location name: Windsor, Colorado, USA* Latitude: 40.4667°, Longitude: -104.9° Elevation: Elevation (station metadata): 4781 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 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 5 -min 0.244 (0.188-0.316) 0.292 (0.225-0.378) 0.388 (0.298-0.504) 0.484 (0.370-0.632) 0.642 (0.488-0.903) 0.784 (0.576-1.11) 0.943 (0.669-1.37) 1.12 (0.764-1.67) 1.39 (0.907-2.12) 1.61 (1.02-2.45) 10 -min 0.357 (0.276-0.462) 0.427 (0.330-0.553) 0.568 (0.437-0.737) 0.709 (0.543-0.926) 0.941 (0.714-1.32) 1.15 (0.844-1.62) 1.38 (0.980-2.00) 1.64 (1.12-2.44) 2.03 (1.33-3.10) 2.35 (1.49-3.59) 15-min0.436 (0.336-0.563) 0.521 (0.402-0.675) 0.693 (0.533-0.899) 0.865 (0.662-1.13) 1.15 (0.871-1.61) 1.40 (1.03-1.98) 1.68 (1.20-2.44) 2.00 (1.37-2.98) 2.47 (1.62-3.78) 2.87 (1.81-4.38) 30 -min 0.581 (0.449-0.751) 0.694 (0.535-0.898) 0.921 (0.708-1.20) 1.15 (0.879-1.50) 1.53 (1.16-2.14) 1.86 (1.37-2.63) 2.24 (1.59-3.24) 2.67 (1.82-3.96) 3.29 (2.16-5.03) 3.82 (2.42-5.83) 60 -min 0.719 (0.555-0.930) 0.851 (0.656-1.10) 1.13 (0.865-1.46) 1.41 (1.08-1.84) 1.88 (1.44-2.66) 2.31 (1.71-3.28) 2.80 (1.994.07) 3.36 (2.29-5.00) 4.18 (2.74-6.39) 4.87 (3.08-7.44) 2 -hr 0.857 (0.667-1.10) 1.01 (0.784-1.29) 1.33 (1.03-1.71) 1.67 (1.29-2.15) 2.24 (1.73-3.14) 2.77 (2.06-3.89) 3.37 (2.424.84) 4.05 (2.79-5.97) 5.07 (3.36-7.65) 5.92 (3.79-8.93) 3 -hr 0.940 (0.736-1.20) 1.10 (0.858-1.40) 1.44 (1.12-1.84) 1.81 (1.40-2.32) 2.44 (1.89-3.40) 3.02 (2.264.21) 3.68 (2.66-5.26) 4.44 (3.08-6.50) 5.57 (3.72-8.36) 6.53 (4.20-9.77) 6 -hr 1.10 (0.865-1.38) 1.29 (1.01-1.62) 1.69 (1.33-2.13) 2.10 (1.64-2.67) 2.80 (2.18-3.84) 3.43 (2.59-4.72) 4.15 (3.03-5.84) 4.97 (3.48-7.17) 6.19 (4.17-9.14) 7.21 (4.68-10.6) 12 -hr 1.29 (1.03-1.61) 1.54 (1.22-1.92) 2.01 (1.59-2.51) 2.46 (1.94-3.09) 3.19 (2.494.27) 3.83 (2.90-5.16) 4.54 (3.33-6.26) 5.33 (3.75-7.54) 6.48 (4.39-9.40) 7.43 (4.88-10.8) 24 -hr 1.55 (1.25-1.91) 1.82 (1.46-2.25) 2.33 (1.86-2.88) 2.81 (2.23-3.49) 3.56 (2.79-4.69) 4.22 (3.22-5.59) 4.94 (3.65-6.70) 5.73 (4.07-7.98) 6.88 (4.71-9.83) 7.82 (5.19-11.2) 2 -day 1.79 (1.45-2.18) 2.11 (1.71-2.58) 2.69 (2.17-3.29) 3.21 (2.58-3.95) 4.01 (3.15-5.17) 4.67 (3.59-6.09) 5.39 (4.01-7.18) 6.16 (4.41-8.43) 7.26 (5.01-10.2) 8.15 (5.47-11.5) _day 1.95 (1.59-2.37) 2.28 (1.85-2.77) 2.86 (2.32-3.48) 3.40 (2.74-4.15) 4.20 (3.32-5.37) 4.88 (3.76-6.30) 5.60 (4.18-7.40) 6.38 (4.60-8.66) 7.50 (5.21-10.4) 8.40 (5.67-11.8) 4 -day 2.08 (1.70-2.51) 2.41 (1.97-2.91) 3.01 (2.45-3.65) 3.56 (2.88-4.32) 4.37 (3.47-5.56) 5.06 (3.91-6.49) 5.79 (4.34-7.60) 6.58 (4.75-8.87) 7.69 (5.37-10.6) 8.60 (5.83-12.0) -day 2.35 (1.94-2.81) r 2.76 (2.27-3.30) 3.46 (2.83-4.15) 4.06 (3.31-4.89) 4.94 (3.93-6.17) 5.65 (4.39-7.14) 6.39 (4.82-8.26) 7.16 (5.21-9.51) 8.24 (5.78-11.2) 9.08 (6.22-12.5) 10 -day 2.60 (2.15-3.09) r' 3.06 (2.53-3.64) 3.83 (3.15-4.57) 4.49 (3.67-5.37) 5.41 (4.31-6.69) 6.14 (4.78-7.68) 6.88 (5.20-8.81) 7.64 (5.57-10.0) 8.68 (6.11-11.7) 9.48 (6.52-13.0) 20 -day 3.34 (2.78-3.92) 3.88 (3.23-4.56) 4.76 (3.95-5.62) 5.49 (4.54-6.50) 6.49 (5.20-7.89) 7.26 (5.70-8.94) 8.02 (6.11-10.1) 8.78 (6.46-11.3) 9.79 (6.96-13.0) 10.6 (7.34-14.2) �. '51' .T 4.53 5.50 6.29 7.36 8.17 8.97 9.76 10.8 11.6 • 30-day (� (3.79-5.29) (4.59-6.44) (5.22-7.40) (5.92-8.86) (6.45-9.97) (6.87-11.2) (7.22-12.5) (7.72-14.2) (8.09-15.4) t.:'-• .58) 45 -day 4.61 (3.89-5.35) 5.31 (4.47-6.17) 6.43 (5.40-7.48) 7.33 (6.12-8.56) 8.53 (6.89-10.2) 9.42 (7.47-11.4) 10.3 (7.92-12.7) 11.1 (8.27-14.1) 12.2 (8.77-15.8) 13.0 (9.15-17.2) 60 -day 5.16 (4.36-5.96) 5.97 (5.04-6.89) 7.24 (6.10-8.39) 8.26 (6.92-9.60) 9.59 (7.76-11.4) 10.6 (8.40-12.7) 11.5 (8.89-14.1) 12.4 (9.25-15.6) 13.5 (9.76-17.4) 14.3 (10.1-18.8) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). https://hdsc.nws.neaa.gov/hdscrpfds!pfdsprintpage.htrnl?st=co&sta=05-9147&data=depth&units=english&series=pds[04/04/2018 6:58:36 AM] 414/2018 Precipitation Frequency Data Server PDS-based depth -duration -frequency (DDF) curves Latitude: 40.4b67% Longitude:-1O4.9OOO* C c p�� Cs WI I 5 10 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume El, Version 2 w L el th [aura tion, I 25 50 100 200 >11 ,e}� /13}� a � rQr Average recurrence interval (years) > >13 no r} ru RI Yfir- �es¢y�fy .a O O Y 1 O N fel ¶ lO 500 1000 Created (GMT): ed Apr 4 12:55:2C 201,0 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Average recurrence interral (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 Duration .ae 5-rnin 1 O -min 30 -min 6irti 2r 3_ it 6-Pir 12 -hr 24 -hr 2 -day 3 -day 4 -day 7 -day 10 -day 20 -day 30 -day 45 -day 60 -day https:flhdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?st=co&sta=05-9147&data=depth8<units=english&series=pds 214 414/2018 Precipitation Frequency Data Server Large scale terrain g> _ aa 4 • r 'tom - ,it -";i 444 T' e _ Jos IS I T_ I Longrnf 100km I 60m1 Large scale map L r= i 1rf:diL IsFore 5:1. e- 1 omereeley I Longmont Boukter O 100km J 60mi Large scale aerial k_ _ f https:llhdsc. rows.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?st=co&sta=X05-9147&data=depth8<units=english&series=pds 314 414/2018 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.Questionsnoaa.gov Disclaimer https:f/hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?st=co&sta=05-0147&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 414 HISTORIC RUNOFF TABLE (Windmill Farms ) BASIN J Impervious 1 C-YR I I I A C IA(YR-h into ri c) I Flow 'DESIGN POINT H C5 (UDFCD 2016) 2.00 0.02 2.08 12.97 0.54 cfs HE1 C190 2.00 0.17 5.15 12.97 11.36 cfs ROW C5 (UDFCD 2016) 2.00 0.02 2.76 0.95 0.05 cfs HE2 Cum 2.00 0.17 6.85 0.95 1.11 cfs EXISTING (Windmill Farms) BASIN 1 Impervious I C-YR I I I A C IA(YR-existing) Flow IDESIGN POINT E-1 C5 (UDFCD 2016) 3.22 0.03 2.07 12.97 0.84 cfs HE1 C100 3.22 0.18' 5.13 12.97 11.96 cfs ROW C5 (UDFCD 2016) 22.02 0.21' 2.81 0.95 0.55 cfs HE2 C100 22.02 0.33 6.97 0.95 2.20 cfs Western Engineering Consultants 04/06/2018 Page 1 of 1 en J O 6L U- O z C4 CD ca H W Windmill Farms M CO C 0 -S {Q � 3 J LU Gb 15, r LL rea a, 2 H LL for D soils - c5 C10 O1a0 =from —able RO-5 r •st 1 -Hour Point Rainfall 12.970 acres U 0) U $ w a a d N- Lo co 6 O L{} CF N w CO r r U-) N ICI LCD O O {y N HI N O4 N tiT ' • zt P U 4 !- • St •t N o: CD c car a ••; • O N CLO O Cti o O C) Sr 9 T 0 �r co N 0 Ci imt 2 O C O } O C V CD O O 41; CO. r~ r O N-. "ch. 0 CC C) r a D L 0 C 0 0 O -C 0 0) C? C) 0 CG U C a) a Remainder carried as travel 0.950 acres (O U U 01 • ci N r N T Hlw N w N N N r r r O p C 1 U wzr ci 0 ci r tN ~ N N r r N N CL • O O O o 6 a � 'O O O C° st- • {f) C{) Z C N C ino 151 >1 Overland flow only N N r r R Remainder carried as travel 12.970 acres W o 0 W LL LL W C C; 0 r+ r Cal CU S (.1 ea O. CO ti a gal 4a U C 0 ci yd Undeveloped C O C O 0) 0 C 4 C €3 C N 0 W N W LL LL W i- CO CO C Iti• in co CO CO OD O O C CO O) O) O) O O 4 oo co co o' O O 6 N N I-- 0 O *- a a 6 C _O O tr,r 000 C C 0 Ci T ci C O C O a O O C Lca Y re N r Gravel (packed) SI L C.1 C O 4J C9 0. Ca! O O O C 0 a 0) O C C 0 C� 0 a C11 o. cn F, Z a) mt La CO CO CO CO C C C OD CO CO N N I� C O '- O 00 C 0 CI U0C.) 6 C C 4 0 C O O C d 0 N r W d TABLE RO-2 (taken from UDFCD Manual - Vol. I) I Type of Land Surface Conveyance coefficient, Cv O O +O U) 0 0 0 (NJd in d r r Heavy Meadow Tillage/field Short pasture/Lawns Nearly Bare Ground Grassed Waterway Paved areas and shallow paved swales U, O LL O 2 a z in W C M cr) M � 4 GD E71. .ti Y re .A Q - w cD '_W 1 (Ni r W` ✓ (� • LL 0 O H L L for D soils - C .Cie C1Cu= tram TebleRD-S r r LC'} r ✓ **for Ti calculations - only O5 is used 1 -Hour Point Rainfall 2016 U DFCD >>> Tc Check = (18-1 Si) + [Ltravel I (60*(24i + 12)(So)".5)] a C) <IN- N r r+ C3 N U, CO CN U r H r- U) 6 yC p U CO 4.3 O d ■ L U W it) CO r a (69 CO t9 cO C1 O u3 r r Sr) r Lei CO CO N N CO CO cv O CO iJ 6 U- Ls� • D II • s_ > L) a ✓ C O Q on -0 U -0 C m CD Li a Remainder car'ri5d as tr 0.950 acres ce 60 fri U U tf) a) to Lc: 6 d ill CO a C . '1 VI In it .74 m 42 C to C m 0 0 r U U <I L La o b C Cr). r O 115 N N e+i CV 03 Lt) L1•17? L1•17? N N N U 0 Ci Cl {V CM r N N cry c ) CCN Cl 04 N h1 0 0 Cr). Cr). 