Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File Documents.905 Chatfield Rd.0111.2018 (156).ARBK
Reviewed by Engineering 02/22/2019 8:59:54 AM "It should be known that this review shall not relieve the applicant of their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the City of Aspen.The review and approval by the City is offered only to assist the applicant's understanding of the applicable Engineering requirements."The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. DRAINAGE REPORT FOR 905 CHATFIELD ROAD CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 273502402004 PREPARED FOR: CCY ARCHITECTS 228 Midland Ave, Basalt, CO 81621 PREPARED BY: High Country Engineering, Inc. 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8676 March 15, 2018 Revised January 22, 2019 HCE JOB NUMBER: 2171053.00 RECEIVED Page 1 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 4 II. DRAINAGE STUDIES 5 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 5 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 5 V. CONCLUSION 11 VI. REFERENCES 11 EXHIBITS: 1. Vicinity Map (8.5"x11") 2. FEMA FIRM Map 08097CO203C (11"x17") 3. Soils Report HP Kumar Geotechnical Report, 2017 Subsoil Study 4. Web Soil Survey USDA NRCS Map 5. Existing Drainage Basin Map 6. Proposed Drainage Basin Map APPENDICES: Hydrologic Computations • Existing Conditions • Proposed Conditions Hydraulic Computations • Detention Volume Cales PR-1 and PR-2 • Water Quality Vault and Detention Vault PR-1 South • Bioretention Pond PR-2 North • Bioretention Overflow Weir Calculations • Pipe Sizing Hydraulic Grade • Swale Sizing • Nyloplast Inlet Calculations Aspen Charts and Figures RECEIVED Paget 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Engineers Certification "I hereby affirm that this report and the accompanying plans for the construction of driveway,patio, residence and general site improvements of 905 Chatfield Drive was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision)for the owners thereof in accordance with the provisions of the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan and approved variances are exceptions listed thereto. I understand that it is the policy of the City of Aspen that the City of Aspen does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others. " ••...•••••.••• .•A $4.•'�.P . yC• O ' cn :0 0' : 38823 : ,,,,j,,,/,2,__,4,17iv.,.. 1:11):3' .. 1-22-2019 (5' • License No. 38823 •' -/GNAL• .-.." FOR AND ON BEHALF OF Romeo Baylosis, P.E. HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. Licensed Professional Engineer,State of Colorado RECEIVED Page 3 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE A. Location The proposed site at 905 Chatfield Road, Lot 4, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing 3 is located southwest of the intersection of Silver King Drive and Homestake Drive. The site is northwest of the Aspen Golf Course Club House, within the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. A Vicinity Map has been included as Exhibit#1. B. Description of Property The proposed site is approximately 15,000 square feet +/- (0.34 acres). The existing lot consists of a 2 story existing home with decks, patios, retaining walls, lawn, sidewalk entry, and driveway that will be a tear down and replace. There are mature spruce and aspen throughout the property, manicured lawn and bushes. A tree removal map has already been created for the site by the Landscape Architect for exact tree types, sizes and removals. The remaining trees on the site will be protected from the proposed construction activities per the City Foresters recommendations. Homestake Drive runs east and west, directly east of the property. This is the main access road for the driveway leaving the site. The site currently picks up offsite flows from a small section of Homestake Drive, these flows will be directed through the site as historically occurred. C. Lot Soils Description Within the area of study, there is generally one type of soil per the attached geotechnical reports which define the subsoils as 3-4' of "mixed clay, sand and gravel fill, consist of dense, silty to slightly silty sandy gravel with cobbles and probable boulders to the boring depths of 7-12'. Subsoil borings are described as "fill; Silty, clayey sandy gravel, moist, mixed brown and gravel; silty to slightly silty, sandy, cobbles, probable boulders, dense, slightly moist, brown, rounded rock." Based on the NRCS, the soil type is designated as soil 107, Uracca, moist-Mergel complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes, having an HSG soil type "B" rating. The NRCS soil map is included as Exhibit 4. Under the URMP Chapter 3 definitions of soils types this site would fall into type "A" soils, but type "A" soils are not allowed to be used within the City of Aspen boundary. Due to the attached geotech reports and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapping and more accurate information and gradations for the site specific soils a type `B" soil will be used for calculations. See Exhibit 3 for the soils report information. The site specific geotechnical and soil studies were completed by HP Kumar on December 26th, 2017, Project No. 17-7-830. Ground water was not encountered within the geotech borings of up to 12' in depth. Percolation rates in the December 26th report vary from 120 inches per hour to 18.2 in/hr (0.5 — 3.3 minutes per inch). The percolation test was conducted in the 4-inch diameter borehole `B-1" on December 6, 2017 at a hole depth of 120 inches. The hydraulic conductivity of the soil sample is approximately 3x10-a ft/s. The percolation rate show that the site is a great receptor to underground detention facilities capturing surface water that would now run off at an increased rate to the roadway or irrigation ditch to be able to percolate into the soils as in historic conditions. RECEIVED Page4 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT D. Description of Project Goals The proposed project will consist of full site demolition including existing structures and features on the site and construction of a new residence on the lot. The site layout will include a new single family home, driveway, sidewalk, patios/pavers, and lawn. There will be no change to the overall site drainage patterns caused by this development. Homestake Drive drainage stays within the ROW to the east of the lot and flows to the north. The drainage on the site will travel around the home to the south and north, then west into the Maroon Creek drainage below. This is how the site currently is drained and historically drained. Peak runoff flow rates will be kept to historic rates. See attached basin maps for existing and proposed site layout(Exhibits 5 & 6). II. DRAINAGE STUDIES A. Major Basin Description The proposed site is located on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 08097CO203C (Exhibit#2)which has an effective date of June 4, 1987. The site is located in Zone-X, this zone is described as areas determined to be outside 100-year and 500-year floodplains. There are no major drainage ways, facilities, or easements within the property boundary, nor are there any irrigation facilities that will impact the proposed construction. Mud flow mapping per the WRC Engineering report was analyzed for the site. This site is outside of the study area. The Mud Flow Zone mapping in the Storm Drainage Master Plan for the City of Aspen, Colorado by WRC Engineering, Inc. in November of 2001 was utilized for this section. B. Previous Drainage Studies There are no previous site specific drainage studies for the site. The proposed site is located outside of the Study Area Boundary for the "Storm Drainage Plan for the City of Aspen" by WRC Engineering, Inc. in November 2001 and outside of the 100-yr flooding locations denoted in the study. C. Receiving System and Effects of Adjacent Drainage Issues There are no drainage issues with the adjacent properties that affect the site. The site all flows to the west into the Maroon Homeplace LLC which is a 51 acre parcel and encompasses Maroon Creek within its boundary. Storm flows will make their way down the thick brush on the hillside and into the wetlands and the end of stage drive below that flows directly to Maroon Creek and the Roaring Fork River. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA RECEIVED Pages 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT A. Criteria This drainage study was prepared in conformance with the City of Aspen, Colorado Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP), dated December. More than 1,000 square feet of area will be disturbed with the proposed construction; therefore the site is viewed as a Major Project per the URMP. More than 25-percent of the site is being disturbed, so water quality for the entire site will be necessary per the URMP. The existing site was analyzed in its historic condition (i.e. grass). The offsite basins consisting of roadway, gravel parking and ROW grass areas were analyzed as existing (open space and impervious area) per the URMP. Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) will be determined for the site as per the URMP standards. The WQCV is defined as the treatment for up to the 80th percentile runoff event, corresponding to between a 6-month to 1-year event. The WQCV was determined using the equations and Figure 8.13 from Chapter 8 of the URMP. The WQCV equation is: Volume (ft3)=WQCV in watershed inches x 1 ft/12 in x area(acres)x 43,560 ft2/acre. B. Hydrologic Criteria The hydrologic methods for this study are outlined in the URMP from the City of Aspen, Colorado (December, 2014) for the Rational Method. Hydrologic calculations were performed using the Rational Method hydrology model in Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis. The rainfall amounts for each basin were obtained using Figure 2.1 "IDF Curves for Aspen, Colorado" in the URMP publication from the City of Aspen, Colorado. Using these curves, the rainfall intensity corresponding to the 2-yr, 1-hr storm, 5-yr, 1-hr storm, 10-yr, 1-hr storm, and 100-yr, 1-hr storm event were determined based on the time of concentration for each basin. Figure 3.2 from the URMP was used to determine the runoff coefficients for the 2-year, 5- year, 10-year and 100-year storm events since the soils were determined to be type `B" soils. The Rational Method was used for detention volumes and determining historic versus proposed peak runoff flow rates. In accordance with Chapter 8 of the URMP design procedure and criteria, proposed BMP sizing was calculated for comparing the WQCV and the 100-year event runoff volume. The proposed above grade WQ and below grade detention structures were sized using the URMP rational method detention volume calculation equations. The stormwater vaults and bioretention pond have been sized to accommodate WQCV and detention for basin PR-1 and PR-2. The vaults on the south side of the property have been designed to hold the WQ and Detention requirements for basin PR-1. Bioretention pond on the north side of the property has been designed to hold the WQ and Detention requirements for basin PR-2. Type `B" soils were utilized for the site per the onsite geotechnical study and a percolation RECEIVED Page6 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT rate of 3.3 min/inch was utilized for the facilities on the site. The below grade facilities will capture the runoff for the onsite 10-year and 100-year storm events through the vaults, and bioretention pond and percolation rates. The release structures for south basin is are pipes with orifice caps to release to a level spreading area and into the Maroon Creek basin below. All charts and figures mentioned from the URMP are located in the last section of the appendices under the "Aspen Charts/Figures" section. C. Hydraulic Criteria The open channels, storm pipes, and inlets were sized using Autodesk Hydraflow Storm Sewers and Express Extensions for Civil 3D. A 50-percent clogging factor was multiplied by the 100-year discharge rate for proper grate sizing on all inlets as outlined in the URMP. D. Site Constraints Per City code vaults and drywells cannot be placed within 10' of a structure. The proposed stormwater vaults are located more than 10' from the building foundation and the proposed bioretention is designed with an impervious liner and underdrain to eliminate percolation toward the structure. The size of the lot, setback requirements, easements and existing trees are all considered site constraints. The amount of actual surface area not taken up by these constraints and the proposed building limit the available locations for bioretention and detention facilities. The proposed design is focused around breaking up WQ and detention facilities into smaller areas and capturing and treating all the water prior to it leaving the site efficiently. E. Easements,Irrigation Facilities,Waterways There are no major drainage easements or tracts located on the site. There are standard zoning setbacks from property lines and utility easements along the property line. However, these easements do not affect the proposed site drainage design. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. Existing Subbasins The existing site's historic drainage patterns are from southeast to northwest, then flow offsite to the west. Onsite flows drain from southeast to northwest on the property. Runoff from the Homestake Drive crown drains toward Chatfield Road, then flows north along Chatfield Road. There is a grade break in the ROW on the west side of Chatfield Road that redirects the offsite flow northwest from Homestake Drive. The offsite flows from Chatfield Road and Homestake Drive are conveyed in a northwest direction across the northeast corner of 905 Chatfield and through the adjacent neighboring property. Offsite flows mimic the existing drainage pattern and will bypass the site along the lawn, then past the northeast corner of 905 Chatfield Road. The existing historic surface area conditions were analyzed to determine the historic RECEIVED Page7 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT peak flow and calculate detention. The historic conditions encompass approximately 16,200 square feet (0.372 acres) and is assumed in the predevelopment conditions. The ground cover includes no structures and consists of steep to gently sloped range mixed with grass and brush. Historic impervious area is assumed to only include the paved asphalt surface of Chatfield Road and Homestake Drive. The difference in historic versus proposed conditions were evaluated to reduce peak runoff rates to historic rates and determine the amount of storm water quality and detention volume. Offsite flows do not contribute to the onsite flows that will be treated for water quality and detention. The historic site has been broken into two onsite drainage. Refer to sheet C-DR-EX, Existing Drainage Basins (Exhibit #5) for the existing basin map. Basin EX-1 encompasses approximately 2/3rds of the lot from the southern property line and drains to Design Point 1. Basin EX-2 encompasses the remaining 1/3rd of the lot up to the northern property line and drains to Design Point 2. Chatfield Road runs south to north of the home along the east front lot line. The flows from each existing onsite basin are analyzed versus the corresponding proposed basin to determine the required WQCV and detention. The existing historic peak runoff rate for each existing basin, as well as the entire site, are designed to provide WQCV and detention in the proposed basins to meet historic rates. Runoff from basin EX-1 sheet flows west, then to the west along the south side of the existing home and through the back yard to the northwest and into the Maroon Creek drainage. This flow converges with EX-2 flow at Design Point 1. Runoff from basin EX-2 sheet flows northwest across the front eastern property line, then to the west along the north side of the existing home and into the Maroon Creek drainage. This flow converges with EX-1 flow at Design Point 2. Table 1. Existing Basin Characteristics BASIN AREA IMPERVIOUS C I Q10-YEAR C I Q100-YEAR SF AREA SF 10 YR 10 YR CFS 100 YR 100 YR CFS EX-1 11900 0 0.15 3.72 0.15 0.35 6.32 0.60 EX-2 4300 0 0.15 3.72 0.06 0.35 6.32 0.22 ONSITE ONSITE TOTAL 0.21 TOTAL 0.82 The onsite flows pertain to the historic site flows only. Existing historic runoff peak flow rates from the site are analyzed versus the corresponding proposed basin. Release rate to Design Point 1 (northwest corner of lot) will be the analysis of EX-1 versus PR-1. Release rate to Design Point 2 (northwest of terrace and lawn) will be the analysis of EX-2 versus PR-2. B. Proposed Subbasins The proposed site has been separated into two proposed onsite drainage basins. Refer to sheet C-DR-PR Proposed Drainage Basins, Exhibit #6, in the exhibit section for the proposed basin map and drainage design. RECEIVED Page8 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Basin PR-1 consists of the majority of the home and southern property area including the building, roof, onsite driveway, front lawn and sidewalk to the main entry. The south side of the home and the majority of the roof and patios drain to the proposed stormwater vaults. The driveway is proposed impervious paving which sheet flows to a trench drain that is piped to the stormwater quality and detention vaults. The east side of the proposed garage and main entry represent a terrain trap, therefore, a factor of safety is designed for the stormwater facilities draining the east half of Basin PR-1. Storm structures and pipes are designed to convey the 100-year event for the entire PR-1 to protect the property. The water quality and detention vaults are separate underground structures. Water Quality Vault "A" provides temporary ponding in the pretreatment chamber, then captures the WQCV in the sand filter and percolation chamber. Outflow from Water Quality Vault "A" is conveyed to Detention Vault`B". The WQCV for this basin was calculated at 102 CF. Pretreatment of 31 CF (0.3x103) is captured in the water quality vault's pretreatment chamber, and 103 CF is captured in the WQCV chamber. By restricting the 100-yr storm runoff rate in Basin PR-1 to the historic release rate of 0.60 cfs, the required detention is 125 CF in Detention Vault `B". The detention vault captures 125 CF with a ponding depth of 3.3 feet. Additional detention volume is available in the vault's filter material, but is conservatively negligible. Furthermore, no infiltration is attributed to the percolation rate of 18.2 inches/hour (3.3 minutes/inch)which provides additional reduction for percolation volume. Detention Vault `B" includes a 100-year orifice control outlet restricting the proposed runoff rate to the historic release rate. The orifice releases runoff at the historic rate to outlet pipes which convey major flows exceeding the 100-yr storm west and offsite into the Maroon Creek Drainage. The control outlet consist of two 8" diameter ADS N-12 culverts with a 6"diameter orifice cap attached to each outflow culvert to daylight. The vault outfall includes a level spreading mechanism consisting of the two 8" diameter culverts routed to a level spreading perforated pipe encased in concrete. The maximum velocity in the culverts for the 100-year storm threshold is calculated to be 1.9 feet per second. The level spreader will further dissipate overflows over the length of the perforated pipe. Basin PR-2 consists of the smaller portion of the home and northern property area including the building, roof and lawn. Roof drains are routed to the home's north side then conveyed to a swale that flows along the north side to the proposed bioretention pond area. The swale conveys flow to Bioretention Pond "A" for stormwater quality treatment and detention. The WQCV for this basin was calculated at 20.4 CF. WQCV provided is 21 CF within the rain garden, growing media and filter material. By restricting the 100-yr storm runoff rate in Basin PR-2 to the historic release rate of 0.22 cfs, the required detention is 12 CF in Bioretention Pond "A". Due to the proximity to the structure, the pond is designedit CEIVED Page9 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT underdrains and an impermeable liner. The pond provides 28 CF of ponding water quality and detention volume above the growing media and 8 CF in the filter material voids. The pond provides a total volume of 36 CF including the pond volume and filter material voids. The pond utilizes underdrain piping with outlet orifice designed to restrict the peak outflow to historical rates after treating runoff in the rain garden growing media and filter material. The pond outlet also includes an outlet weir to convey major flows exceeding the 100-year storm west and offsite into the Maroon Creek drainage. The maximum headwater depth above the weir crest is calculated to be 0.13' for events exceeding the 100-year storm. Table 2. Proposed Basin Characteristics BASIN AREA IMPERVIOUS C I Q10-YEAR C I Q100-YEAR SF AREA SF 10 YR 10 YR CFS 100 YR 100 YR CFS PR-1 13600 6230 0.39 3.72 0.45 0.51 6.32 1.01 PR-2 3500 1130 0.33 3.72 0.10 0.49 6.32 0.25 ONSITE ONSITE TOTAL 0.55 1.26 I TOTAL The impervious percentage for each basin was used to determine the WQCV in watershed inches on Figure 8.13. Level 1 adjustment was not used for any of the basins to be conservative since this site is very confined and has a minimal amount of release locations available. The 10-year and 100-year detention volume tables can be seen in the report appendices. Table 3. Proposed WQCV Table WQCV IMPERVIOUS PERCENT (Watershed BASIN AREA(S.F.) AREA(SF) IMPERVIOUS inches) WQCV (CF) PR-1 13600 6230 45.8% .09 102.0 PR-2 3500 1130 32.3% .07 20.4 Onsite 17100 7360 43.0% 122.4 C. Low Impact Site Design The proposed site design incorporates low impact site design criteria from the URMP. Roof downspouts will drain to grassed swales, that will convey drainage to the proposed WQ/detention facilities. Unnecessary impervious areas were avoided, such as minimizing the driveway width and utilizing sand set stepping stones with grass joints throughout the project. The bioretention pond utilizes an underdrain system below the filter material which provides water quality and detention. A level spreader is incorporated at the water quality and detention vaults to mimic the historic drainage pattern and avoiding point discharge. All storm water produced by the site will be conveyed through the WQ/detention systems, thus reducing the transfer of pollutants to the existing irrigation ditch and ultimately Maroon Creek. RECEIVED Page 10 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT D. Operation and Maintenance The vaults will need to be inspected and cleared of rubbish and debris quarterly to make sure that the filter media has not become clogged and is functioning properly. The filter material will be cleaned or replaced as the material shows sign of clogging. The replacement of this material may occur every two to five years. The open end of the overflow pipe must also be inspected to make sure it has not clogged. Review of the overflow structure should occur at least every 6 months or after large storm events. The bioretention pond shall be inspected after large storm events to determine if the filter media is functioning properly and has not been washed away. If material becomes clogged, replacement material must be installed. The filter material will be cleaned or replaced as the material shows sign of clogging. The replacement of this material may occur every two to five years. Review of the overflow structure should occur at least every 6 months or after large storm events. The proposed area inlets shall be inspected and cleared of rubbish and debris quarterly as well as after large storm events. The inlet basin and sump shall be inspected to insure proper function while keeping a majority of the large particles from reaching downstream facilities. If debris is observed within any inlets, then the grates shall be removed and each basin shall be