0 i. O r O Ik 0.950 acres C r N a ci cos a Gravel (packed) O Q O a w L U C O O) 4 — en Undeveloped C- z 6 2 O C C� C ✓ O Ctrl N W CI rH L W LL W P-. [D CO CO CO T7' O Q O scr to co co co co 6 6 6 (T) O] co O Q O ut OO CD co 6 6 6 N N r-- 0 g r 0 Q Cs) C') 0 ci to C 0) C; O O 6 r V CD 4 ci t€5 LS } t- 4 Pm- Gravel (packed) O t 0 O 0 U O rt+ It; G5 Q. O 0 osi 6 c! to ED Undeveloped N CD ce, CO O Z r col E en en NT. in co co co co py 6 6 6 0) 0) 0) a 6 6 03 cc 6 6 6 O O r 6 6 6 a C +a U C t) 4 O ci O O d O r C7 CO co T C I TABLE RO-2 taken from UDFCD Manual - Vol. I I Type of Land Surface Conveyance coefficient, Cv Heavy Meadow 2.5 Tillage/field 5 Short pasturefLawns 7 Nearly Bare Ground 10.00 Grassed Waterway 15.00 Paved areas and shallow paved swales 20.00 DEVELOPED (Windmill Farms) BASIN Impervious C-YR I I I A 1 CI A(YR-DEVELOPED) cfs j DESIGN POINT Al C5 (UDFCD 2016) 35.66 0.33 2.76 12.97 11.91 cfs 1 Coo 35.66 0.44 6.83 12.97 39.14 cfs ROW C5 22.02 0.21 2.29 0.95 0.45 cfs 2 C100 22.02 0.33 5.67 0.95 1.78 cfs Western Engineering Consultants 04/06/2018 Page 1 of 1 74-4- a C) LL LL O 2 a W 0. O J W C I LL FARMS a z r r nil U, co co G 0 3 t €T J W c cm r 0 to as H 4S! cc n CO 1.0 C I- L 43 CO C6 Ci "0 cri CD En Co In r V CD C O C) 0 5 0 r Paint Rainfall I (60c(24i + 12)(So)".511 2016 UDFCD >>> Tc Check _ (18-151) + [Ltrave U c ci 0 E — U, a] L C, U N c7 DO N � I co Q N- 9 r O O y_ © o• 0 Go G 4 s c r < 0.0 a J 0U Z 0 r d (N _Lv 115 .C E M act Ci O CO N N OS N CO ci 0 C� Cc, ci N- N O In T II 0 0 C� N C co N 00 ci U <IU) O {] ye D C) N {0 CV CV 0-s a5 Cr) 01> I —I C; Ito co (e} 0 C 4) r V L 0 r J co C aict -.! C• CO O 0 Z 4 0, D CO n; c tx Co r O U) CIA10 developed co r O Q To 0) ,f l U Ia C lS7 CO C`d T etti m CO CO a, CO CO co T ci L as r 0 m 0 4 r U N U OD N C7) C C - CO tti CO CO Cs as r cc t3 O r C9 (O co N 1(57 CO T C V O 0 r 0.950 acres TOTAL AREA .r a a CO Landscaping EFFECTIVE N 4 N N O Q a CD O r N C r N a CO O U) co C� CO CO .C3 o.ttnas c oa co co C ° a C`J O C3 00 G CSI C O cc O C 0 _ U0 a LO C, ci O 0 0 0 fl 0 C C; W d 12.970 acres 2 L i 0 U 43 0 c < 'a J � < t} H :? 0 C J EFFECTIVE 0 0 a M 0 4 0 M C Ca 0 — co Q co op 'o ad O 0 Q '• — CO CO 00 Cr a O C O P- 00 CO 0C, Co • 0 O 0 O CV 0Cr O a o 0 r to O Co d O Ur) a cc d C I TABLE RO-2 (taken from UDFCD Manual - Vol. I) I Type of Land Surface Conveyance coeffick {N! O 4 l} 6 Heavy Meadow Tillage/field Short pasture/Lawns Nearly Bare Ground Grassed Waterway Paved areas and shallow paved swales APPENDIX C s. cif' 4 c -4= 4' r 44e 12" mci £i " °se +w▪ e7:14 tee Pc, ay 6+4 040 Oa, thE Cy 1 . y . g I�1 z ce U) 4 0 2 a t) 2 W � 0 aLiD CYi f W 0 W CO r II ef W tX al ,CC II w W W `F" d Ct C II W ' r K10= (O.95*1-1.9) / 1000 UDFCD 0 4 Used Herein CO C,C'eD co r, C� r -- c-.4 O} 0 O 6 csei 0 0 0 0 C) o CN N coo o ION C C'7 Ct! 2 co < a re C icr ci L to r 4) J szi H 0 a I— L 4-' r 4, -J 23 0 cc) C' Lcito tress (0 U) r 0 r 6 L en O CO -�, ci cvs 6 6 z I- 00 H > raliP O em▪ s vs r D a ce W -ci < cv 0 c o 0 co c5 C 6 0 C`I 04 W CON r 0) 6506 • w 0, to a a is N r1-0 a) eNi r r' co (V C N 0 a 04 C) J witt O H a atr Y re Ob CA 03 C Ce 0' 8 1 cs>wi O E LL. . C Max Depth (in} • Cu Cr 41) 155 2 > w O • .2 L co FOREBAY N- 6 6 52 to N N r ;7' 0)N N 6 01 <O N r vIrC a te cIO C J a H 100 YR RATE 4o r• W re it r V' t3 V' W �y U- Ore G3 O }- vs 0 r .C o f- Ce C) w in w co W -J � LI_ < W O 0e 2 >- W SOIL TYPE r r CI WI, Ceti 44 - OD CO sed- Q 6 CO M Pi 0 co co ▪ C N- 1.0 r r' co Co (Pei Cvia C) J sct H 04/06/2018 Western Engineering Consultants DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA METHOD Project: Windmill Farms @ 5 year Historic Basin ID: Pond S (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): Is = A = Type = T = Tc= ci = P1 = C> C1 = O2= C,; = percent acres A, B, C, or D years (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, or 100) minutes cfs.lacre inches Design Information (Input): la = A = Type = T = To = €f = P1 = C1 = Cr C3 = 40.00 percent acres A, B. C. or D years (2, 5,10, 25, 50, or 100) mirutes cfsfacre inches Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Catchment Drainage Area Predevelopment MRCS Soil Group Return Period for Detention Control Time of Cor centiration of Watershed Allowable Unit Release Rate One -hour Precipitation Design Rainfall iDF Formula I = C1" P1!(C2+Te Coefficient One Coefficient Two Coefficient Three 40.00 Catchment Drainage Imperviousness Catchment Drainage Area Predevelopment MRCS Soil Grom Return Period for Detention Control Time of Concentration of Watershed Allowable Unit Release Rate Ore -hour Precipitation Design Rainfall IDF Formula I = C1" P11(C2+TeYC� Coefficient One Coefficient Two Coefficient Three 12.970 12.970 A A 10 100 5 5 0.04 0.04 1.58 2.71 28.50 28.50 10 10 0.789 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 InflowPeak Runoff Allowable Peal: C = Op -in = Outflow Rate Op -out = Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume = Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume = c- Enter Rainfall Duration Incremental Increase Value 0.30 Runoff Coefficient C = Inflow Peak Runoff Op -In = Allowable Peak Outflow Rate Qp-out = Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume = Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume = 0.41 21.99 48.48 0.54 0.54 31,307 75,022 0.719 1.722 5 Here (e.g. 5 for Rairfall Duration minutes (Input) Rainfall Intensity inches I hr (output) Inflow Volume acre-feet (output) Adjustment Factor "rn" (output) Average Outflow cfs (output) Outflow Volume acre-feet (output) Storage Volume &ire -feet (output) Ranftl Duration minutes (imut) Rainfall Intensity inches 1 hr (output) Inflow Volume acre-feet (output) Adjustment Factor "m" (output) Avenge Outflow cfs (output) Outflow Volume are -feet (output) Storage Volume acre-feet (output) 0 5 0.00 5.65 0.000 0.151 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.54 0.000 0.004 0.000 0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 000 0.000 0.148 5 9.12 0.334 1.00 0.54 0.004 0.330 10 4.50 0.241 0.75 0.41 0.006 0236 10 7.27 0.532 0.75 0.41 0.008 0.527 15 3.78 0.304 0.87 0.36 0.008 0296 15 6.09 0.669 0.67 0.36 0.008 0.682 20 3.27 0.351 0.63 0.34 0.009 0.341 20 5.28 0.773 0.63 0.34 0.009 0.764 25 2.90 0.388 0.60 0.33 0.011 0.377 25 4.67 0.856 0.60 0.33 0.011 0.844 30 2.61 0.419 0.58 0.32 0.013 0.406 30 4.21 0.924 0.58 0.32 0.013 0,911 35 2.38 0.446 0.57 0.31 0.015 0.431 35 3.83 0.982 0.57 0.31 0.015 0.967 40 2,19 0.469 0.56 0.31 0.017 0.452 40 3.53 1.033 0.56 0.31 0.017 1.016 45 2.03 0.489 0.56 0.30 0.019 0470 45 3.27 1.078 0.56 0.30 0.019 1.059 50 1.89 0.507 0.55 0.30 0.021 0.487 50 3.05 1.118 0.55 0.30 0.021 1.098 55 1.78 0.524 0.55 0.30 0.023 0.501 55 2.87 1.155 0.55 0.30 0.023 1.132 60 1.88 0.539 0.54 0.30 0.024 0.515 80 2.70 1.166 0.54 0.30 0.024 1.164 65 1.59 0.553 0.54 0.29 0.026 0.527 65 2.56 1219 0.54 0.29 0.026 1,193 70 1.51 0.566 0.54 0.29 0,028 0.538 70 2.43 1248 0.54 0.29 0.028 1.220 75 1.44 0.578 0.53 0.29 0.030 0.548 75 2.32 1.275 0.53 0.29 0.030 1245 80 1.37 0.589 0.53 0.29 0.032 0.558 80 2.22 1.300 0.53 0.29 0.032 1.268 85 1,32 0.600 0.53 0.29 0.034 0.566 85 2.13 1.323 0.53 0,29 0.034 1.289 90 1.27 0.610 0.53 0.29 0.036 0.575 90 2.04 1.345 0.53 0.20 0.036 1.310 95 1.22 0.620 0.53 0.29 0.038 0.582 95 1.96 1.366 0.53 0.29 0.038 1.329 100 1.17 0.629 0.53 0.29 0,039 0.590 100 1.89 1.387 0.53 0.29 0.039 1.347 105 1.13 0.638 052 0.29 0.041 0.596 105 1.83 1.406 0.52 0.29 0.041 1.364 110 1.10 0.646 0.52 0,28 0.043 0.603 110 1.77 1.424 0,52 0.28 0.043 1.381 115 1.06 0.654 0.52 0.28 0.045 0.609 115 1.71 1.442 0.52 0.28 0.045 1.397 120 1.03 0.662 0.52 0.26 0.047 0.615 120 168 1.458 0,52 0,28 0.047 1.412 125 1.00 0,669 0.52 0.28 0.049 0.620 125 1.61 1.475 0.52 0,28 0.049 1.426 130 0,97 0.676 0.52 0.28 0,051 0.625 130 1.57 1.490 0.52 0.28 0.051 1.440 135 0.94 0.683 0.52 0.28 0.053 0.830 135 1.52 1.505 0.52 0.28 0.053 1.453 140 0.92 0.689 0.52 0.28 0.054 0.635 140 1.48 1.520 0.52 0.28 0.054 1.465 145 0.90 0.696 0.52 0.28 0.056 0.640 145 1.44 1.534 0.52 0.28 0.056 1.478 150 0.ti7 0.702 0.52 0.28 0.058 0.844 150 1.41 1.548 0,52 0.28 0.058 1.489 155 0.85 0.708 0.52 0.28 0.060 0.648 155 1.37 1.561 0.52 0.28 0.060 1,501 160 0.83 0.714 0.52 028 0.062 0.652 160 1.34 1.574 0.52 0.28 0.062 1.512 165 0.81 0.719 0.52 028 0.064 0.656 166 1.31 1.586 0.52 0.28 0.064 1.522 170 0.80 0.725 0.51 028 0.066 0.659 170 1.28 1.598 0.51 0.28 0.066 1.533 175 018 0.730 0.51 028 0.068 0.663 175 1.26 1.610 0.51 0,28 0.068 1.543 180 016 0.738 0.51 0.26 0.069 0:686 180 1.23 1.622 0.51 0.28 0.089 1.552 185 015 0.741 0.51 028 0.071 0.669 185 1.20 1.633 0.51 0.28 0.071 1.562 190 0.73 0.746 0.51 028 0.073 0.672 190 1.18 1.644 0.51 0.28 0.073 1.571 195 012 0.750 0.51 0.28 0.075 0.675 195 1.16 1.854 0.51 0.28 0.075 1.579 200 0I0 0.755 0.51 028 0.077 0.678 200 1.14 1.665 0.51 0.28 0.077 1.588 205 0.69 0.760 0.51 028 0.079 0.681 205 1.12 1.675 0.51 0,28 0.079 1.596 210 0.88 0.764 0.51 0.26 0.061 0.884 210 1.10 1.685 0.51 0.28 0.081 1.605 215 0.67 0.769 0.51 028 0.083 0.686 215 1.08 1.695 0.51 0.28 0.083 1.612 220 0.66 0.773 0.51 028 0.084 0.689 220 1.06 1.705 0.51 0.28 0.084 1.620 225 0.64 0.777 0.51 0.28 0.086 0.691 225 1.04 1.714 05'1 0.28 0.086 1.628 230 0.63 0.782 0.51 028 0.088 0.893 230 1.02 1.723 0.51 0.28 0.088 1.635 235 0.62 0.786 0.51 028 0.090 0.696 235 1.01 1.732 0.51 0.28 0.090 1.642 240 0.81 0.790 0.51 0.26 0.092 0.698 240 0.99 1.741 0.51 0,28 0.092 1.649 245 0.60 0.794 0.51 028 0.094 0.700 245 0.98 1.750 0.51 028 0.094 1.656 250 0.60 0.798 0.51 028 0,096 0.702 250 0.96 1.758 0.51 0.28 0.096 1.663 255 0.59 0.801 0.51 0.28 0.098 0.704 255 D.95 1.787 051 0.28 0.098 1.889 260 0.58 0,805 0.51 028 0.099 0.706 260 0.93 1.775 0.51 0.28 0.099 1.676 265 0.57 0.809 0.51 028 0,101 0.708 265 0.92 1.783 0.51 028 0.101 1.68.2 270 0.56 0.813 0.51 0.28 0.103 0.709 270 0.91 1.791 0.51 0.28 0.103 1.688 275 0.55 0.816 0.51 0.28 0.105 0.711 275 0.89 1.799 0.51 0.28 0.105 1.694 280 0.55 0.820 0.51 0.28 0.107 0.713 280 0.88 1.807 0.51 0.28 0.107 1.700 285 290 0.54 0.53 0.823 0.826 0.51 0.51 0.28 028 0.109 0.714 285 0.87 1.814 0.51 0.28 0.109 1.706 0.111 0.716 290 0.86 1.822 0.51 0.28 0.111 1.711 295 0.52 0.830 0.51 028 0.113 0.717 295 0.85 1.829 0.51 0.28 0.113 1.717 300 052 0.833 0.51 0.28 0 114 0.719 300 0.84 1.637 0.51 0.28 0.114 1.722 Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (cubic ft) = 31,307 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (cubic ft.) = Mod. FAA Minor Storage Volume (acre -ft) = 0.7187 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (acre -ft.) = UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.351 Released January 2015 75.022 1.7223 20180329 Windmill Farms UD-Detention v2.35 @ historic.xls, Modified FAA 04034;2018, 10:16 Aldf DETENTION VOLUME BY THE MODIFIED FAA METHOD Project: Windmill Farms @ 5 year Historic Basin ID: Pond S ne III i � • I C��C I ! i i -� yam- I� ! /�� ' 4 J 1 _, •• • 1 ` {III I UDFCD DETENTION BASIN VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.35, Released January 2015 20180329 Windmill Farns UD-Detention v'2.35 @ historic.xls, Modified FAA 0460412018, 10:16 AM POND S - BUILDOUT Imp = 40% 100 YEAR DETENTION VOLUME - WATER SURFACE ESTIMATED POND (TYPICAL) VOLUME vs ELEVATION POND OUTLET INVERT WQCV: REQUIRED 10 yr per MODIFIED FAA: DESIGN 10 yr RELEASE POND S REQUIRED 100 yr per MODIFIED FAA: Avail Vol @ Emer Overflow: DESIGN 100 yr RELEASE POND S ELEV AREA 4,906.00 0.0 4,907.00 10,906.0 4,908.00 12,513.0 4,909.00 14,221.0 4,910.00 16,031.0 4,911.00 17,943.0 4,912.00 20,582.0 4,913.00 23,451.0 10,160.5 ftA3 41,467.5 ftA3 80,102.2 ftA3 102,036.8 ftA3 t 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 VOL 3,635.3 11, 700.3 13,357.9 15,117.0 16,978.0 19,247.4 22,000.9 4906.00 ELEVATION 4907.56 ELEVATION 4909.85 ELEVATION 0.54 CFS 4912.00 ELEVATION 4913.00 ELEVATION 0.54 CFS ACCUM 3,6352 15,335.6 28,693.5 43,810.5 60,788.5 80,035.9 102,036.8 ALUM (ac -ft) 0.08 0.35 0.66 1.01 1.40 1.84 2.34 43560 Western Engineering Consultants 04/06/2018 Page 1 or 1 2 Ct L J 2 z O J 0 W 0 C O U, C ' Iale n tto O Ci ° O a!} o LOco10 C} 0 ra 9t - a) a) a) a) to 'cr POND A OUTLET c > a Pi I. 0 0 r r 100 yr CIRCULAR 32.2 ft{sect L it Ts' .F n E E it oo r Q. 10 yr SQUARE C Ll. d N C4 0<Al co 4 t Kv7 47 N O LC] 0 S+) tti it II fl O II C c 0 E � E 00= < LC7 lb U Ca sr - CI 4 yI Lo a C4 CO CI) r in OCti N r CO do Cb II II - a A 0it Li- a)In II c7 0 4 C am II C t rr O W C 0 X Coat Mtn GJ IL. C D 04 lb =4 to 't 10 CV 4 N- o Lc O II C 1 II a- II ' R—+ II 0a= IcE m C iss 01 co ` 0 C? ¢ v ED 4i 0 �c r 4} q� C +«. Li La 0 0 Lt0 S«:. a LC! fo d r o Cs N 70 T3 13 13 o a d? N r O co II II O co u II IA o < kd o d CO 1U Q 5 '-§- C) s 135 Tr %is N toN Q r r u) 6 co 2 1 2 CM Sim a; <4- 1- CO C II i 'CP a r a T C .. C? C II }' C II }' II .- Q II S W c X L W c N X El tl5 P3 14V. o o IL' E O g c.9 tot) E p I 0002 '6 COOL to It C o flI o t ca o =tio o it ,E o GAS? O h- CCU CEO O N ti t11 cr.; r O N. W C) Jam+ tt7 4 7 C I— 2 LI < U t!I II a Q.Q n3 r 0c ~ CD U a,j >- Ill m2 c5 E L�= = a CO ry E 0 iii H 5R ,a7:Rs e E M d) CD W Dui ,a- > 2 V- o >fz. 46 z E a o o ©F - c d)a Op U 03 0 _ F_ W am in co .0 co ea 1I c . C (% LTS r r r r O C el to W r 2 J m U E0 V. II Ii II J J 2 c Oci5 0 O sa � Y o Oro >L.= co c, c^ LJ& L. CDC'- 0. aLS W W 4 c 7 ...7 - 0 2 . I- cr o Q h-• call C 0 o a 2 LE23 ii 0‘ W cra p F w i a C,� W 2 i-- �, C �_ u w O a)t z IT, a a w 46 W r c.) CC to tu F J J -. II K^ Dar Q t.13 LL c LL W E o < q1 a 379.71 inches cn ci Vi U U C3) kr7 tt7 Id7 U) Ctil d; C L'7 OCNl 00 Q4106/201 S Western Engineering Consultants DETENTION VOLUME BY THE HYDROGRAPH METHOD Project Windmill Farms Basin ID: Pond S Design Information (Input): Max. Allowable Peak Outflow Tine to Peak Outflow Qp-out = Tp-out = Minor Storage Volune (cubic ft.) 10,925 Mirror Storage Volume {acre -ft.): 0.25 MINOR MAJOR 0.54 0.54 5 5 cfs minutes Major Storage Volume (cubic ft.): 17,725 Mjor Storage Volume (acre -ft.): 0.41 5 MINOR (e.g. 2-, 5-, OR 10 -year) EVENT MAJOR (e.g. 25-, 50-, or 100 -year) EVENT Time minutes (input) Inflow hydrograph cfs (input) Outflow Rising Hy cis (output Increm. Volume acre -ft (output) Storage Volume acre -ft (output) Inflow hydrograph cis Input) Outflow Rising Hy cfs ioutput) Increm. Volume acre -ft output) Storage Volume acre -ft (outputI 0 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00; 5 36.96 0.54 0.25 0.25 59.62 0.54 0.41 0.41 10 66.41 #hliAI 107.13 #N'A 15 54.15 #N A I 87.36 #N'A 20 46.09 #hAAA 74.35 4N'A 25 40.33 #hMA 65.06 #N'A, 30 35.99 #N''A I 58.05 #N'A, 35 32.58 #N1A 52.56 #N'A 40 29.83 #N A 48.12 #N'A 45 27.55 #N A 44.45 #N'A' 50 25.64 4N A 41.36 #N'A 55 24.00 #NA 38.72 #N'A 60 22.58 #NMA I 36.43 #N'A, 65 21.34 #NMA 34.43 #N'A 70 20.25 #NA 32.66 #NNA 75 19.27 #hMAI 31.09 #NA 80 18.40 #NSA 29.67 #N'A 85 17.61 #hrA 28.40 #ht'A 90 16.89 #hrA 27.24 #ht'A' 95 16.23 #14'A 26.19 #N'Al 100 15.63 .