emptied and vacuumed clean to keep sediment from going to the vaults. The owners of the property will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the drainage facilities. The property owner shall dispose of sediment and any other waste material removed from a reservoir at suitable disposal sites and in compliance with local, state, and federal waste regulations. V. CONCLUSION A. Compliance with Standards This drainage report has been prepared in accordance with City of Aspen Regulations. The proposed stormwater facilities will capture the WQCV as well detain site runoff before releasing to the top bluffs above Maroon Creek. Runoff leaving the site will be less than or equal to historic runoff rates. Runoff entering the stormwater facilities will not leave the property unless the storm exceeds major event frequency. The site's design has been prepared to be in compliance with the City of Aspen's URMP. B. Drainage Concept The proposed drainage system is designed to control any adverse downstream impacts on landowners or structures by conveying stormwater site similar to the existing pattern at levels less than or equal to historic runoff rates. Water quality will be addressed by capturing and treating pollutant laden runoff in stormwater quality and detention facilities. RECEIVED Page 11 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT VI. REFERENCES City of Aspen, Colorado: Design and Construction Standards, June 2005. City of Aspen, Colorado: Urban Runoff Management Plan. April 2010. WRC Engineering, Inc. Storm Drainage Master Plan for the City of Aspen, Colorado. November 2001. HP Geotechnical, Inc. Subsoil Study For Foundation Design Proposed 905 Chatfield Road Drive, Aspen, Colorado. December 26th, 2017, Job number. HP Geotechnical, Inc. Percolation Testing for Drywell Design and Update of Previous Report, 1655 Silver King Drive, Aspen, Colorado. September 30th, 2014, Job number 17- 7-83. UDFCD. www.udfcd.org. RECEIVED Page 12 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXHIBITS REcEWED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT __,,,__ ,„/,, ., Exhibit 1 r` N .r, .4 , .. wt' ' , V n(,)v,i \780 , . ,'o QOQ o00 3 , \,y-0 ' 144" .'''''' `\ \ It :\ \:\ o, 80°0 1 co \ toad o � c m o/,w 'a ,' ''8 il oco . O G V/` \\%\ QQ eftTd.. r ` I o SiV\ \.� N , w0 //et A... p o� I `78QQ -,__________.,--- CO \ rive ‘,13 t 1 Site do . Site �estd'ce, � � ro: — 1 / �` ,� �Ve \ �5. \ S o co '1 ro I— o Veep / p '/ n o 1 \\ CO / a 0 , 1111 cc m i Tr i r —i ow Bunny Lane ( ._�� 1 . I I / ii . ♦`�' •I � i /` J I D ' 0� `` •� �.. o I Lam`q 1 1 0 �O,>; did^ a�'t • I,' / 1 1 /d 1"'. ... / _ • • o • • co // 1 Oo • •I\\ —_.. . I a l J.,1 i ........ %. —,../4\_ % m a ``\ O Q •` I d 1 \ ' \ l `\ e� ti `• i I �'/ F o o I• U ....\• e / r') / • 1 .___ 0.�� �• ---00-82k_ - e , .' . ` • �� •�1 I.,m1_ `� Mercator Projection 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 km N WGS84 ❑�Iv+❑. MN USNG Zone 13SCD 1 `,. 90 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5mi 711'•, 1 /2019 CalTopo.com Scale 1:8116 1 inch = 676 feet ❑ i �, ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 4 B C D E F G H ./ roe°t 1 Tit\ LEGEND ``\\\ , - ;ZONE X NOTE:MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN TOWNSHIP IO SOUTH,RANGE 05 WEST `� - , MAKIN COUNT=_� ,�; \ 7i O eYrc�v/.ianr.=.".(""---,E. rml' t711 --�OF ASPEN I� ;0-'1r` :a ZONE CO I TT�\.11pv?_ .�` 17J6 zon(AN .�,..,.�.en r .,.n � ZONE z PITKIN COUNTY I '1j``(• . �`oVyi\: 7 P ZONE AO - •;^AnaM� `n ses nF6 UNLNCORPN110TFDAREAS---1_1\ _ ;pK',_. 7� ITKIN COUNTY 3 I _, /° - \ 7742 UNINCORPORATED AREAS fDNE A rw�..I now on�.Mew Now , Q _ ZONE AE , ZONE cm R••• ZONE X..........____0,1.4', V La :,Zti 111--+` ZONE% UNE YE Cal.(swuwer-...•eu...�r�r...770 I §ZONE% I\o ` 17W l�J,-J-JnT i AREAS INZWEAE 7749 *n/ -1767 ZONE% w 1�i,� zawE• ,.n a soo, w. ♦A(IONAL FOREST 90UNOARY ZONE AE I N,L I{'/ ,+-, •,.� O L4—,'x,} (`jlJl �I e ' .1 mys t..I °y w mom O. • /%r/J68 .ur,woa �. '1 ZONE AE /- ) I ON I.,,. J7 ZONE% .N 'G//14° 3 / ZO EX / \ ,ZONE 1;J l I vz'vnr(at(.ssr .. nw sou 1,66 {� •♦.� s!` zon[0 ........... now wen,. /T60 ZONE X <'ti , !, Aft.+,.ran PITKIN COUNTY � „7r - �� z. r •an 7777 /C I—- ♦ c}!Y'r.y IMw Ilwna.n i�V 7JJ5 v..._.UNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS i L �I` , '' : II Zm.°;m,nuY nNT+ (F-1T 1 n,Sp•awl rwwD80287 t � Jam' S�L@ ( 7'8DZONE AE Tsy r "' 'a upZn06ne\ .o � Inesnt s �y...� •+•.t tom. r.a Anserb.a ENNtNew nand s. , CITY OF ASPEN =' . .. a< a ` 6}., -yL�Jp9 RD.,NlnG/DAL R!Il.R Wa ,isO\-r,-It c f i \\ �. ,(�i,9a ZONE X . ,I/ ,\' el ten inn u�i°•111,1m11 ,°.,• ^ Pal p iOT 1i7` 7NEX p'g MIN IN.rw°41nn,<Ms,, 7906 809 4- .. \ /: 7•� ;4) v ,.m.°n,rNUT;SMe Fax i,,..,.,,..,e,. ZONE% 'o,Id9] y ins I r /9r. A ic:- _)� ; I n. ere• �I�N�1{ 1���I�WI Vi �nn..n a dna wt.6r19. uq ,/Jazz ^ I11If�fj�� `� 16i A^ `! eiw,.nn<N«°0.0.1..�Air•Nelaµ o/A.. WeZONEX '819• /6'I \` �/L19 it _ V� 11 '• n U�tl4LIAN-,gr. j/,.lXWnooan Yernnvav •IlomNr..,,,..,m•r r r°...•4 10 y �' I LAAf �11 , 1 \IZWM.M1.N m.u<un. °la°r.. s,ern -79]6 O ° n hvdrJ Im er L ,..nf een odes entbrnuna whe o.«vv.m.m. ,876ZONE AE \\ is,(.I I � �.�� 18.T8N Im rr,a rm' '<an..°r .reC171'OE ASPEN- L Q 'e ?laT9 _'' ... bA � n��ss✓-�' .7 rna N nwm IWO rlwa mrrM. \787 i .--!`_� _ \.a AO er mn e.. o.aw.u.3 ,• 1O' 41E^w.YwNrgw.n.nbnwen Wrmeruoa m.,nonnn..�\ ! 7♦ze� QONE AE n _ / Oswr IE,P.+sa..e...a«.a,..,INa m�..Iwas awn•<.,9Q z^ - I „ �(5 i- - B 4•RonN omn.•oro wren,_of RI sae or On us.14 J em.sl.noel.wmm.m,n GONNA to OeN,mnN / ,� © s° o neMNlusial.amr..,.mLEIn.Nma..or,.. ii (� .l R. wwu�°in.Ned.(0 ofw RA_Yen SNARE Rom evolds mats \ .a Map 'sis)r \„ -ZONE X- '!\,86/ f n,rw m,P P n•N lead mere Ep SUA Ms. r __ro \. ' a I 7�\ )r ,,. . w mw lm.s roe Ws Remy a.enrn \ �!a \ Ln(rnvE DATE Of COUNTYWIDE Maly _ a \ i `--t� \ ' FLOOD INSURANCE RAF(MAP; ZONEX ZONEA \ © , / .- \ <n i .• : J ,w(...wr \ 7890 i�I''47 • 7913 )C \ ZONE X / 7918 ZONE X 7923 \ / ;hlJd / Ran us rm.Irma.Rare Leo ENE.M Ore. R Mr.to 9]9 \4 n/r Y l '_� - wow,..nw�...w.�e.�n1u.n.ew<e,...w,<....N.. �J P s ri.— V-. Jfl' \ re...mire v nma mw.am.N NOW.a Mt<wne...wa. �— / ,r I '� • 3 (,.muleJJ16�L66Non, C Ea call Me Nano.rbm L,w,.nu / ':o'.._ �'fJ9 i i o M IAnaoAIMAn ueu IN rut l WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST I �� / III 71i NATIONAL tE00A INSURANCE PAAAAAM j xI - _ZONE AE f ,--/ '''''' _., j ,: `, ��, 11 1 FIRM s71 I� / \ 9 ( I FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP / of":oo PITKIN COUNTY, L---� -- I' COLORADO AND 15 7 — j ( ,. �` INCORPORATED AREAS ZONE X )/***) PITKIN COUNTY 111 PANEL 203 OF 325 UNINCORPORATED AREAS t /' 080287/, ZONE r•; ZONE X % .n.<np r.� u, 20NE X .. ZONE A I' ••'re+mo••"••^N rm� fan < 6 '', P 111 .. , 1 1 , 1 0 VEr) 0 0 I1 EFFFCTI E OATE: ZONE A./7 02 yE1.48�2 019 /01E% '•�E��'�/�^7 `� �rO �I Federal EmergeRL.Nan ^Al.. ,n..,.AN..°,,, — — — — RTMENT H-P ti KU MAR 5020 County Road 154 "v Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Geotechnical Engineering I Engineering Geology Phone: (970)945-7988 Materials Testing I Environmental Fax:(970)945-8454 Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com Office Locations: Denver(HQ), Parker, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins,Glenwood Springs, Summit County,Colorado Exhibit 3 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED SILVERSTEIN RESIDENCE LOT 4, FILING 3,WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION 905 CHATFIELD ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 17-7-830 DECEMBER 26, 2017 PREPARED FOR: WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN 1569 FOREST ROAD HIGHLAND PARK,ILLINOIS 60035 (bsilverstein @ mainholdingsllc.com) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - 1 - FIELD EXPLORATION - 2 - SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - 2 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS - 3 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - 3 - FOUNDATIONS - 3 _ FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 4 - FLOOR SLABS - 6 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 6 - DRYWELL - 7 - SURFACE DRAINAGE - 7 - LIMITATIONS - 8 - FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 -LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 -LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4-GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1 -SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE 2-PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS RECEIVED 02/14/2019 H-PaKUMAR Project No. 17-7-830ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence located on Lot 4, Filing 1, West Aspen Subdivision, 905 Chatfield Road, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to Bill Silverstein, dated November 15, 2017. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our • conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed construction consists of a new residence in place of the existing residence as shown on Figure 1. The residence will be a 2-story structure with a partial basement level. Ground floors will be partly slab-on-grade and structural above crawlspace. Grading for the structure will be relatively minor with cut depths up to about 10 to 12 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The property is occupied with a single-story residence above a walkout lower level and 2-story slab-on-grade garage. The ground surface is somewhat irregular and gently to moderately sloping down to the west with about 15 feet of elevation difference across the building site. Vegetation consists of scattered aspen and evergreen trees and lawn sod. There was a mino I i') 02/14/2019 H-Pk, Project No. 17-7-830 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 2 - amount of snow on the lot at the time of our field exploration. A steep slope down to Maroon Creek is located just west of the property. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 6, 2017. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Drill rig access was limited to the eastern part of the property due to the existing residence and irregular terrain. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-45B drill rig and were logged by a representative of H-P/Kumar. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1%-inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils, below the topsoil and about 3 to 4 feet of mixed clay, sand and gravel fill, consist of dense, silty to slightly silty sandy gravel with cobbles and probable boulders to the boring depths of 7 to 12 feet. Drilling in the coarse granular soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and probable boulders and practical auger refusal was encountered in the deposit. The fill types and depths should be expected to vary across the property. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 11 -inch size fraction) of the natural granular soils are presented in Figure 4. The laboratory test results are summarized in Table 1. (ram1.8 R E 02/14/2019 H-P%KUMAR Project No. 17-7-830 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 3 - No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were moist to slightly moist with depth. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The natural granular soils encountered below the fill material and topsoil are adequate for support of spread footing foundations. The man-placed fill and topsoil should be completely removed from beneath proposed building areas. We expect excavation for the proposed residence will be cut down below the fill materials but the extent of existing fill and debris should be further evaluated at the time of excavation. The City of Aspen requires an engineered excavation stabilization plan if proposed foundations are within 15 feet of a neighboring structure or public travel way. The plan is not required if excavations are less than 5 feet below existing grades or further than 15 feet from travel ways and less than 15 feet deep. Slope bracing through use of a variety of systems such as micro-piles and soil nailing should be feasible at the site. A shoring contractor with experience in the area should provide design drawings to support the proposed excavation slopes where needed. Other City requirements may also be applicable. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils or a limited depth of structural fill should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. R f E I "A Ci) 02/14/2019 H-PMKUMAR Project No. 17-7-830 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT -4 - 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) The existing fill soils, topsoil, debris and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense, natural granular soils. The exposed soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. Structural fill placed to re-establish design bearing level should be limited to 5 feet in depth and should consist of a relatively well graded granular soil approved by the geotechnical engineer and compacted to at least 100% of standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. The fill should extend laterally out from the footing edges a distance at least equal to the depth of fill below the footing. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations and test compaction of structural fill prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils or imported granular materials. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the building and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed ones pk1 i 1. ‘ 1 it 02/14/2019 H-PkKUMAR Project No. 17-7-830 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 5 - the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site granular soils or imported granular materials. The backfill should not contain debris, topsoil or oversized (plus 6 inch) rock. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to over compact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. Increasing compaction to at least 98% of standard Proctor density could be used to help limit the settlement potential. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 450 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a relatively well graded granular soil compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. RECEIVE 02/14/2019 H-PiKIJMAR Project No. 17-7-830 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 6 - FLOOR SLABS The natural granular soils encountered below the existing fill are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4-inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on- site granular soils devoid of debris, topsoil and rock larger than about 6 inches. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has'been our experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet, drywell or sump and pump. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/z feet deep. C I Ci) 02/14/2019 H-PtKUMAR Project No. 17-7-830 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT -7 - DRYWELL Drywells and bio-swales are often used in the Aspen area for site water runoff detention and disposal. The natural granular soils encountered below the fill soils and topsoil are typically relatively free draining and should be suitable for surface water treatment and disposal as needed. The results of percolation testing performed in Boring 1, presented in Table 2, indicate an infiltration rate of about 3 minutes per inch. Bedrock and groundwater levels are generally known to be relatively deep compared to the proposed lower floor level and not affect drywell or bio-swale design. If a drywell is used, it should have solid casing down to at least 2 feet below adjacent basement floor level with perforations below that level. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the building has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be covered with filter fabric and capped with at least 2 feet of finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 5 feet from foundation walls. RECEIVED 02/14/2019 H-PauKUMAR Project No. 17-7-830 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 8 - LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at the time of this study. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the presence,prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully Submitted, KUMAR • tippo jo d ... Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. 4 1"222 427/) SLP/ksw °*. �, .f\ 4 • 44, f.% Ala '� cc: CCY Architects—Gage "`" reese @ccyarchitects.com) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 H-PkKUMAR Project No. 1 7-7-830AS P E N BUILDING DEPARTMENT / / / .R... ,.- / �.«:. � ,,•. ,_..7/7-'i1{ /, -.1 ...// / ,� _/ b 11wir Ir / / / . . _ _-- 1,- IrI , , i / 1 _ '` / _,/ ___ ,-EXISTING HOUSE TOI 1 1 1 1 I 1 I / 1 ._.\ \ \ j i \ _ ����� ``l� RE REMOVED Jv �1) I )//1/ ' \` \\ . �(7 / I/ -- _ i —1 /~ /- `I",/,6 / 1 I I I \ \ 1 . t �'� n� Y J/ J i 1 \ 1 \I L t / y J . c� / 1 \ BORING -,-,': \ 1 t PROPOSED NDA , I. r" r -.-.1---— EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN,TYP 'It t RES DENCE t �� / • `�. 1 rl r� 11 \ { f E -0 i E �.6. I i 41 t •- `*•`�ti. _ t •!r \ i I. AN 1- ON ia.1. t L- + --LMNG _ 1 tk l ' r �N i 99•b• / TERRACE t E+100,,D, r I E '•-6. / i! HOTTUfi '..---1----,---N .i_ . f i" PLANTER t _ IDN / 1 _ D i `I 99, 101/4•- r— t I11 "� '_. / 1 • i i•�4� ,'/ - _ % '` I' Li / ' I -�`�+ , EXIST.NG TREES TO /L _ �7��' / / i i f I ` \\ REMAIN,TYP /I 0 / 1 / l Tt._-EXISTING HOT L I / 1 k- ' 1 I { (t Il • \\\ \\\\\ 1 J t ,t TUB&TERRACE �_ / - - I 1 y l� +f TO BE REMOVED - 25.01 \ \ \\\ /� nJ r SEA \ ' \ 1\ , t i . I BORING 1\ � o • s I J \ Q • _ -,/ /SEE HOOF PLAN FOR 1•/ \\, • RAISED LAWN, SLOPE INFORMATION 1 _ SLOPE TO WEST �t / 1 \ 1 DRIVEWAY ASPHALT —.- . /' t / .r \ _-., MASTER 1r�TRENCH , TERRACE' �'. iii ���ti. / t 1 DRAIN 1 _. _- f' __ /�;1.1.'•, 1ti , �., \ ___�i 1 / I~` 1 PROPOSED \ - /''X �. / / / NEW \ RESIDENCE �,_- -_ ___ ` • I--- — // /i i!f j J r !\- 1 Q 4 g / I` 1 , r' / d- 4" L -7---i=-_-4. — _ Z, / •`„4.�.. `�..\• \ a\ ,,• \ <" �' \ l v` \ l. "'��• / EXISTING TREES •TO _�~` . ` IQ REMAIN,TYP. \ • O1 �\ . z W } a S'a R g s a E 10 0 10 20 APPROXIMATE SCALE—FEET o! Ee 17-7-830 _ ti LOCATION H P KUMAR ATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 1'• 02/1i/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT BORING 1 BORING 2 EL. 7834' EL. 7834.5' 0 :ti 0 — - • 20/12 34/12 - - 5 5 _ 50/3 49/12 —w La w WC=6.5 WC=2.6 — +4=58 +4=60 i _ —200=15 t —200=13 1-- Laa p— w O 10 P 10 50/5 15 15 F P. a s 3 U :;;,..7. 0 17-7-830 H-PKUMAR LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 1-IçEIVED 02/1 /2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT LEGEND ;'.,TOPSOIL; SOD ABOVE ORGANIC SANDY SILT AND CLAY, FIRM, DARK BROWN. X FILL; SILTY, CLAYEY SANDY GRAVEL, MOIST, MIXED BROWN. . X GRAVEL (GM); SILTY TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, SANDY, COBBLES, PROBABLE BOULDERS, DENSE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, BROWN, ROUNDED ROCK. 0 • DRIVE SAMPLE; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT), 1 3/8 INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE, ASTM D-1586. 20/12 E E BUDTS AT O A O FALLING 30SAMPL INCHESLOW WERECO NT.REQUIRED IN INDICATES ET O DRIVE 20 THEBL SPTWS SAOFMPLER140-P 12 INCHES.UND HAMMER t PRACTICAL AUGER REFUSAL. NOTES 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON DECEMBER 6, 2017 WITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER. 2. THE LOCATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE MEASURED APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 3. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE EXPLORATORY BORINGS WERE OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED. 5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL. 6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORINGS AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. 7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS: WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 2216); +4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 422); -200= PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140). g. I B e; .A.:.:., 17-7-830 H-P-%KUM 9 AR LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3CEIVE 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HRS 7 HRS 100 45 MIN 15 MIN 60MIN 19MIN AMIN 11.IN 4200 0100 010#140#30 016 010 48 t4 3 6' 3 4' 1 2' 3' S1'6' V, I I 1 1 90 - I t rt _ 7 la 1 t e0 1 1 - 1 _ 1 20 I I 70 I i I t t 30 1 1 60 1 I I 40 61 r 1 50 - 50 rr � - � I I 1 I 8 40 _ 1 I 1 60 K I 1 30 1 1 70 I I 20 1 I 1____ 80 I 10 i j I 90 I I_ _ 0 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 11 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 e II 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I 100 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.16 12.36 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200 .425 2.0 152 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL 58 X SAND 27 X SILT AND CLAY 15 X LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 1 0 5' HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS I TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES I CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HRS 7 HRS 100 45 MIN 115 MIN GOWN 19MIN 4MIN 1MIN 4200 4120 450 140 l 4OW415 II?46 44 3 8' 3 4" 1 1 2" 3' 5'6" 6'0 I I I 1 90 10 80 20 70 - 30 60 , t 40 1 1- 50 I 5 I 50 ii I 40 L_ 60 I _ I 30 l 1 I 70 I I 20 1.__, 80 1151=M99591111 1—.._ 10I I I I I I 90 I I ' I 0 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I II 1 It I I I I I I I 11 I I I lt,,1 I 1 I I I i l l I 100 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 I .600 1.1a 12.36 4.75 92.0 .5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200 .425152 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES S2 GRAVEL 60 X SAND 27 X SILT AND CLAY 13 X g LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX i SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Gravel FROM: Boring 2 0 5' J These test results apply only to the samples which were tested. The telling except In report full, without the shall writtent be reproduced, a approval of Kumar& Assoclatesjl Sievei^ acco analysis w th ASIting Is performed 22 I1E D accordance with AS1M D42 R and/or ASTM D1140. ,, 1) 17-7-830 H—P%dKUMAR GRADATION TEST RESULTS IQ?J4.4/2019 1,1 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT H -PI<UMAR TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. 17-7-830 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PERCENT PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE BORING DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY STRENGTH SOIL TYPE (%) (%) NO.200 LIMIT INDEX (ft) (%) (pcf) SIEVE (%) (%) (PSF) 1 5 6.5 58 27 15 Silty Sandy Gravel 2 5 2.6 60 27 13 Silty Sandy Gravel RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT H - PE I<UMAR TABLE 2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. 17-7-830 HOLE NO. HOLE LENGTH OF WATER WATER DROP IN AVERAGE DEPTH INTERVAL DEPTH AT DEPTH AT WATER PERCOLATION (INCHES) (MIN) START OF END OF LEVEL RATE INTERVAL INTERVAL (INCHES) (MIN./INCH) (INCHES) (INCHES) B-1 120 5 271 171/2 10 0.5 171/2 8 9'/2 0.5 Water Added 29 24 5 1 24 22 2 2.5 22 201/2 11/2 3.3 201/2 19 1'/2 3.3 Note: The percolation test was conducted in the completed 4-inch diameter borehole on December 6, 2017. RECEWED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Hydrologic Soil Group—Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado,Parts of Eagle,Garfield,and Pitkin Counties (905 Chatfield Road,Aspen,CO) Exhibit 4 g 340610 340650 34069D 340730 340770 340810 39°12'23"N M I , 39°12'23"N ' 44 4,01, i if . , t . . 