#NA 25.22 #N'A. 105 15.08 #hMA 24.33 #N'A. 110 14.57 #MA 23.51 #N+A 115 14.10 #NA 22.75 #N'A, 120 13.66 #NrA 22.04 #MA 125 13.25 #MA 21.38 #N'A 130 12.87 #N+A 20.77 #N/A 135 12.52 #N/A 20.19 #NIA 140 12.18 #tVA 19.65 #N'A' 145 11.86 #hIA 19.14 #N'A, 150 11.56 #NA 1 18.65 #N'A, 155 11.28 #N+A 18.20 #N'A 160 11.02 #N'A 17.77 #N'A 165 10.76 4N/A 17.36 #N'A' 170 10.52 #NAL 16.97 #N'A' 175 10.29 #N A 16.61 #N'A, 180 10.08 #N A 16.26 #N'A, 185 9.87 #NA 15.92 #N'A 190 9.67 #N'A 15.60 #N'A 195 9.48 #NMA 15.30 #hMA 200 9.30 #ts`A 15.01 #N+A 205 9.13 ttNA 14.73 #ht'A 210 8.96 #N'AI 14.46 #ht'A' 215 8.80 #N1A1 14.20 4MA' 220 8.65 ttN A 13.96 #N'A. 225 8.50 #N?A 13.72 #NA 230 8.36 #MA 13.49 #N°A 235 8.23 #NrA 13.27 #NA 240 8.09 #hMA1 13.06 #NAI 245 7.97 #h#A 12.85 #N'AI 250 7.85 #N A 12.66 itN/A 255 7.73 #NA 12.47 MIA 260 7.61 4 MA 12.28 #NA 265 7.50 #MA 12.10 #N'A 270 7.40 MA I 11.93 #N'A, 275 7.29 4N+A 11.76 #N'Ai 280 7.19 #N/A 11.60 #N'A 285 7.09 #hMA 11.44 #N'A 290 7.00 #N+AI 11.29 #N+AI 295 6.91 #NA 11.15 4N'AI 300 6.82 MA 11.00 .#NAI 305 #N'A #N'AI 310 #N'A it NA 315 ItNAI it NA 320 #N'A #N+A 325 #h'A #NA 330 #N'A I #I'WA 335 #N'A #N+A 340 #NA #NA 345 #MA ##NA 350 #MA #NSA 355 #NA #NA 360 #NSA #N'A 365 #hAA #N'AI 370 #N'A #MA 100 20 0 0 Inflow Hydrograph vs. Outflow Hydrograph (Intarsecdon falls on Rho rocassban 1mb of lnflowhydrogMph) 1\ 1\it,, .IF/r.\\ ' //jfh\ L /(� 11. /...' - - -a,,: _1 _ _ i 30 - Petrol Irf1TwNyerc9(upl' rfi:yr IrrU • I lyvi c� r apl 60 TIM E (minutes) 90 Minor CLlflr:W Ilyr:'rc�:apl. NI(:j,x CUNiw, I Iy, rcurapl. i 120 I I1ownte Qp-out TF-Qut NOTE: THIS IS A FIRST APPROXIMATION ONLY Tine 20160402 Windmill Farms UD-Detention v2.35 @ 5yr histaric,xls, Hydrograph 04;0612018.6:28 PM DETENTION VOLUME BY THE FULL SPECTRUM METHOD Project: Windmill Farms Basin ID: Basin A Area of Watershed (acres) Subwatershed hed Imperviousness Level of Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious Area (MDCIA) Effective Imperviousness1 Hydrologic Soil Type Type A Type B Type CorD Excess Urban Runoff Volume4 100 -year Detention Volume plus 1/2 WQCV 5 12.97 40.0% 0 40.0% * User input data shown in blue. 0 Percentage of Area Area (acres) 100.0% 13.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 Recommended Horton's Equation Parameters for CUHP Infiltration (inches per hour) Coefficient Decay --a Initial --.f; Final--.fo 5 1.0 0.0007 Detention Volumes 2'5 Maximum Allowable Release Rate, cfs3 (watershed inches) (acre-feet) 0 78 0 84 Design Oulet EURV in to 72 Hours Empty 1.10 1.19 6.49 Runoff Voume - Inches 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 a i • i _4E_ Wiiate 410. de Se e 20 40 60 Percent Total Imperviousness 80 100 V CC<yrryp: n Gcn •tt yr . vi lypr. u, C & iL &- c LLRV I5♦ r A. S:I LLKV type u Su LLRV twnCiDS_1 `CC yrSICcrun%'n 1.rrc LLltV .�. I!rn c V:;ILRC St Notes: 1) Effective imperviousness is based on Figure ND -1 of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM). 2) Results shown reflect runoff reduction from Level 1 or 2 MDCIA and are plotted at the watershed's total imperviousness value; the impact of MDCIA is reflected by the results being below the curves. 3) Maximum allowable release rates for 100 -year event are based on Table SO -1. Outlet for the Excess Urban Runoff Volume (EURV) to be designed to empty out the EURV in 72 hours. Outlet design is similar to one for the WQCV outlet of an extended detention basin (i.e., perforated plate with a micro -pool) and extends to top of EURV water surface elevation. 4) EURV approximates the difference between developed and pre -developed runoff volume. 5) User has opted to add 1/2 the WQCV to the 100 -year detention volume to satisfy local regulations. This is not required per the USDCM. 20180402 Windmill Farms UD-Detention_v2.35 @ 5yr historic.xls 04/06/2018, 9:10 PM DETENTION VOLUME BY THE FULL SPECTRUM METHOD Project: Windmill Farms Basin ID: Basin A Area of Watershed (acres) Subwatershed hed Imperviousness Level of Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious Area (MDCIA) Effective Imperviousness1 Hydrologic Soil Type Type A Type B Type CorD Excess Urban Runoff Volume4 100 -year Detention Volume plus 1/2 WQCV 5 12.97 40.0% * User input data shown in blue. 1 1 35.5% Percentage of Area Area (acres) 100.0% 13.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 Recommended Horton's Equation Parameters for CUHP Infiltration (inches per hour) Coefficient Decay --a Initial --.f; Final--.fo 5 1.0 0.0007 Detention Volumes 2'5 Maximum Allowable Release Rate, cfs3 (watershed inches) (acre-feet) 0 68 0 73 Design Oulet EURV in to 72 Hours Empty 0.98 1.06 6.49 Runoff Voume - Inches 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 a di 0 0 de40. SIP a tsOSlin OP iiate de Se e 20 40 60 Percent Total Imperviousness 80 100 V CC<yrryp: n Gcn •tt yr . vi lypr. u, C & iL &- c LLRV I5♦ r A. S:I LLKV type u Su LLRV twnCiDS_1 `CC yrSICcrun%'n 1.rrc LLltV .�. I!rn c V:;ILRC St Notes: 1) Effective imperviousness is based on Figure ND -1 of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM). 2) Results shown reflect runoff reduction from Level 1 or 2 MDCIA and are plotted at the watershed's total imperviousness value; the impact of MDCIA is reflected by the results being below the curves. 3) Maximum allowable release rates for 100 -year event are based on Table SO -1. Outlet for the Excess Urban Runoff Volume (EURV) to be designed to empty out the EURV in 72 hours. Outlet design is similar to one for the WQCV outlet of an extended detention basin (i.e., perforated plate with a micro -pool) and extends to top of EURV water surface elevation. 4) EURV approximates the difference between developed and pre -developed runoff volume. 5) User has opted to add 1/2 the WQCV to the 100 -year detention volume to satisfy local regulations. This is not required per the USDCM. 20180402 Windmill Farms UD-Detention_v2.35 @ 5yr historic.xls 04/06/2018, 9:08 PM STAGE -STORAGE SIZING FOR DETENTION BASINS Project: Windmill Farms Basin ID: Pond S Design Information (Input): Width of Basin Bottom, W Length of Basin Bottom, L Dam Side -slope (H:V), Zd = Stage -Storage Relationship: Dam 4 V 110.00 107.00 4.00 Side Shape Z ft ft ft/ft L Righ Isoscele Circl L Check Basin Shane t Triangle s Triangle Rectangle e / Ellipse Irregular Storage Requirement from Sheet 'Modified FAA': Storage Requirement from Sheet 'Hydrograph': Storage Requirement from Sheet 'Full -Spectrum': MINOR OR... OR... OR... OR... (Use Overide values in cells G32:G52) MAJOR 0.72 1.72 0.25 0.41 0.73 1.06 acre -ft. acre -ft. acre -ft. Labels for WQCV, Minor, & Major Storage Stages (input) Water Surface Elevation ft (input) 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 Volume Below Stage ft3 (output) Surface Area at Stage acres (output) Volume Below Stage acre -ft (output) Target Volumes for WQCV, Minor, & Major Storage Volumes (for goal seek) 4906.00 110.00 107.00 0 0.000 0.000 4907.00 0.00 0.00 10,906 5,453 0.250 0.125 4907.56 0.00 0.00 11,806 11,812 0.271 0.271 4908.00 0.00 0.00 12,513 17,162 0.287 0.394 4909.00 0.00 0.00 14,221 30,529 0.326 0.701 4909.85 0.00 0.00 15,760 43,271 0.362 0.993 4910.00 0.00 0.00 16,031 45,655 0.368 1.048 4911.00 0.00 0.00 17,943 62,642 0.412 1.438 4912.00 0.00 0.00 20,582 81,905 0.472 1.880 4913.00 0.00 0.00 23,451 103,921 0.538 2.386 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N./A. #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A ##N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A ##NIA #N/A #N/A #NIA. #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA 20180402 Windmill Farms UD-Detention_v2.35 a Syr historic.xls, Basin 04/06/2018, 9:42 PM W J I O 5- Cr W 2 re 0 W I a- I C W W I U- 0 0 ) 0 ct /41r) 0 fy' Windmill Farms Basin ID: Pond S v E a C C? O C.) a O {V r Diameter of holes, D = Number of holes per row. N v G co ow., U .c 6 Si Gs r N b Ti; c 0.. t O o 6 II .D ely U) C N O a C7 iz 15 E 15 I) II II II d = L d C cID O C w ▪ IC U N Q] C 4nip m m 41- -1=1 > O a S Q CS C II II Crn C T m c 4 U 12 Q O CD U a m .'- L Z1 :6 m U 4- -c 0 II a ELL O L_ C o` a o m CO CL C1 C O 0 V 0 0 0 r0 V 0 0 0 0000 O 0 n Information Watershed Desi O a V Y O 0 0 0 O 000 O a }0000 O d Ipd C n Information Outlet Desi watershed inches N- O Excess Urban Runoff Volume (From 'Full -Spectrum Sheet') Q Z N cm Q eJl ai O 4 O fl ii ii ii a O } E � co 2 ti MM ✓ co • Q 7 a E c CL c V�► m L L ▪ CY C] • mm u. © C C E O O Lal 0 LL 0 0 to m v cm E ' o3 22 > Cu mm Ik WV Q 'M SU C et e• t C ti t4 O-1 n c c "C .e y O O 0 w f - r) W° IL o o o o 0 o o 4k 4t 4k 4t 4t .'-. 4b - - 4t a-.. 4k 4k * '1M# Z 4k Z 4t Z 4t Z' 4k' Z * Z 4t Z 4t Z 4t Z 4t Z 4k Z * #N/A Z 4k Z 4t a 4k Z' 4k Z * Z * Z 4t Z *t 4k', Z * # Z 4t Z 4t Central Elevations of Rows of Holes in feet Row 1 Row 2 Row3 Row 4 Row 5 Rowe Row 7 Row 6 Rowe Row 10 Row 11 Row 12 Row 13 Row 14 Row 15 Row 16 Row 17 Row 18 Row 19 Row 20 Row 21 Row 22 Row 23 Row 23 Collection Capacity for Each Row of Holes in cfs I 01 N O: O COCJQSOMr O O 0 a O O 4 r, e'7 a 0 m �`3 O 0 c') N a 0 to 47 O 4 L' O r 0 { Za_ 4r 5CfC_d<C5Cd£C5C Z 4 Z 4 Z ## Z 4 2.-2.-Z±. 4 4t 4 4k 4# #N1A <d_<Q'TI Z± 4f; 4b Z *k Z 4 ZI 4# #N1A Z 4 g< Z 4t Z *k Z 4 g< Z 4# Z 4t WN# d_<Q�C< ZZZZZZZZZ 4b *k 4! 4#' 4~ 4t << 4, 4! CSC 4t. 4, WYN# g< Z 4t Z 4^ t` p r- {o U a oa ooaooas�r3t�xr�rx�xtrxxt�rxtxt*xtxt�rxtxtxr 6666666 o O Ik Ln 9Q tnmme2zzzzzzzz o r m m r l£j . 'L 5 4< 5 d< 5 d< 5 d' zz2zz2zzzzzzzzzzzzzz2222 <A54 A54<5<<<<<<<<< AIL Q A L li a O G} I O Ovpl1-0r�ODC_tddC_{4 o O COOOOOO r 4 r 4 O {y O O u7 co 4 o N o1 4 o C] r O Z^ ' t 2 4t 2 It 2 =t 4<4_�L_dd��y[_<4 2 4t Z' It Z =t 2 4t 2 4t 2 *k G 4t z 4t 2 *t 4 2 4t C2-dy_da_4<4 ' 4t 2 *t L 4t z 4t Z # Z' 4t Z' 4t 2 *k 4_ddd_d_ 2 4t z 4t 2 *t 2 4t z 4t 2 T _dd_ Z' 4t 2 T d_dd_ 4t Z' 4t 2 T .Qy_c i 4t z 4t 2 Tt 4906.07 4906.40 ON3O1... O O 0 1J O 0 ``I o 0 I- 0 0 =Q O 0 o r 0 r r 0 a #b �< a 4 _ Z 4f; Td z? 4# d 444t _<J} L < z -444t- �< L 2z TQ WN# S_ z2 4k 5C_ 4t c Z 4t Q}_ Z 4t TQ_ ZI 4b #N1A �tJ}g Z 4 Z 4# < Z *k }_ Z 4 TQ_ Z 4# UNAA < z2 4 C 4# C Z *fi W N# T_ Z al �< L 4 yg_ Z 4# ‹J L #_' <} Z 4f- _} Z al ‹ 2 4 W N# ?y. 4t- d 4 or--mocyrcnQ¢4¢54<5d¢_ O O O 666666 o o O OD O m O li] O r is 3 r r _ Z Z z _ Z Z z xr _ Z Z z Z 5d Z * z tt Q_ Z ¢d¢_ Z xr Z 5d<_ Z * tt Z 5d¢_ Z �t z tt Z 5d¢_ Z �t z tt Z ¢fit_ Z tt Z Z �Lt_L5�C¢_5�C5 Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z OOOOOOO OOOOOOO to O P. j CO f>' C7} {_y a r r r N r m 72 m cy O 6 ae m 0y E e4 ct- co et m co 7 as T m_ 6 ce m � < O L m OD 2 m m- kt m 0 IX T Vl m C a: 45 ▪ E CD O m O <0 0 m • OP 0 �a 041043/2018. 10.36 PM 20180402 Windmill Farms UD-Detentian_v2.35 IS 5yr histaric.xls, WQCV 04104312018: 10:36 PM I W J I O 0 cc W 2 J 0 W H a. C H cC a LL W d W 2 H LL 0 0 z W 0 d C) t, L'! Windmill Farms Basin ID: Pond S STAGE -DISCHARGE CURVE FOR THE WQCV OUTLET STRUCTURE 0 0 r 0 0 r W 0 a 0 C) 4 0 0 ID) (•.tai a ' aaj) abets 0 0 0 C) 0 C 01 0 0 a L 0 0 c 0 0 O a r 0 0 C C 8 g Discharge (cfs) 20180402 Windmill Farms UD-Delenlian_v2.35 IS 5yr hislaric.xls, VICICV W LL 0 J re W c Ci 0 LL a z N CO W J 0 0 te CO W a sit a 3co IL co 0 0 0 0 O O O O co L C #2 Vertical Orifice CD CD � CO C.0 LO CI Ci ■ r Cl Ci #1 Vertical Orifice i LO CO <a <3) CO L.C) a a 't • . Is c a) IIWtact II II II ffII�� C) C W 22 w w 0 U a) ilE; U 0)0 m C Ql a. °' cu U rd . .1: 5- CU ce 0.1 arti 0 0 0) 0 u I -al o LL -05 ft Cr c17 {13 1.77 CO %098E Cr)CA a 6 r ci co. ° N- T II II II II cm c f- 0 L cii t13 03 U u d , O to `� L 2 LL L to t 0 13 4J 47 U7 4- 4- U CD O 0.07 . N] 0t'0 (NI ld a . a OD C'I N. d N C"3 0.26 Cs1 CO N- c 7 LC. II Cid II II II II II I— >2 , ( j W E 0 ca tta CL w N- d r. a mem U T ra T W L s cri a co -a-- ni Q) CD ■iCC cU t; U — p 0 L a) I- U L �- ir V - , C o ++ 0) 0 C 0 0) 0 `~ Q) 0 u-ta 4- 0- E. C3 E kri tt w -E aocu t -a Q O c 0 ,( 4 V i h V , +,r C3 0 p N a)'a 2 LL I— 2 w rt 04/06/2018, 10:18 PM 5yr historic.xls, Restrictor Plate Farms UD-Detention v2.35 20180402 Windmi STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WEIRS AND ORIFICES (INLET CONTROL) Project Windmill Farms Basin ID: Pond S Current Routing Order is #2 Design Information (Input): Circular Opening: OR Rectangular Opening: outing Order / I (titan lard) Kt!uting 0 rdier (Single Stage) W.S. r( .pcdvn Scan. cu. c.rr.s'St rii Diameter in Inches Width in Feet Length (H eight for Vertical) Dia. = W= LorH= Percentage of Open Area After Trash Rack Reduction % open = Orifice Coefficient Co Weir Coefficient Cy, = Orifice Elevation (Bottom for Vertical) Eo = Calculation of Collection Capacity: Net Opening Area (after Trash Rack Reduction) A0 _ OPTIONAL: User-Overide Net Opening Area A0 = Perimeter as Weir Length Lw = OPTIONAL: User-Overide Weir Length L, = Routtng Order #2 seYVS•I.I..M jrr :4..y. I.t.. t.iincr :4".ti 1.1.. 141 I •s' .S. FI. km.•q•.•n. •• tipillr.•• TTnul:ng iliilt•r L1 hm.•i t•. u. y �:•v.•i tl.iv hod Fiji., H] 2 H1 Y1 #1 Horiz. #2 Horiz. #1 Vert. #2 Vert. 4.00 0.27 0.21 4.00 0.26 0.21 50 100 100 0.62 0.62 3.40 4909.85 4.907.56 4,905.66 8.00 0.07 0.04 12.00 ft. ft. Top Elevation of Vertical Orifice Opening. Top = 4907.82 Center Elevation of Vertical Orifice Opening, Cen = 4907.69 inches ft. ft. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. 4905.87 ft. 4905.76 ft. Routing 2: Water flows through WQCV plate and #1 vertical opening and #1 horizontal opening into #2 vertical opening (#2 horizontal opening is not used). Horizontal Orifices Vertical Orifices Labels for WQCV, Minor, & Major Storage WS. Elevations (input) Water Surface Elevation ft (linked) WQCV Plate/Riser Fbw cfs (User -linked) #1 Horiz. #1 Horiz. #2 Horiz. #2 Horiz. Weir Orifice Weir Orifice Flow Flow Fbw Flow cfs cfs cfs cfs (output) (output) (output) (output) #1 Vert. Colection Capacity cfs (output) #2 Vert. Collection Capacity cfs (output) Total Collection Capacity cfs (output) Target Volumes for WQCV, Minor, & Major Storage Volumes (ink for goal seek) 4906.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 4907.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.11 WQCV 4907.56 4908.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.32 0.32 WQCV 4907.56 10 yr 4909.85 4909.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.39 0.39 10 4909.85 4910.00 0.43 2.