404r p 0 !Pi},!.1',... . , . ikiv M + s- r _ r r A r — MI __ • 11; Pi l ed 3 ?' ,,, ir yokes take I i,...I PI I OF dik . •► 016 i a I - 'I- ' 0 k_A5s •. g g - i 1 ' , 610N Gawp unav i�oti;lb@ eEllod ER tln�os cale. 39°12'13"N & 1 r 39°12'13"N 340610 343650 340693 340730 340770 340810 3 3 b Map Scale:1:1,570 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet. - _ N Metes RECEIVE o 0 20 40 80 120 Feet A0 50 100 200 300 Map projection:Web Mercator Corner coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 13N WGS84 O n/1 4/n O 1 n USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/5/2018 G 7 MIMI Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 oASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Hydrologic Soil Group—Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado,Parts of Eagle,Garfield,and Pitkin Counties (905 Chatfield Road,Aspen,CO) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) p c The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) 1:24,000. 0 C/D Soils • D Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Rating Polygons 0 A p Not rated or not available Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil n A/D Water Features line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of Streams and Canals contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed �I B scale. Transportation Q B/D *4-4 Rails Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map n C measurements. ti Interstate Highways C/D US Routes Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: 0 D Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) n Not rated or not available Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Soil Rating Lines projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts Background A distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the 1111 Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more ^•• A/D accurate calculations of distance or area are required. "ow B This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as "r B/D of the version date(s)listed below. • C Soil Survey Area: Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado,Parts of Eagle,Garfield,and Pitkin Counties ,y C/D Survey Area Data: Version 8,Oct 10,2017 ,.v D Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales • • Not rated or not available 1:50,000 or larger. Soil Rating Points Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Data not available. p A The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background O A/D imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor ▪ B shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. • B/D RECEIVED 02/14/2019 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/5/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2°ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Hydrologic Soil Group—Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado,Parts of Eagle,Garfield,and Pitkin 905 Chatfield Road,Aspen,CO Counties Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 84 Morval loam, 1 to 6 C 0.8 6.6% percent slopes 107 Uracca,moist-Mergel B 10.6 87.9% complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes, extremely s 108 Uracca,moist-Mergel B 0.7 5.5% complex,6 to 12 percent slopes, extremely Totals for Area of Interest 12.1 100.0% RECEIVED USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/5/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 02// e/32fO 19 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Hydrologic Soil Group—Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado,Parts of Eagle,Garfield,and Pitkin 905 Chatfield Road,Aspen,CO Counties Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff.None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/5/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 0 2/ 4e/t2f 319 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT LEGEND 10 0 5 1 G0RAPHIC SCALE 00 40 EXISTING PROPOSED ON FEET) 00 STORM MANHOLE ©GAS METER /•UTILITY CONNECTION 1 inch=10 ft. ODRY WELL MI TELEPHONE PEDESTAL * CURB STOP SANITARY CLEAN-OUT ISt UGHT POLE Os SANITARY MANHOLE ©.,UTILITY POLE S DOOR FIRE HYDRANT DOOR 00 VAULT �l /�COLORAFORE p4 WATER VALVE -0-SIGN m INLET CALL BEFORE VOU DIG ®WATER MANHOLE ®MONITORING WELL • ROOF DRAIN • SCUPPER ® WELL EU DOWNSPOUT >- ®ROOF DRAIN m g g K BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT /7� \ SETBACK GAA° • / , / /) \ '2 8,' STRUCTURE I//////////A vxxxxxxxxx, / /k �� �� j \ • �- \ / w (j ASPHALT LI � � � �� N IX [t U FLOWUNE >—... ':"` ' ; >r `� EX-2 / I i \ a WATER MAIN w / __ _ WATER SERVICE w / '�_� $tiO 4300 SF I L 1 `� 1 \ \ Z 0 C1 SEWER MAIN ss ' r . SEWER SERVICE SS SS / rlI , ?1yid CN10=0.15 CN100=0.35 /�I I / m 2 o ELECTRIC IC ow C , �� �•f, / / / I' 1 I 1 Il \ TELEPHONE T T �\ ®/ l_„ Q100=0.22 CFS _,_`/ :,J l ��' �, GAS c G ♦ VI,?yam • _• co O] m �� / Q10=0"06 CFS o'-. „.. ri-f�� I \ \ W .�V [ I \ m N 7/ \,1tafI i:-:L r '0 f!I °i .ice-j \ \ o / / a Lr�� ?cam I`i•'�� J I \ I \ I� a m rn A � a / 1 ` ` // * I rittiki);' /` /\ � \ m Z O N o i I LEGEND 1/ / / I fiIiy+. N d E v E706IN0 PfiOPOB® .' CONTOUR —5158 — —(6158) / / f � M I SPOT ELEVATION X(58.0f X58.66 , / S. r \ I \ [� in SLOPE OR GRADE O.B') 1 / u��" / I II .j N LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE / �� �E , 1 i SEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE xF / I /'••-\� ��® / �r �'�'-i�V.7^�I I // / "� I ^(OD g DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION / .. '��1\ / �. F -y I� \ \ \\\\\ III `•i F O n O ! I z / / \ 4 evo-0=1" , ' --- • • :4 �� 1 \ W 4 a U1 = / 1 e- ii) i ~\ (I P ___ ____ � rLoii A / VI, non° / _ Z Z / 111:- a / f 11 1 EX-1 _ / f — - \ > 11900 SF !; ��� �, � �.: • . i CN10=0.15 CN100=0.35 : ; •;'\ 1 �ti. — Q100=0.60 CFS / �2 `UIw o— � / = ti 2 / L _ Q10-0.15 CFS I �,y _f_..., I T....:pa. 1 =G Z / Z• co / �T\ y%' — ice`\ ac' 0vl I 4 4' ii.vk LF,A0I \ u jz •Z o a m p• W W \E. ZmIiQmZ U8 5O 0 m�OU 0 o1 � Z N F X O a W J P. ri PROJECT NO. 1 2171053.00 s z y,rENED a C-DR E}� /20ri9 §; ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT LEGENDl, GRAPHIC SCALE 10 0 5 10 00 40 EXISTING PROPOSED ON FEET) 00 STORM MANHOLE ©GAS METER /•UTILITY CONNECTION 1 inch=10 ft. ODRY WELL MI TELEPHONE PEDESTAL * CURB STOP 0 SANITARY CLEAN-OUT 0 LIGHT POLE O SANITARY MANHOLE ©,UTILITY POLE S DOOR FIRE HYDRANT DOOR 00 VAULT �l COLORAFORE p4 WATER VALVE —SIGN o INLET CALL BEFORE VOU DIG ea�CenNr o�Cq reEo ®WATER MANHOLE ®MONITORING WELL • ROOF DRAIN • SCUPPER ® WELL EU DOWNSPOUT PR-2 r ®ROOF DRAIN m ct X K BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAYEASEMEN z EASEMENT DETAINED i��". _— *11(e' g 2APUCTURE XXXXXX/// VXXXXXXX Q100=0.21 CFS / //,fp���N, / o �� __ � j ����� �� — — 2 A 2 Z w92i GRAVEL II �� —0lI, / ,O_�i4I/"_ AY4`� I \ z I5RETAINING WALL \ 5 w 0 ~. w/% rmmnrw 1 /dll �`P o �i WA �� � PR-2 \` \ a , WATER SEWER MAIN SERVICE ss /`V 0,1 0 �www�a 3500 SF ii1 V z 0 U SEWER SERVICE SS SS ♦♦`,/` J g o° ELECTRIC E E '' " ♦yr _� _ CN10=0.33 CN100=0.49 1 , N , 0 o TELEPHONE T T71' , Q100=0.25 CFS `.;,� �� ,' CO GAS c G .� m O] m �` ham�—/�` � Q10=0.10 CFS I- N DETAINED / ♦ air RD a N N Q100 0.59 CFS // / ® '♦�. Rpp RD I 1 i1�1�` /�)*" \ / \\ 2 ^ N I ♦� it/ 1 "'711La ‘i• 1 ert tkik•1. 1��, ( / O . / m 9D II z x I •' • SC 1111111111111 a w a LEGEND siftdip,s �� .4116_ 0 0 o ICI z CONTOUR —5158 — ---- (6158) / / [/�� �/�� I „II I ill SPOT ELEVATION x(5%, x56.66 I / �.] `p` :#0)/pirrial �„SLOPE OR GRADE ¢8� W / `, VLIMITS OF DISTURBANCE Z NSEDIMENT CONTROL FENCE xF / / -J \ 1 4 a p N m DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION / �1' II o -, ok W W W OI ' r p II W1-oID g 1 3111 g :°vo ili. `11 CO 0 u- Z l0 j i \ D I iiiipti .1.6.-Nii, z w g,; w 04 boa ______- 1.16.4 ui<>tnET 036, rU. / O c9 Ak•f, o ttm,,, ___. 1I �1 I4114 X m 0 O /li / f,1' : 0 I ® ` mm / \ \f ''j' i tiali \ \ \ ‘ 4 . 1\% °,0 Ari 1 I 0. // / 1111.0 f �� a �� 1113600 V_ / I i� 1� �1���� SF _ _ �,, - Ill* 7 ^/ .',I CN10=0.39 CN100=0.51 �A�w�ti o 1���wi 7 ( � Q100=1.01 CFS 0 �U a �*--',rt‘-p.-..-- 1* � '4 y Q10=0.45 CFS tip, / _ _ 4014i wow valh 4, i v..,-. r-11111% /P4i ''.1-111t11W...."-----=-..- , IVIMPAItiop .Atir k 'fit � � ''� - ��►'�'��� ��� � i� z � d / linpw\ \ yi t��L tii a 1 11.111 z Z o() d Z . \, •,,,,, ‘4 'N1 '4 i \ 1 , � ` fl1; " d 4835 , �/ H z 4 I iX - rri PROJECT NO. 2171053.00 a C-DR PR,2019 §!; ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Project Description File Name 71053Silv Drainage 10-YR Permit-20180821.SPF Project Options Flow Units CFS Elevation Type Elevation Hydrology Method Rational Time of Concentration(TOC)Method Kirpich Link Routing Method Kinematic Wave Enable Overflow Ponding at Nodes YES Skip Steady State Analysis Time Periods NO Analysis Options Start Analysis On Mar 05,2018 00:00:00 End Analysis On Mar 05,2018 03:00:00 Start Reporting On Mar 05,2018 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days 0 days Runoff(Dry Weather)Time Step 0 01:00:00 days hh:mm:ss Runoff(Wet Weather)Time Step 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss Reporting Time Step 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss Routing Time Step 30 seconds Number of Elements Qty Rain Gages 0 Subbasins 4 Nodes 22 Junctions 15 Outfalls 5 Flow Diversions 0 Inlets 2 Storage Nodes 0 Links 19 Channels 2 Pipes 17 Pumps 0 Orifices 0 Weirs 0 Outlets 0 Pollutants 0 Land Uses 0 Rainfall Details Return Period 10 year(s) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin Summary SN Subbasin Area Weighted Average Flow Total Total Total Peak Time of ID Runoff Slope Length Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Concentration Coefficient Volume (ft') (%) (ft) (in) (in) (ac-in) (cfs) (days hh:mm:ss) 1 Sub-Ex01 11899.98 0.1500 9.3000 213.00 0.31 0.05 0.01 0.15 0 00:05:00 2 Sub-Ex02 4299.98 0.1500 15.2000 147.00 0.31 0.05 0.00 0.06 0 00:05:00 3 Sub-Pr01 13600.00 0.3900 8.5000 163.00 0.31 0.12 0.04 0.45 0 00:05:00 4 Sub-Pr02 3500.00 0.3300 12.0000 111.00 0.31 0.10 0.01 0.10 0 00:05:00 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin Hydrology Subbasin : Sub-Ex01 Input Data Area(ft') 11899.98 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.1500 Average Slope(%) 9.3000 Flow Length(ft) 213.00 Runoff Coefficient Area Soil Runoff Soil/Surface Description (ft') Group Coeff. 11899.98 B 0.15 Composite Area&Weighted Runoff Coeff. 11899.98 0.15 Time of Concentration TOC Method:Kirpich Sheet Flow Equation: Tc=(0.0078*((Lf^0.77)*(Sf^-0.385))) Where: Tc=Time of Concentration(min) Lf=Flow Length(ft) Sf=Slope(ft/ft) Flow Length(ft) 213.00 Slope(%) 9.3 Computed TOC(min) 1.21 Subbasin Runoff Results Total Rainfall(in) 0.31 Total Runoff(in) 0.05 Peak Runoff(cfs) 0.15 Rainfall Intensity 3.720 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.1500 Time of Concentration(days hh:mm:ss) 0 00:01:13 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin:Sub-Ex01 Runoff Hydrograph 0.155 0.15- 0.145 0.14 0.135- 0.13 0.125- 0.12• 0.115- 0.11 0.105• 0.1- 0.095 0.09- *6,0.085- w 0.08 4120.075- = 0.07• IX0.065- 0.06- 0.055 0.05- 0.045 0.04 0.035- 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time(hrs) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin : Sub-ExO2 Input Data Area(ftf) 4299.98 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.1500 Average Slope(%) 15.2000 Flow Length(ft) 147.00 Runoff Coefficient Area Soil Runoff Soil/Surface Description (ftr) Group Coeff. 4299.98 B 0.15 Composite Area&Weighted Runoff Coeff. 4299.98 0.15 Time of Concentration Flow Length(ft) 147.00 Slope(%) 15.2 Computed TOC(min) 0.75 Subbasin Runoff Results Total Rainfall(in) 0.31 Total Runoff(in) 0.05 Peak Runoff(cfs) 0.06 Rainfall Intensity 3.720 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.1500 Time of Concentration(days hh:mm:ss) 0 00:00:45 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin:Sub-Ex02 Runoff Hydrograph 0.058 0.056 0.054- ! 0.052 0.05- 0.048 0.046 0.044- 0.042 0.04 0.038- I 0.036 IJ .--0.034- 60.032- w 0.03- 4g0.028- if0.026 0.024- 0.022 0.02- 0.018- 0.016 0.014- 0.012 0.01 0.008- 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time(hrs) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin : Sub-PrO1 Input Data Area(ftf) 13600.00 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.3900 Average Slope(%) 8.5000 Flow Length(ft) 163.00 Runoff Coefficient Area Soil Runoff Soil/Surface Description (ftr) Group Coeff. 13600.00 B 0.39 Composite Area&Weighted Runoff Coeff. 