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.44 0.44 4911.00 0.49 50.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.49 0.49 100 yr 4912.00 4912.00 0.54 128.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.54 0 100 r 4912.00 4913.00 #NfA 228.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.58 #NfA #N/A #N TA #NfA #N/A #NIA #N/A ithliA #NfA #NIA ##NIA #N/A #N/A #N!'A #NfA ftWA #IN/A #N/A #NIA #NfA #N/A #NIA #NIA ithliA #NfA #NIA #N /A #NIA #NIA #NIA #N{A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #NfA #NfA ifNIA #NfA #NIA #NfA #NfA #N/A #NIA itNiA #NfA #N/A #N /A #NIA #NIA #NIA #NfA #N/A #NIA #NfA #NfA #N/A #NfA #NfA #IN/A #N/A #NfA #NfA #N/A #NfA. #NfA ftWA #NfA #NIA #NfA #NIA #N/A #NfA #NfA #NfA #NIA #N/A #N/A. #N/A #NIA #NfA . #NfA #N/A #N TA #NfA #NIA #N/A #NfA MIA #NfA #NIA #N/A #NfA #N/A #N/A. #N/A UNIA #NfA #NIA #N/A #N/A. #N/A #N/A #N/A abliA #NfA #N/A #NIA #NfA #N/A #N TA #NfA #NfA #N/A It -N/A. #NIA #N/A #NIA #NfA ft , #NfA #NIA #N IA #NfA #N/A #NfA #NfA itNIA #NfA #NIA #NIA #NfA #NIA #N/A #NfA #NfA #N/A ##NIA #N/A. #NIA #NIA #NfA #NfA #NIA #N /A #NfA #NIA MIA #Nfi k ttNIA #NfA #N/A #N IA #NIA #N/A #NfA #NfA #NfA #N/A #NfA #N/Ati #N/A ##NfA #NfA #NfA, #NIA #NIA #14/A #N/A #NfA #NfA ft , #NfA #NIA #N /A #NIA #NIA #NfA #NfA MIA #NfA #NfA #NfA #NIA #NfAk #NfA #14114 #NfA #NfA #N/A #NfA #NIA #NIA #NfA #N IA #NIA #NfA #NIA #N/A #NfA #N{A #NIA #NIA #NfA #NIA #N/A #NfA #NfA #N/A #N/A #NfA #N/A #NIA #NfA #NfA #NIA #N/A #NfA #N/A #N/A #N1A #N IA #NrA #NIA #NrA #NIA #NIA s MIA #NIA #NIA #N/A #N/A #NIA #NIA #NIA #NIA #NIA #N/A #NfA #NfA #N/A #NfA #N/A #NIA #NfA #N/A #NfA #NfA #NIA #NfA #NIA #NIA #N/A #NIA #N/A #NIA #N/A #NfA. #NIA #NIA #NfA #N/A #14/A MA #N/A #NfA #N/A #NIA 20180402 Windmill Farms UD-Detention_v2.35 as Syr historic.xls, Outlet 04/06/2018, 10:44 PM STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE WEIRS AND ORIFICES (INLET CONTROL) Project Windmill Farms Basin ID: Pond S I STAGE -DISCHARGE CURVE FOR THE OUTLET STRUCTURE 4914 4913 4912 4911 4910 4909 4908 4907 4906 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Discharge (cfs) 0.4 0.5 0.6 20180402 Windmill Farms UD-Detention_v2.35 as Syr historic.xls, Outlet 04/06/2018, 10:44 PM • STAGE -DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE SPILLWAY Project: Windmill Farms Basin ID: Pond S 75.96 4.00000 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 = CI= 60.00 45.00 4,912.00 3.37 Water Surface Elevation ft. (linked) Rect. Weir Flowrate cfs (output) Triangle Weir Flowrate cfs (output) Total Spillway Release cfs (output) Total Pond Release cfs (output) 4906.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4907.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4908.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4909.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4910.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4911.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4912.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4912.50 71.49 0.00 71.49 71.49 4913.00 202.20 0.00 202.20 202.20 #N /A 4N/A 4N/A #NIA 4N/A #N /A 4N/A #NIA 4N/A 4N/A #N /A #N/A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A #NIA 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #NIA #N /A #NIA #NIA #NIA #N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #N /A OVA #NIA 4N/A 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A #NIA 4N/A #N /A OVA 4N/A MIA #NIA #N /A #N/A itN/A #NIA► #NIA #N /A #NIA #NIA #N/A #NIA #N /A #NIA #NIA #NIA #NIA #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A #NIA 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #NIA #N /A #NIA #NIA #NIA #N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #N /A OVA OVA 4N/A 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A #NIA 4N/A #N /A OVA 4N/A MIA 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #N/A #N /A 4N/A #NIA #NIA 4N/A #N /A 4N/A #NIA 4N/A 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A #NIA 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #NIA #N /A #NIA #NIA #NIA #N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #N /A OVA OVA 4N/A 4N/A #N /A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A 4N/A #N /A 4N/A #NIA #NIA 4N/A #N /A OVA #NIA 4N/A 4N/A feet degrees feet 20180402 Windmill Farms UD-Detention_v2.35 @ 5yr historic.xls, Spillway 04/06/2018, 11:00 PM DRAINAGE REPORT REVIEW CHECKLIST Project Name: USRI8-0042 Windmill Farms -Cheryl Sweet The purpose of this checklist is to provide the applicant's Engineer a basic list of items that County Staff will review in regards to a drainage report. The drainage design shall meet the requirements of the Weld County Code and commonly accepted engineering practices and methodologies. A detention pond design (or other stormwater mitigation design) is appropriate for projects which have a potential to adversely affect downstream neighbors and public rights -of -way from changes in stormwater runoff as a result of the development project. The design engineer's role is to ensure adjacent property owners are not adversely affected by stormwater runoff created by development of the applicant's property. REPORT (Z = complete, ❑ = required) ❑ Stamped by PE, scanned electronic PDF acceptable ❑Certification of Compliance ❑ Variance request, if applicable Description/Scope of Work Number of acres for the site —12.97 ❑Methodologies used for drainage report & analysis Design Parameters Design storm Release rate XI X XI ❑ URBANIZING or NON -URBANIZING — Pg1 & 10 state non -urbanizing, site is urbanizing ❑Overall post construction site imperviousness — 35.7%, pond imperviousness should be 100% Soils types A XI Discuss how the offsite drainage is being routed — don't drain through the site Conclusion statement must also include the following: Xl Indicate that the historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained in such a manner that it will reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions, concentration and/or unplanned ponding of storm run-off for the 100 -year storm. How the project impacts are mitigated. Construction Drawings Drawings stamped by PE, (scanned electronic PDF preferred) Drainage facilities ❑ Outlet details ❑ Spillway Maintenance Plan Frequency of onsite inspections Repairs, if needed Cleaning of sediment and debris from drainage facilities Vegetation maintenance XI XI ❑Include manufacturer maintenance specifications, if applicable Comments: 2017 USDCM state that Eq. 6-5 is used only for catchments over 20% imperviousness — do not use for historic calcs UD Detention Worksheet indicated time of concentration of 5, Developed flow worksheet shows -cc of 12.8, this drives the Qin up. You can lower this to the calculated quantity if desired. NOAA indicates 2.8 inches for 100 year storm, UD Detention worksheet indicates 2.71 inches Applicant's signature required — or remove the space for the applicant to sign Pg6 — remove reference to SPR16-0024 Pg8 — the 2006 addendum is not used anymore. Please remove the reference. WQCV can be included in the 100 year volume. You do not need to add it to the 100 year volume. The last two paragraphs of page 10 confuse me. Can you contact me and clarify? What are the empirical release rates/empirical calculations from? The emergency spillway only needs to pass the 100 year developed flows at 6" 4/11/2018 Weld County Department of Public Works/ Development Review 1111 HStreet, Greeley, CO 80631 