13600.00 0.39 Time of Concentration Flow Length(ft) 163.00 Slope(%) 8.5 Computed TOC(min) 1.02 Subbasin Runoff Results Total Rainfall(in) 0.31 Total Runoff(in) 0.12 Peak Runoff(cfs) 0.45 Rainfall Intensity 3.720 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.3900 Time of Concentration(days hh:mm:ss) 0 00:01:01 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin:Sub-PrOl Runoff Hydrograph 0.48 0.46- 0.44 0.42 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32- 0.3• 0.28- (71 5 0.26- 0 0.24 g 0.22- 0 0.2 0.18 0.16- 0.14- 0.12- 0.1- 0.08- 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time(hrs) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin : Sub-PrO2 Input Data Area(ftf) 3500.00 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.3300 Average Slope(%) 12.0000 Flow Length(ft) 111.00 Runoff Coefficient Area Soil Runoff Soil/Surface Description (ftr) Group Coeff. 3500.00 B 0.33 Composite Area&Weighted Runoff Coeff. 3500.00 0.33 Time of Concentration Flow Length(ft) 111.00 Slope(%) 12 Computed TOC(min) 0.66 Subbasin Runoff Results Total Rainfall(in) 0.31 Total Runoff(in) 0.10 Peak Runoff(cfs) 0.10 Rainfall Intensity 3.720 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.3300 Time of Concentration(days hh:mm:ss) 0 00:00:40 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin:Sub-PrO2 Runoff Hydrograph 0.105 0.1- 0.095 1 0.09 0.085 0.08- 0.075 0.07 0.065- 0.06 U —0.055 c 0.05- IX0.045- 0.04 0.035 0.03- 0.025- 0.02- 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time(hrs) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Junction Results SN Element Peak Peak Max HGL Max HGL Max Min Average HGL Average HGL Time of Time of Total Total Time ID Inflow Lateral Elevation Depth Surcharge Freeboard Elevation Depth Max HGL Peak Flooded Flooded Inflow Attained Attained Depth Attained Attained Attained Occurrence Flooding Volume Attained Occurrence (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (days hh:mm) (days hh:mm) (ac-in) (min) 1 S1 0.45 0.45 7825.07 0.27 0.00 3.23 7824.81 0.01 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 2 S12 0.44 0.00 7823.07 0.33 0.00 0.43 7822.76 0.02 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 3 S14 0.00 0.00 7823.08 0.00 0.00 3.55 7823.08 0.00 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 4 S2 0.45 0.00 7824.82 0.27 0.00 3.76 7824.72 0.17 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 5 S2-R1 0.00 0.00 7824.88 0.00 0.00 3.30 7824.88 0.00 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 6 S3 0.45 0.00 7824.53 0.27 0.00 3.39 7824.27 0.01 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 7 S4 0.45 0.00 7824.39 0.27 0.00 5.19 7824.13 0.01 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 8 S5 0.45 0.00 7824.14 0.27 0.00 0.48 7823.88 0.01 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 9 S6 0.45 0.00 7824.05 0.27 0.00 4.33 7823.79 0.01 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 10 S7 0.44 0.00 7823.92 0.27 0.00 0.48 7823.66 0.01 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 11 S8 0.44 0.00 7823.82 0.33 0.00 0.42 7823.82 0.33 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 12 58-L1 0.00 0.00 7824.85 0.00 0.00 3.65 7824.85 0.00 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 13 S8-L2 0.00 0.00 7824.68 0.00 0.00 3.32 7824.68 0.00 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 14 S8-L3 0.00 0.00 7824.35 0.00 0.00 3.65 7824.35 0.00 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 15 S9 0.44 0.00 7823.27 0.24 0.00 0.51 7823.04 0.01 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Pipe Results SN Element Peak Time of Design Flow Peak Flow/ Peak Flow Travel Peak Flow Peak Flow Total Time Froude Reported ID Flow Peak Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Time Depth Depth/ Surcharged Number Condition Occurrence Ratio Total Depth Ratio (cfs) (days hh:mm) (cfs) (ft/sec) (min) (ft) (min) 1 P1 0.45 0 00:05 1.32 0.34 3.91 0.11 0.27 0.40 0.00 Calculated 2 P10 0.44 0 00:05 1.60 0.28 3.93 0.04 0.24 0.36 0.00 Calculated 3 P11 0.44 0 00:05 1.60 0.28 3.92 0.02 0.24 0.36 0.00 Calculated 4 P12 0.44 0 00:05 0.93 0.48 2.63 0.06 0.32 0.49 0.00 Calculated 5 P13 0.00 0 00:00 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated 6 P2 0.45 0 00:05 1.30 0.34 3.40 0.14 0.27 0.40 0.00 Calculated 7 P2-R1 0.00 0 00:00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated 8 P3 0.45 0 00:05 1.30 0.34 3.39 0.07 0.27 0.40 0.00 Calculated 9 P4 0.45 0 00:05 1.33 0.34 3.43 0.12 0.27 0.40 0.00 Calculated 10 P5 0.45 0 00:05 1.27 0.35 3.32 0.05 0.27 0.41 0.00 Calculated 11 P6 0.44 0 00:05 1.31 0.34 3.40 0.06 0.27 0.40 0.00 Calculated 12 P7 0.44 0 00:05 1.30 0.34 3.38 0.08 0.27 0.40 0.00 Calculated 13 P8 0.44 0 00:05 1.95 0.23 4.53 0.08 0.22 0.32 0.00 Calculated 14 P8-L1 0.00 0 00:00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated 15 P8-L2 0.00 0 00:00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated 16 P8-L3 0.00 0 00:00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated 17 P9 0.44 0 00:05 1.60 0.28 3.93 0.02 0.24 0.36 0.00 Calculated RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Project Description File Name 71053Silv Drainage 100-YR Permit-20180821.SPF Project Options Flow Units CFS Elevation Type Elevation Hydrology Method Rational Time of Concentration(TOC)Method Kirpich Link Routing Method Kinematic Wave Enable Overflow Ponding at Nodes YES Skip Steady State Analysis Time Periods NO Analysis Options Start Analysis On Mar 05,2018 00:00:00 End Analysis On Mar 05,2018 03:00:00 Start Reporting On Mar 05,2018 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days 0 days Runoff(Dry Weather)Time Step 0 01:00:00 days hh:mm:ss Runoff(Wet Weather)Time Step 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss Reporting Time Step 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss Routing Time Step 30 seconds Number of Elements Qty Rain Gages 0 Subbasins 4 Nodes 22 Junctions 15 Outfalls 5 Flow Diversions 0 Inlets 2 Storage Nodes 0 Links 19 Channels 2 Pipes 17 Pumps 0 Orifices 0 Weirs 0 Outlets 0 Pollutants 0 Land Uses 0 Rainfall Details Return Period 100 year(s) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin Summary SN Subbasin Area Weighted Average Flow Total Total Total Peak Time of ID Runoff Slope Length Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Concentration Coefficient Volume (ft') (%) (ft) (in) (in) (ac-in) (cfs) (days hh:mm:ss) 1 Sub-Ex01 11899.98 0.3500 9.3000 213.00 0.53 0.18 0.05 0.60 0 00:05:00 2 Sub-Ex02 4299.98 0.3500 15.2000 147.00 0.53 0.18 0.02 0.22 0 00:05:00 3 Sub-Pr01 13600.00 0.5100 8.5000 163.00 0.53 0.27 0.08 1.01 0 00:05:00 4 Sub-Pr02 3500.00 0.4900 12.0000 111.00 0.53 0.26 0.02 0.25 0 00:05:00 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin Hydrology Subbasin : Sub-Ex01 Input Data Area(ft') 11899.98 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.3500 Average Slope(%) 9.3000 Flow Length(ft) 213.00 Runoff Coefficient Area Soil Runoff Soil/Surface Description (fF) Group Coeff. 11899.98 B 0.35 Composite Area&Weighted Runoff Coeff. 11899.98 0.35 Time of Concentration TOC Method:Kirpich Sheet Flow Equation: Tc=(0.0078*((Lf^0.77)*(Sf^-0.385))) Where: Tc=Time of Concentration(min) Lf=Flow Length(ft) Sf=Slope(ft/ft) Flow Length(ft) 213.00 Slope(%) 9.3 Computed TOC(min) 1.21 Subbasin Runoff Results Total Rainfall(in) 0.53 Total Runoff(in) 0.18 Peak Runoff(cfs) 0.60 Rainfall Intensity 6.320 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.3500 Time of Concentration(days hh:mm:ss) 0 00:01:13 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin:Sub-Ex01 Runoff Hydrograph 0.62 0.6- 0.58 II 0.56• 0.54- 0.52 0.5- 0.48 0.46 0.44- 0.42 0.4 0.38- 0.36 u 0.34 0.32• 0 0.3 C 0.28 0_ 0.26 0.24- 0.22- 0.2- 0.18 0.16 0.14- 0.12 0.1- 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time(hrs) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin : Sub-ExO2 Input Data Area(ftf) 4299.98 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.3500 Average Slope(%) 15.2000 Flow Length(ft) 147.00 Runoff Coefficient Area Soil Runoff Soil/Surface Description (ftr) Group Coeff. 4299.98 B 0.35 Composite Area&Weighted Runoff Coeff. 4299.98 0.35 Time of Concentration Flow Length(ft) 147.00 Slope(%) 15.2 Computed TOC(min) 0.75 Subbasin Runoff Results Total Rainfall(in) 0.53 Total Runoff(in) 0.18 Peak Runoff(cfs) 0.22 Rainfall Intensity 6.320 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.3500 Time of Concentration(days hh:mm:ss) 0 00:00:45 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin:Sub-Ex02 Runoff Hydrograph 0.23 0.22- 0.21- I — - _ 0.2- — . _ 0.19 — 0.18- — 0.17- 1 _ 0.16- 0.15- — - 0.14- - - %n 0.13- - 0.12- —. — — 2 0.11- - 0.09- —. — - 0.08- — — — 0.07- — — — 0.06- — — 0.05 — — 0.04 I — — 0.03 0.02 — — 0.01 — — 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time(hrs) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin : Sub-PrO1 Input Data Area(ftf) 13600.00 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.5100 Average Slope(%) 8.5000 Flow Length(ft) 163.00 Runoff Coefficient Area Soil Runoff Soil/Surface Description (ftr) Group Coeff. 13600.00 B 0.51 Composite Area&Weighted Runoff Coeff. 13600.00 0.51 Time of Concentration Flow Length(ft) 163.00 Slope(%) 8.5 Computed TOC(min) 1.02 Subbasin Runoff Results Total Rainfall(in) 0.53 Total Runoff(in) 0.27 Peak Runoff(cfs) 1.01 Rainfall Intensity 6.320 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.5100 Time of Concentration(days hh:mm:ss) 0 00:01:01 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin:Sub-PrOl Runoff Hydrograph 1.1 - 1.05- 1- 0.95 0.9- - - 0.85- - 0.8- - 0.75- - 0.7- - - 0.65- - - N v 0.6- - - w 0.55- - o 0.5- - - 0 0.45- — — 0.4- - — 0.35- - — 0.3- 0.25- - - — - 0.2- — - 0.15 — - 0.1 0.05 — - 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time(hrs) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin : Sub-PrO2 Input Data Area(ftf) 3500.00 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.4900 Average Slope(%) 12.0000 Flow Length(ft) 111.00 Runoff Coefficient Area Soil Runoff Soil/Surface Description (ftr) Group Coeff. 3500.00 B 0.49 Composite Area&Weighted Runoff Coeff. 3500.00 0.49 Time of Concentration Flow Length(ft) 111.00 Slope(%) 12 Computed TOC(min) 0.66 Subbasin Runoff Results Total Rainfall(in) 0.53 Total Runoff(in) 0.26 Peak Runoff(cfs) 0.25 Rainfall Intensity 6.320 Weighted Runoff Coefficient 0.4900 Time of Concentration(days hh:mm:ss) 0 00:00:40 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Subbasin:Sub-PrO2 Runoff Hydrograph 0.26 0.25- 0.24- — 0.23- 0.22 0.21- - 0.2 • - 0.19- 0.18- 0.17- - 0.16- 0.15- u 0.14- w 0.13- - o S 0.12-0: 0.11- - — 0.1- 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Time(hrs) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Junction Results SN Element Peak Peak Max HGL Max HGL Max Min Average HGL Average HGL Time of Time of Total Total Time ID Inflow Lateral Elevation Depth Surcharge Freeboard Elevation Depth Max HGL Peak Flooded Flooded Inflow Attained Attained Depth Attained Attained Attained Occurrence Flooding Volume Attained Occurrence (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (days hh:mm) (days hh:mm) (ac-in) (min) 1 S1 1.01 1.01 7825.24 0.44 0.00 3.06 7824.82 0.02 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 2 S12 0.99 0.00 7823.50 0.76 0.00 0.00 7822.77 0.03 0 00:05 0 00:05 0.00 1.00 3 S14 0.00 0.00 7823.08 0.00 0.00 3.55 7823.08 0.00 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 4 S2 1.00 0.00 7824.99 0.44 0.00 3.59 7824.73 0.18 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 5 S2-R1 0.00 0.00 7824.88 0.00 0.00 3.30 7824.88 0.00 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 6 S3 1.00 0.00 7824.70 0.44 0.00 3.22 7824.28 0.02 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 7 S4 1.00 0.00 7824.56 0.44 0.00 5.03 7824.14 0.02 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 8 S5 0.99 0.00 7824.31 0.44 0.00 0.31 7823.89 0.02 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 9 S6 0.99 0.00 7824.22 0.44 0.00 4.16 7823.80 0.02 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 10 S7 0.99 0.00 7824.09 0.44 0.00 0.31 7823.67 0.02 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 11 S8 0.99 0.00 7823.93 0.44 0.00 0.31 7823.82 0.33 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 12 S8-L1 0.00 0.00 7824.85 0.00 0.00 3.65 7824.85 0.00 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 13 S8-L2 0.00 0.00 7824.68 0.00 0.00 3.32 7824.68 0.00 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 14 S8-L3 0.00 0.00 7824.35 0.00 0.00 3.65 7824.35 0.00 0 00:00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 15 S9 0.99 0.00 7823.41 0.38 0.00 0.37 7823.04 0.01 0 00:05 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Pipe Results SN Element Peak Time of Design Flow Peak Flow/ Peak Flow Travel Peak Flow Peak Flow Total Time Froude Reported ID Flow Peak Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Time Depth Depth/ Surcharged Number Condition Occurrence Ratio Total Depth Ratio (cfs) (days hh:mm) (cfs) (ft/sec) (min) (ft) (min) 1 P1 1.00 0 00:05 1.32 0.76 4.75 0.09 0.43 0.65 0.00 Calculated 2 P10 0.99 0 00:05 1.60 0.62 4.84 0.03 0.38 0.57 0.00 Calculated 3 P11 0.99 0 00:05 1.60 0.62 4.83 0.02 0.38 0.57 0.00 Calculated 4 P12 0.99 0 00:06 0.93 1.07 3.10 0.05 0.62 0.93 0.00 >CAPACITY 5 P13 0.00 0 00:00 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated 6 P2 1.00 0 00:05 1.30 0.77 4.13 0.12 0.44 0.66 0.00 Calculated 7 P2-R1 0.00 0 00:00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated 8 P3 1.00 0 00:05 1.30 0.76 4.12 0.06 0.44 0.65 0.00 Calculated 9 P4 0.99 0 00:05 1.33 0.75 4.18 0.10 0.43 0.65 0.00 Calculated 10 P5 0.99 0 00:05 1.27 0.78 4.03 0.04 0.44 0.67 0.00 Calculated 11 P6 0.99 0 00:05 1.31 0.76 4.14 0.05 0.43 0.65 0.00 Calculated 12 P7 0.99 0 00:05 1.30 0.77 4.10 0.07 0.44 0.66 0.00 Calculated 13 P8 0.99 0 00:05 1.95 0.51 5.61 0.06 0.34 0.51 0.00 Calculated 14 P8-L1 0.00 0 00:00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated 15 P8-L2 0.00 0 00:00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated 16 P8-L3 0.00 0 00:00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Calculated 17 P9 0.99 0 00:05 1.60 0.62 4.83 0.02 0.38 0.57 0.00 Calculated RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS REcEWED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Basin PR-01 South 100-Year Detention Volume Calculations — �ne., •!L2.Oli 0105/..PeneOe eOPNr N!'AEOJ M,5U&Zt 1!Lb N) b pow 025 000 0 0019 Onv c o irs, 01'14 0-1'3) 0152 Odfl Element ID Out-Ex0 Out-PrO 1S 1S Maximum Total Inflow(cfs) 0.60 1.01 Minimum Total Inflow(cfs) 0.00 0.00 Event Mean Total Inflow 0.02 0.03 (cfs) Duration of Exceedances N/A N/A (hrs) Duration of Deficits(hrs) N/A N/A Number of Exceedances N/A N/A Number of Deficits N/A N/A Volume of Exceedance(ft3) N/A N/A Volume of Deficit(ft3) N/A N/A Total Inflow Volume(ft3) 181.29 301.9 Detention Storage(ft3) N/A 124.90 Exceedance 0 Deficit 0 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Basin PR-02 North 100-Year Detention Volume Calculations —tWIMt Mrs.O..M(l,P.J1.Uen✓p,CU PN1'.ULU1.V,llU4:-,:W-.i o�. om o1s VV. " 010 F \ 1i L LT, .lJl UWti OVYS 0114 0113 Ot51 0171 Element ID Out-Ex0 Out-PrO 1N 1N Maximum Total Inflow(cfs) 0.22 0.25 Minimum Total Inflow(cfs) 0.00 0.00 Event Mean Total Inflow 0.01 0.01 (cfs) Duration of Exceedances N/A N/A (hrs) Duration of Deficits(hrs) N/A N/A Number of Exceedances N/A N/A Number of Deficits N/A N/A Volume of Exceedance(ft3) N/A N/A Volume of Deficit(ft3) N/A N/A Total Inflow Volume(ft3) 65.51 74.65 Detention Storage(ft3) N/A 11.65 Exceedance 0 Deficit 0 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 10-Year Detention Volume Calculations • OS 04 103 01 01 00 Element ID Out-Ex Out-Pr 01 01 Maximum Total Inflow(cfs) 0.21 0.55 Minimum Total Inflow(cfs) 0.00 0.00 Event Mean Total Inflow 0.01 0.02 (cfs) Duration of Exceedances N/A N/A (hrs) Duration of Deficits(hrs) N/A N/A Number of Exceedances N/A N/A Number of Deficits N/A N/A Volume of Exceedance(ft3) N/A N/A Volume of Deficit(ft3) N/A N/A Total Inflow Volume(ft3) 62.26 165.4 8 Detention Storage(ft3) N/A 105.4 8 Exceedance 0 Deficit 0 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Profile Plot u Proposed Storm Sewer 100-Year w ` N 7,831.5 $ k}. a W;a 7,631 . w w`m oan w a . . w% ' . n W Cl a N .y] a d, b w 7,830.5 w r W-e> Q;m •n�m CI-Br .n m b W N W n V .1 w .W +u4 o ,Cl W n M W_Y R(;N A N n N - N W 7,830 H v Ol w W J v�` y n w 'Q W n .+g_N__. ron yn y o II D a" d . Q m u w :P. 7,829.5 rQ.-n n @ 0a_r. - _ -- 2.a t-ni m n i q�_0___ v v • xu.. - o� c , nw 'R G 5 'Zi P4 N N N 7,829 x aam O N 7,828.5 } } -4 f 'w C 7,828 , r-CO--, W.,N , 7,827.5 , W 4n W l- ---- r.-- :n 0 7,827---- ri ; , d'- -'g w m '�? n�.�� Link ID P1 m 7,826.5- 0 m W vem'm , z'u Link ID P2 Length 24.65 ft ---- • n n Link ID P3 Length 29.36 ft Dia 0.67 ft p m y H , , Link ID P4 Length 14.10 ft Dia 0.67 ft Slope 0.0101 ft/ft 7,826---- y Link ID P5 Length 24.35 ft Slope 0.0099 ft/ft Up Invert 7824.80 8 Link ID P6 Dia 0.67 ft v a 8 u III Link ID P7 L rngth 7.94 it Dia 0.67 ft Up Invert 7824.55 ft Dn Invert 7824.55 ' 7,825.5----°a,a_m k1H_______ ' Length 18.10ft Length 12.47 ft Slope 0.0099 ft/ft ' Is Die 0.67 ft Dia 0.67 ft Slope 0.0103 ft/ft Up Invert 7824.26 ft Dn Invert 7824.26 ft _ 2 ft Dia 0.67 ft 'Sin 0.0101 tin Up Invert 7824.12 ft Link ID P•' - ft Slope 0.0096 ft/ft Dn Invert 7824.12 ft r Tom' Lem 0 C Slope 0.0221 ft/ft Upl Invert ert 7823 67ttt p Invert 7823.79 i�lF Invert 7823.'s c Dn Invert 7823.87 ft '. ___ ,77 L1 Di: .'ft Up Invert 7823.49 ft Dn Invert 7823.49 ft yn Invert 7823.671I - -� 7,824.5--Slope .0 Dn Invert 7823.038 Upnve Q..:ft -- - r 7,824-D"n nve - 7,823.5---- A Ili 7,823--- 1/111 7,822.5----- 1+00 1+05 1+10 1+15 1+20 1+25 1+30 1+35 1+40 1+45 1+50 1+55 1+60 1+65 1+70 1+75 1+80 1+85 1+90 1+95 2+00 2+05 2+10 2+15 2+20 2+25 2+30 2+35 2+40 2+45 2+50 2+55 2+60 Station(ft) Node ID: S10-WQ S9 S8 S7 S6 S5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Rim Ott 7824.937825.01 7826.17 7828.41 7828.80 7828.98 7829.58 7828.92 7828.58 7828.30 Invert Ott 7822.967823.03 7823.49 7823.67 7823.79 7823.87 7824.12 7824.26 7824.55 7824.80 Min Pipe Cover Ott 1.31 2.01 4.07 4.35 4.44 4.80 3.99 3.36 2.83 Max HGL(ft): 7823.347823.41 7823.92 7824.11 7824.23 7824.30 7824.56 7824.70 7824.99 7825.24 Link ID: P9 P8 P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 Length(ft): 4.50 20.82 18.10 12.47 7.94 24.35 14.10 29.36 24.65 Dia(ft): 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Slope(ft/ft): _ 0.0150 0.0221 0.0099 0.0096 0.0101 0.0103 0.0099 0.0099 0.0101 Up Invert Ott 7823.03 7823.49 7823.67 7823.79 7823.87 7824.12 _ 7824.26 7824.55 7824.80 Dx Invert(It): 7822.96 7823.03 7823.49 7823.67 7823.79 7823.87 7824.12 7824.26 7824.55 Max Q(cfs): 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1 00 Max Vel(ft/s): 4.83 5.61 4.13 4.07 4.14 4.18 4.12 4.13 4.72 Max Depth(ft): 0.38 0.34 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.43 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Profile Plot u Proposed Storm Sewer 100-Year w w y: 7,829.E i 4 , , N H N, 7,829.4 it m m_P._. w m __J: -V N m y] 7,8292 - N,ti N r._x___ 7,829 m'W r , , 'tl ,ya g ii N z PG M: 7,828.8 g�r-A 7,828.6----g-1- z z.+ 7,826.4 --- -- 7,8282 --- -- 7,828---- ---`-- 7,827.8---- 7,827.6---- ---7-- 7,827.4=--- w7,8272--- -- g 7,827--- --- -- m 7,826.6---- 7,826.4---- --- 7,826.2---- Link ID P2-R1 ___r__ 7,626---- Length 7.84 ft Dia 0.50 ft 7,825.8---- Slope 0.0200 ft/ft --- -- 7,825.6----- Up Invert 7824.88 ft --- -_ Un Invert I1324.f 2 n 7,825.4--- _ ---`-- 7,8252---- 7,825---- --r-- 7,824.8 --`-- 7,824.6+ 7,824.4 -- 7,8242 ---L-- 1+00 1+01 1+02 1+03 1+04 1+05 1+06 1+07 1+08 Station(ft) Node ID: S2-R1 S2 Rim(It): 7828.18 7828.58 Invert(It): 7824.88 7824.55 Min Pipe Cover(It): 2.80 3.3E Max HGL(ft): 7825.2E 7825.10 Link ID: P2-R1 Length(ft): 7.84 Dia(ft): 0.50 • Slope(ft/ft): _ 0.0200 Up Invert(It): 7824.88 Dn Invert(It): 7824.72 Max Q(cfs): 0.80 Max Vel(ft/s): 4.98 Max Depth(ft): 0.38 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Profile Plot 4 Proposed Storm Sewer 100-Year 7,8292------.4-.7, ...: • 7829 828.8 i,?rg : : l l : r: : , 7, r:-r". :• r : -: 1 . A NI 1-1 • 7828.6 LP-t 1 L 1 .: .: oi F;''a 1 : .: .: .: • 01 V 41 ..0 7,828.4,----,s-4 4 :• :• : -: -: :- r 1: I 1 :- :• : : 1 1 :- o, a A E 7,8282 M " 7828 .r•o) 41- ' r--1 GO 43 I7,826-:-- Link ID P8-L2 LI-I 7,825.8 -- Length 19.66 ft 7,825.6 -- Dia 0.33 ft Link ID P8-L3 Slope 0.0200 ttift 7,825A Up ft Length 26.42 ft Invert 7824.69 7,8252--- Dn Invert 7824.30 ft Dia 0.33 ft Slope 0.0200 ft/11 7.825 t- ,",- Up Invert 7824.30 ft 7,824.8 --- . Dn Invert 7823.77 ft 7,824.6---- 7,824A 7,8242: 7,824' 7,823.8 7,823.8 7,823A 14111111i1111111111114 7,8232 1+00 1+02 1+04 1,-06 1+00 1+10 1+12 1+14 1+16 1+18 1+20 1+22 1+24 1+26 1+28 1+30 1+32 1+34 1+36 1+38 1+40 1+42 1+44 1+46 Station(ft) Node ID: S8-L1 S8-L2 S8 Rim(It): 7827.90 7827.50 7826.17 Invert(It): 7824.69 7824.30 7823.49 Min Pipe Cover(It): 2.88 2.87 2.01 Max HGL(4 7824.90 7824.50 7823.97 Link ID: P8-L2 P8-L3 Length(ft): 19.66 26.42 Dia(ft): 0.33 0.33 Slope(ft/ft): 0.0200 0.0200 Up Invert(II): 7824.69 7824.30 . . Dn Invert(It): 7824.30 7823.77 Max Q(cfs): 0.20 0.20 Max Vel(ft/s): 3.67 3.67 Max Depth(ft): 0.20 0.20 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Profile Plot Proposed Slam Sewer 100-Yoar 7624.75 7,824.7 4 7624.65 s i 1 t t t t t et 74 7,824.6 -:1_^-Fs __ 7,8245____se - __ da-H_g___ 7,824.45____& _a ,�� 7,824.4—___ 7,624.35----Zo- i i 1 I 1 t 1 7,824.3 --- 7624.25—___ 7,8242____ _-_ 7,824.15---- -- 7,824.1---- -- 7,824.05---- ---- 7,824---- Link ID P15 7623.95---- Length 1467 ft --- 7,823.9---- Dia0670 ---- Slope 0.0100 ft!d 7623.85---- Up Invert 782311 0 ---- Ii 7 823b---- Dn Invert 7822.96 ft m 7,823.75---- 7,823.7---- 7,823.65—___ 7623.55---- 7,823.5—___ 7623.45---- 7,823.4---- 7,823.35____ 7,823.3__-_ 7,823.25---- ---- 7,823.2- 7623.15---- 7,823.1---- 7,823.05---- 7,823— 7,822.95- 7,8229- 7,622.85- 1+00 1+01 1+02 1+03 1+04 1+05 1+06 1+07 1+08 1+09 1+10 1+11 1+12 1+13 1+14 1+15 Station(It) Node ID: 510-WO 614 Rim(et 7824.27 7824.37 Invert(05 782296 7823,11 Min Pipe Cover(Nt 0.00 Max HGL(et 7823.34 7823.40 Link ID: P15 Length(8t 14.67 Dia(IQ 0.67 Slope(It/Itt 0.0100 Up Invert(II) 7823.11 Dn Invert(IQ 7822.96 Max Q(d:t 0.51 Max Vel(IUst 3.52 Max Depth(IQ 0.29 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Pliolile PIO Proposed Storm Sewer 100-Year • 7,825.1 1 1 1 1- :- :- 1 1 ! :- :- 1 1 1 ! 7,825.05 ' .''' . ' i.....,... ''' ,1 1' i 7,825 ••. '7,824.95 7,824.9 1 1 ', ': :- :- -: 1 i': :- - 1 I T r I- 7,824.85 1 1 ! ; :- -:- 1 I 1 :- -:.- 1 1 1 ! h e. . 7824.8 r: ::- r: r:r: 7,824.75 1 1 : 4-5,4 7,824.7 1::. a ei I , ei a•NJ • ; ••• •••••••7,824.65 is 7,824.6- -1 1 1 ! a -;21 1:,-'-... r-u • :- ... 1 f :- ÷ ... 1 f L 7,824.55- -Z.-,"1-ci • 1/1 • ••••••••• ••••. . • 7,8245- an n't':: ..... m ka i 1 ' i . 7,824.45 .^; --- .. 7,824.4- igA j. 7,824.35 1 .: ..._ 7,8243 7624.25 7,6242---- 7624.15 G-7,824.05---- 7824 Link ID P16 , Length 13.73 tt Il 7623.95---- Link ID P9 Dia 0.67 ft , 7,823.9 Length 4.50 ft Slope 0.0050 ftift 7023.85---- Die 0.67 ft Up Invert 7823.10 ft Slope 0.0150 ft/ft Dn Invert 7823.03 9 Up Invert 7823.03 ft 7023.75---- Dn Invert 7822.96 ft 7,823.7 7,823.65---- 7,82313 _ 7,823.55---- i 7023.45 7,823.4---- I 7623.35 7,823.3 7623.25 7,823.2 7,823.15-- 7,823.1 7,823.05- I 111.11MI I 7622.95 7,1322.9 7622.85 7,1322.8 1000 1+01 1+02 1+03 1.04 1.05 1+06 1+07 1.08 1+09 1+10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1+15 1+16 1+17 1+16 Station 51] Nwe ig, 610-W0 69 615 Rim 511 7824.27 7824.40 7824.64 Invert(It1 7022% 7823,03 7823,10 Min Pipe Cover(111 0.70 0.05 Max HGL(115 7823.34 7823.37 7823.44 Link ID: P9 P16 Length(81 4.50 13.73 Dia(I11 0.67 0.67 Slope 91/111 00150 0.0050 Up Invert(II): 7823.03 7823.10 Dn Invert(111 7822.96 7823.03 Max CI l41.1 0.48 048 Max Vel ilt/s1 4.00 273 Max Depth(111 0.25 0.34 RECEIVED 02/3.4/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Profile Plot u Proposed Storm Sewer 10-Year K N 7,831.5 `$ }+ a ana 7,631 . w w oan w a . . . w L% . n a N 7,830.5 w r oe> yr°:w4)O V nf;m w-a+av .n ce ro +u4o ,,4 . W n tel 00 1� i+i Pf N G N n N - N 7,830 H_ ,O W w J a r y H w 'Q m n ' .