I Ph: 970-400-3750 I Fax: 970-304-6497 www.weldgov.corn/departments/public_works/development_review/ Diana Aungst Subject: FW: FW: Updated USR 18-0042 From: Chadwin F Cox Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 2:58:42 PM (UTC-07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada) To: Diana Aungst; 'Cheryl Sweet' Subject: Updated USR 18-0042 Afternoon Ladies, Please find the entire USR18-0042 set updated. https://westerneci.sharefile.com/d-sd370f8dd0a94becb Updates included the following: • Updated FH and water service information as coordinated with Northern Colorado Water District and Windsor/Severance Fire District • Added the initial access to be off the existing access road until the RM Sports Park is constructed and at that time the sheet labeled "F" for future will have the access directed across from the RM Sports Park • Added parking tables and reduced parking to closer match required counts but maintained event and overflow parking • Updated grading (to closer balance on earthwork • Updated storm piping and pond releases to control release beyond existing residence to the Southeast • General clean up Please call with questions! Thank you, Chad Chadwin F. Cox, PE WESTERN ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS inc LLC 127 South Denver Avenue — Ft. Lupton/ CO 80621 2501 Mill St - Brush/ CO 80723 Ft. Lupton Office 720-685-9951 Brush Cell 303-913-7341 Fax 720-294-1330 email: chadwin.cox@westerneci.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message transmission, and any attachments, is intended only for use by the recipient and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify our office at (303) 913-7341 and permanently delete any hard or digital copies. Thank you in advance for your responsiveness. 1 Diana Aungst From: Chadwin F Cox <chadwin.cox@westerneci.com> Sent Sunday, August 19, 2018 9:48 PM To: Diana Aungst Subject: RE: Updated USR 18-0042 Hi Diana, We have 4 ADA in front of the Brewery, 4 ADA in front of the Restaurant, and 2 ADA in front of the Event Barn (10 total) . Per ADA code we only need 1 ADA stall per 25 regular parking stalls so we are near doubled up (provided 10 for only 120 parking stalls). Call with questions! Thank you, Chad Chadwin F. Cox, PE WESTERN ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Inc LLC 127 South Denver Avenue — Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 2501 Mill St - Brush, CO 80723 Ft. Lupton Office 720-685-9951 Brush Cell 303-913-7341 Fax 720-294-1330 email: chadwin.cox@westerneci.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message transmission, and any attachments, is intended only for use by the recipient and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify our office at (303) 913-7341 and permanently delete any hard or digital copies. Thank you in advance for your responsiveness. From: Diana Aungst [mailto:daungst@weldgov.com] Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 8:15 PM To: chadwin.cox@westerneci.com Subject: RE: Updated USR 18-0042 Chad Please also send me the number of ADA stalls. 1 Thanks, Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 D: 970-400-3524 O: 970-400-6100 Fax:970-304-6498 daungst(weldgov.com www.we l dgov. co m V Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Diana Aungst Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 6:38 PM To: 'chadwin.cox@westerneci.com' <chadwin.cox@westerneci.com> Subject: RE: Updated USR 18-0042 Please send me this Excel spread sheet. Are there really only 29 employees? Parking labile Building, Sewn Foote Suits ur ameli'y a Erniioyen S P`a►rbinrg Code P aridly lk Required Fatal nle. paired Parking SpitiPit Ptottlied ■■ti Co$ttite illtItilVil r ii 1per &seatsI Z' titer,' Um 4 .54-10 1 per 101 1 45 dB {Il IS:is I 11 11 per 7 a air or pl!4 q 1 ti r 1�� is thoworlf I LitailI ippreseguil Metall L200 tper SIa let I ton Ili 364 Pee Thanks, Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM Planner II C */ ni -ttlgw piairlogis 1 n I 2 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631 D: 970-400-3524 O: 970-400-6100 Fax:970-304-6498 daungstweldgov.com vrrww.weldgov.com Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Chadwin F Cox <chadwin.cox@westerneci.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 2:59 PM To: Diana Aungst cdaungst@weldgov.com>; 'Cheryl Sweet' ccheryl@thewhitegable.com> Subject: Updated USR 18-0042 Afternoon Ladies, Please find the entire USR18-0042 set updated. https://westerneci.sharefile.com/d-sd370f8dd0a94becb Updates included the following: • Updated FH and water service information as coordinated with Northern Colorado Water District and Windsor/Severance Fire District • Added the initial access to be off the existing access road until the RM Sports Park is constructed and at that time the sheet labeled "F" for future will have the access directed across from the RM sports Park • Added parking tables and reduced parking to closer match required counts but maintained event and overflow parking • Updated grading (to closer balance on earthwork • Updated storm piping and pond releases to control release beyond existing residence to the Southeast • General cleanup Please call with questions! Thank you, Chad Chadwin F. Cox, PE 3 WESTERN ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Inc LLC 127 South Denver Avenue — Ft Lupton, CO 80621 2501 Mill St - Brush/ CO 80723 Ft. Lupton Office 720-685-9951 Brush Cell 303-913-7341 Fax 720-294-1330 email: chadwin.coxwesterneci.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message transmission, and any attachments, is intended only for use by the recipient and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify our office at (303) 913-7341 and permanently delete any hard or digital copies. Thank you in advance for your responsiveness. 4 August 9, 2018 We are writing to address some misconceptions, concerns and provide additional information with regard to other questions that have been raised. Most all of these are already answered in the questionnaire and the civil engineering drainage and septic design submitted to the county and which appear on the website. 1) We were instructed to list all future possibilities for the property. However, some of these may not ever be completed and not all at once. 2) The USR requires a complete civil engineering study with regard to drainage and septic system. There are limits to the total size of the septic systems for the size of this property and that is addressed in the studies. The studies clearly show three septic systems (residential house, restaurant/bakery and event barn). These are within the required limits without a state permit. Sewer is not available at this time. The second house does not require a USR. Septic would have to be approved for a building permit. Again this is a possibility, but no construction is anticipated in the next several years and possibly never. It's only on the site plan to show the location. 3) The event barn is limited to Friday -Sunday events for weddings and charity events. There is a possibility for small private dinners throughout the week. 4) Parking for the event barn events will be limited to weekends. Concerns about noise and lights are fully addressed in the Questionnaire. Noise is limited to inside the event barn and any live music at the restaurant outdoors for summer evenings on the grass would be acoustic only. The south side of the parking lot for the event barn will have screening for lights. The parking lot is far north of the residence to the south and that property is fully screen with mature large evergreen type trees. Also cars would be arriving during daylight hours and leaving in the evening when headlights would be on. However, some summer events would end prior to sunset. Overhead lighting would be pointed down and the minimum fixtures required by the county would be installed. We would prefer a hometown feel rather than a commercial look. 5) There is a reference to concern for dust. All parking would be with recycled asphalt (not traditional asphalt) for a more natural look. There will be no dirt lots, so there would be no anticipated dust issue. 6) A concern was raised about the safety of livestock. The residence to the south is more than 300' from the lower end of the event barn parking. There is no road that would go beyond the south end of the event barn parking lot. The guests at these events would be dressed for a party or a wedding and would not be wandering through pasture grasses or snow off the property. There are horses across the greenbelt in Valley view on one property. The parking lot would be screened for lights and we have talked to the property owner with regard to screening. 7) The building marked brewery would likely have to wait to be built until the property is on sewer, which is years away. The property could not support another septic system without state approval. There is also a high demand of water for a brewery and the water district would have to approve the water use as well. It would be more likely this building would be a small retail store for home decor, restaurant related items, and/or the sale of flowers grown on the property. 8) There will be a small bar in the restaurant, but no hours beyond 10pm. 9) The plans on the property did not include the actual site plan which shows a 2 acre raised bed farm in the middle of the west side of the property. The produce grown will be used in the restaurant. Another partial use of the farm area could possibly be to grow local flowers. The event barn has also been carefully and purposely located on the plan to not obstruct the view of the residence located northeast of the property. 10) CDOP has commented that the increase in traffic that is already on the CR74 would not be significantly increased. A traffic study is pending. 11) There is mention of residences on four side of the property. There is one residence to the west, one residence to the south and 2 residences to the east. The property to the north has no residences across from the property and is owned by the investors of the Rocky Mountain Sports Park. 11) The intention is to enhance the property with beautiful natural landscaping and create a family friendly environment. Cheryl Sweet From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Cheryl Sweet Paul Hornbeck; cmalone@windsorgov.com Nicole Smith; Diana Aungst USR - 7674 CR 74 Saturday, August 11, 2018 10:31:17 AM The following is to address the comments from Windsor regarding our USR application. Some of the comments are already addressed or included in the plans and Questionnaire submitted with our application. There are duplicate questions or comments throughout the Windsor response so I will just list answers below as I best I can. 1) Traffic/Parking - We do have a TIS pending with Sustainable Traffic Solutions. The driveway entrance has been moved to the access road with our desired entrance still showing across from the RMSP property. We have discussed the eventual entrance with their owner's rep, Steve Chasteen. Their original desired entrance is directly across from ours. Our project was not known at the time of their TIS. We have also talked to 2 of the 4 residents in. Valley View and they are definitely opposed to having their entrance be part of a "intersection" with a light. With our project, it makes sense to go back to the RMSP desired entrance. They actually change their entire plan for the south side of their property to accommodate the valley View entrance which makes their traffic flow from their HWY 257 entrance thru the property to CR 74. The future connection of RMSP to our property seems to make the most sense and less disruptive to the road. It also moves the light signal further away from HWY 257 which is alwaysmore desirable. There is more than one reference to residences to the north. There are actually no homes to the north of our property as this is the site of RMSP. So lights from the parking lot would not be a problem. Windsor knows RMSP owns this property with the one house across CR74 being vacant and the other is the headquarters for RMSP. We are open to reducing the number of parking spaces across the north of the property. In the questionnaire answers it also states that the Brewery or Retail building will be a future project. We would have to be on sewer, which is currently not available, and be able to acquire enough water form NWCWD to ever do this project. This was always. a potential project for the property and not one we would do right away. Screening for parking at the event barn on the east and south side of the property is more important and we have carefully considered options. There is mention of a 45' right of way. The title report when the property was purchased states 40'. This was confirmed by the county as well. The fire hydrant and new water meter for the residence were placed according to this. The property was also surveyed showing 40' and not 45'. NWCWD also used 40' as their guideline. CDOT has already commented that the traffic would be less than 20% of the current traffic and they would wait for the RMSP to make any further comments. 2) Water - We discussed water with NWCWD prior to purchasing the property and already have in place the water tap and water needs for the property. NWCWD also recently approved 2 water taps per property. The decision was then made to do a regular 3/4' tap for the residence and a 1" tap for the commercial properties. 3) Fire - This is already addressed in the USR application. We have thoroughly discussed the project as well as. the residential home with Sandi Freidrichsen, the fire marshal for Windsor -Severance Fire and Rescue. She helped us plan the location of the fire hydrant, which is on the plans, for the restaurant/bakery and event barn. This was carefully place to code no more than 150' from the event barn and no more than 300' from the restaurant/bakery. The event barn would also have a sprinkler system. The restaurant has the required suppression system in the kitchen. The fire hydrant that was just installed for the residence was also specifically located so it could be a back up to the "commercial" use hydrant. 4) Annexation - With regard to annexation of the property, we were told by Pau 1 in a meeting we had several months ago, that we would not be considered unless we are on sewer, He also told us the property might not be in a "basin" that would allow connection to sewer. If this has changed, we would be happy to meet with the town, There is a site plan that should not have been included (red markings on the plan). This was actually preliminary plan. I have attached a current plan. The third page shows the driveway moved, but also has our future desired entrance. I hope this has provided the additional information you are looking for. Cheryl Sweet Hello