+c1o_4__- aon yny v , D a � ; Qm: w m 7,629.5 ►Qi-n n 2°a_i.+ - _ -- A'.AA m n i q�_ _ _ v v u.. - o c n w 'R i3 5 'Zi P4 N N N 7,829 x a'�"m O N_d " 7,828.5 } . -4 f 'w T. 7,828 , r-CO--, CO.,N 7,827.5 , va . . ; ---- ti x rot n 0 7,827---- ri ; , d'- -a-- w m c n. G Link ID P1 m 78265- 0m0 e- om z'- H Link ID P2 Length 24.65 ft . n n Link ID P3 Length 29.36 ft Dia 0.67 ft c m y H o Link ID P4 Length 14.10 ft Dia 0.67 ft Slope 0.0101 ft/ft 7,826-"-- • ,y Link ID P5 Length 24.35 ft Slope 0.0099 ft/ft Up Invert 7824.80 ft Link ID P6 Dia 0.67 ft a a >u III ; Link ID P7 L;ngth 7.94 ft Dia 0.67 ft Up Invert 7824.55 ft Dn Inv 7,625.5----°u,a kE H_____-- Length Length 12.47ft Slope 0.0099 ft/ft ; •2 ft gt Dia 0.67 ft Slope 0.0103 ft/ft Dn Invert 7824.26 ft --- Dia 0.67 ft Up Invert 7824.26 ft Dia 0.67 ft 3Lroe 0.0101 It Up Invert 7824.12 ft • Link ID P� ft Slope 0.0096 ft/ft Dn Invert 7824.12 ft 'V' 7'8' Len. _u 7 Slope 0.0221 ft/ft Slope 0.0099 ft/ft Up Invert 7823.79 fi_lr'Invert 7823.87 i Dn Invert 7823.87 ft ___ fa P Up Invert 7823.67 ft �n Ir veH 7823.'9 C Di: . ft Up Invert 7823.49 ft Dn Invert 7823.49 ft Dn Invert 7823.671I 7,824.5--tic pe .0 lift Dn Invert 7823.03 ft _ Up live '3.C3ft __ -�J 7,824-6nhve '2.••ft 7,823.5----■). 7,823---- -All 7,822.5----- 1.00 1+05 1+10 1+15 1+20 1+25 1+30 1+35 1+40 1+45 1+50 1+55 1+60 1+65 1+70 1+75 1+80 1+85 1+90 1+95 2+00 2+05 2+10 2+15 2+20 2+25 2+30 2+35 2+40 2+45 2+50 2+55 2+60 Station(ft) Node ID: S10-WQ S9 S8 S7 S6 S5 S4 S3 S2 S1 Rim Ott 7824.937825.01 7826.17 7828.41 7828.80 7828.98 7829.58 7828.92 7828.58 7828.30 Invert Ott 7822.967823.03 7823.49 7823.67 7823.79 7823.87 7824.12 7824.26 7824.55 7824.80 Min Pipe Cover(It): 1.31 2.01 4.07 4.35 4.44 4.80 3.99 3.36 2.83 Max HGL(ft): 7823.247823.31 7823.80 7823.98 7824.10 7824.18 7824.43 7824.57 7824.86 7825.11 Link ID: P9 P8 P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 Length(ft): 4.50 20.82 18.10 12.47 7.94 24.35 14.10 29.36 24.65 Dia(ft): 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Slope(ft/ft): _ 0.0150 0.0221 _ 0.0099 0.0096 0.0101 0.0103 0.0099 0.0099 0.0101 Up Invert Ott 7823.03 7823.49 7823.67 7823.79 7823.87 7824.12 _ 7824.26 7824.55 7824.80 Do Invert(It): 7822.96 7823.03 7823.49 7823.67 7823.79 7823.87 7824.12 7824.26 7824.55 Max Q(cfs): 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.59 Max Vel(ft/s): 4.22 4.88 3.64 3.60 3.65 3.69 3.64 3.64 4.14 Max Depth(ft): 0.28 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Profile Plot u Proposed Storm Sewer 10-Year w w y: 7,829.E i 4 , , N H N' 7,829.4 ;uw m so m m_P._. NI 7,8292 -__J:,' -V N rm_x _ N'tiN tl y7,829 Wr , , A NA z M: 7,828.8 r- 7,8286-- g1-1 7,BZB.az 7,8282 --- -- 7,828---- ---`-- 7,827.8---- 7,827.6--- --- -- 7,827.4=-- w7,8272--- -- g 7,827--- --- -- m 7,826.6--- 7,826.4---- --- 7,826.2---- Link ID P2-R1 ___r__ 7626---- Length 7.84 ft Dia 0.50 ft 7,825.8---- Slope 0.0200 ft/ft --- -- 7,625.6---- Up Invert 7824.88 ft --- -- Dn Invert 7824.72 ft 7,825.4--- ---`-- 7,8252---- 7,825---- --r-- 7,824.8 --`-- 7,824.6+ 7,824.4 - 7,8242 ---L-- 1+00 1+01 1+02 1+03 1+04 1+05 1+06 1+07 1+08 Station(ft) Node ID: S2-R1 S2 Rim(It): 7828.18 7828.58 Invert(It): 7824.88 7824.55 Min Pipe Cover(It): 2.80 3.3E Max HGL(ft): 7825.14 Link ID: P2-R1 Length(ft): 7.84 Dia(ft): 0.50 Slope(ft/ft): 0.0200 Up Invert(II): 7824.88 Dn Invert(It): 7824.72 Max Q(ds): 0.47 Max Vel(ft/s): 4.48 Max Depth(ft): 0.26 _ RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Profile Plot U Proposed Storm Sewer 10-Year 7,8292----..r.e.°I', r r r I 1 r r . . . . . . . . ...: • .4/ . . - - . . . . . . 7,829 i?,Foi. r: . .. : 7,828.8 .r: A NI A • 7,828.6 '-'- -t 1 I 1 .: .: oi F;''a .: .: .: L L 1 1 .: .: • 01 6. 41 .CO 7,828.4,----,s--.-. -: :- - 1 r I o, a A E-t 7,8282 m'''H 7828 7.827.8 _._ 1 .: .: :. met.-. 7,827.6 -- ---L L_ 7,827.4--- I 1 1 11 7,8272--- ' 4:0•-ml 0.1- 7.827--- ' :- 1 viw o--1 CO 43 7,826.8 -- t t 1 1 7,826.6 -- .V 7,826.4--- g 7,826.2--- I7,826--- Link ID P8-L2 kl-1 7,825.8 -- Length 19.66 ft 7,825.6 -- Dia 0.33 ft Link ID P8-L3 Slope 0.0200 ft/ft 7,825.4 Length 26.42 ft Up Invert 7824.69 ft 7,8252--- Dn Invert 7824.30 ft Dia 0.33 ft Slope 0.0200 ft/11 7.825 t- ,", Up Invert 7824.30 ft 7,824.8 --- Dn Invert 7823.77 ft 7,824.4 7,8242: 7,824' 7,823.8 7,823.6 7,8234 11111111111-1111111.1114 7,8232 1+00 1+62 1+84 1,-86 1+00 1+10 1+12 1+14 1+16 1+18 1+20 1+22 1+24 1+26 1+28 1+30 1+32 1+34 1+36 1+38 1+40 1+42 1+44 1+46 Station(ft) Node ID: S8-L1 S8-L2 S8 Rim(It): 7827.90 7827.50 7826.17 Invert(It): 7824.69 7824.30 7823.49 Min Pipe Cover lIt): 2.88 2.87 2.01 Max HGL(4 7824.84 7824.45 7823.92 Link ID: P8-L2 P8-L3 Length(ft): 19.66 26.42 Dia(ft): 0.33 0.33 Slope(ft/ft): 0.0200 0.0200 Up Invert(II): 7824.69 7824.30 . . Dn Invert(It): 7824.30 7823.77 Max Q(cfs): 0.12 0.12 Max Vet(ft/s): 3.22 3.22 Max Depth(ft): 0.14 0.15 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Pidile Plot Proposed Storm Sewer 10-Year 7,824.75 •7,824.7 • 4 7524.65 x i I t t t t t 7,824.6 Z_^m__ m g' 7,824.55____ '4 s r 7,8245____or__m da-H_g___ 7,824.45____la- -u 7,824.4—___ � 7524.35----Zmi i i { + 1 t 1 7,824.3 --- 7524.25---- 7,8242---- -- 7,824.15---- -- 7,824.1---- .. -- 7,824---- Link ID P15 7523.95---- Length 1467 ft --- 7,823.9---- Die 0.67 ft tcs 0 ft!ft 7,823.85---- Up Slope Invert0 782310011/t --- Ii7 823b---- Dn Invert 7822.96 tt 7,823.75---- ---- 7,823.7---- 7,823.65—___ 7523.55---- ____ 7,823.45—--- 7,823.4---- M=1 7,8233—___ 7,823.25—___ 7,823.2--_- 7523.15---- 7,823.1---- 7,823.05- 7,823— 7,822.95- 7,8229- 7,822.85- 1+00 1+01 1+02 1+03 1+04 1+05 1+06 1+07 1+08 1+09 1+10 1+11 1+12 1+13 1+14 1+15 Station(Ill Node ID: S10-Wq 514 Rim(et 7824.27 7824.37 Invert MI 702296 7823,11 Min Pipe Cover(Nt 0.00 Max H5L(9t 7823.25 782240 Link ID: P15 Length(14 14.67 Dia In 0.67 Slope(It/Itt 0.0100 Up Invert(Itt: 7823.11 Dn Invert(Itt 7822.96 Max 0(d:t 0.50 Max Vel(IUst 3.49 Mao Depth(Itt 0.29 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT PPslite Plot Proposed Storm Sewer 113-Year • : . 7,8251 1 t t t t ',- 1 t t ',- 1 t t t t 2: 7,825.05 ' ••••,...,,,.,.•• ''' ,,' ,, '' , 7,825 : 13. -- . . ,7,824.95 7,8249- 4, 1 ', '. :- 1- i 1 1 :- 1- i 1 1 'r i- -': 7624.85 1 1 t t t 1- 1 1 f t -:- -: 1 f t t i -i-4-tk. . 7824.8 4 p 4 r: r:r: r:r: 7,824.75 1 7,824.7 -.e., 7,824.65 r-g 15 7,824.6- .1 -: 1 t i. ‘-p9 1-'a, r-u • :- -: 1 f :- -:- -: 1 f L 'A 11 ' . • , 7,8245- ..n't : ,. 7,824.45 • ,.^t . . .._ . 7,824.4- igA j.j .._ : 7,824.35 , .: 7,8243 7,62425---- 7,8242---- 7,624.1 7.824.15 G•7,824.05---- C' 7,824 _JIIIIP Link ID P16 Length 13.73 tt 1 7623.95---- Link ID P9 DO 0.67 ft , 7,823.9 Length 4.50 ft Slope 0.0050 ftift Din 0.67 It Up Invert 7823.10 tt Slope 0.0150 SUP Dn Invert 7823.03 8 Up Invert 7823.03 ft Dn Invert 7822.96 ft 7023.7---- 7,623.65---- 7,8216---- 7,023.55---- 7,823.5---- 7,623.45- 7,823.4---- 7,02315---- 7,8233---- 7,62325---- 7,823.2- 7,023.15-- .... 7,823.1 7,823.05- 7,823---- 7622.95 7,1322.9 7622.85 7,1322.8 1+00 1+01 1+02 1+03 1+04 1+05 1+06 1+07 1+08 1+09 1+10 1+11 1+12 1+13 1+14 1+15 1+16 1+17 1+18 Station(Id Node ID, S10-WQ 59 515 Rim 515 7824.27 7824.40 7824.64 Invert MI 792206 7823,03 7823,10 Min Pipe Cover(85 0.70 0.05 Max HGL(ftt 7023.25 782015 782022 Link ID: 09 P16 Length(14 4.50 13.73 DM(10 0.67 0.67 Slope(11/10: 20150 0.0050 Up Invert(II) 7823.03 7823.10 Dn Invert(III 7822.96 7823.03 Max Q WM 0.07 0.07 Max Vel ilt/st 229 1.61 Mao Dark)(IlL 0.09 0.12 RECEIVED 02/3.4/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Weir Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Sunday,Aug 12 2018 Bioretention Pond A Rectangular Weir Highlighted Crest = Broad Depth (ft) = 0.13 Bottom Length (ft) = 2.00 Q (cfs) = 0.250 Total Depth (ft) = 0.25 Area (sqft) = 0.26 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.95 Calculations Top Width (ft) = 2.00 Weir Coeff. Cw = 2.60 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.25 Depth (ft) Bioretention Pond A Depth (ft) 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 v 0.00 0.00 -0.50 RE . IVED 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 02/i4/2019 Weir W.S. Length (ft) ASPBUILDING DEPARTMENT Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Monday,Sep 24 2018 Vault Outlets (2) 8 Inch Pipes to Level Spreader Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 7823.22 Calculations Pipe Length (ft) = 10.00 Qmin (cfs) = 0.50 Slope (%) = 0.50 Qmax (cfs) = 1.20 Invert Elev Up (ft) = 7823.27 Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2 Rise (in) = 8.0 Shape = Circular Highlighted Span (in) = 8.0 Qtotal (cfs) = 1.05 No. Barrels = 2 Qpipe (cfs) = 1.05 n-Value = 0.012 Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00 Culvert Type = Circular Culvert Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 1.86 Culvert Entrance = Smooth tapered inlet throat Veloc Up (ft/s) = 2.94 Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.534, 0.555, 0.0196, 0.9, 0.2 HGL Dn (ft) = 7823.72 HGL Up (ft) = 7823.61 Embankment Hw Elev (ft) = 7823.77 Top Elevation (ft) = 7825.00 Hw/D (ft) = 0.75 Top Width (ft) = 8.00 Flow Regime = Inlet Control Crest Width (ft) = 20.00 Elev(ft) Vault Outlets(2)8 Inch Pipes to Level Spreader Hw Depth(ft) 7826.00 I I 2.73 7825.50 2.23 7825.00 1.73 7824.50 1.23 7824.00 0.73 Inletcontrol 7823.50 - 0.23 7823.00 -027 7822.50 -0.77 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CirculerCulvert HGL Embank Reach(R) RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, May 16 2018 Drainage Swale A 10-Year Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 17.00, 17.00 Depth (ft) = 0.11 Total Depth (ft) = 0.25 Q (cfs) = 0.450 Area (sqft) = 0.21 Invert Elev (ft) = 7824.75 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.19 Slope (%) = 9.80 Wetted Perim (ft) = 3.75 N-Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.14 Top Width (ft) = 3.74 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.18 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.45 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7826.00 1.25 7825.50 0.75 7825.00 - 0.25 v -------------------------- - 7824.50 -0.25 7824.00 RECEYD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 02/14/2019 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, May 16 2018 Drainage Swale B 10-Year Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Depth (ft) = 0.26 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Q (cfs) = 0.450 Area (sqft) = 0.27 Invert Elev (ft) = 7824.03 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.66 Slope (%) = 2.20 Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.14 N-Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.24 Top Width (ft) = 2.08 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.30 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.45 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7825.00 0.97 7824.75 0.72 7824.50 0.47 7824.25 - 0.22 7824.00 -0.03 7823.75 RECEIYFD 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 02/i4/2019 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, May 16 2018 Drainage Swale C 10-Year Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Depth (ft) = 0.11 Total Depth (ft) = 0.75 Q (cfs) = 0.100 Area (sqft) = 0.05 Invert Elev (ft) = 7820.80 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.07 Slope (%) = 13.10 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.91 N-Value = 0.035 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.14 Top Width (ft) = 0.88 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.18 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.10 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7822.00 1.20 7821.50 0.70 7821.00 0.20 7820.50 -0.30 7820.00 RECEOD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 02/14/2019 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, May 16 2018 Trench Drain 10-Year Rectangular Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 0.58 Depth (ft) = 0.39 Total Depth (ft) = 1.30 Q (cfs) = 0.479 Area (sqft) = 0.23 Invert Elev (ft) = 7827.62 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.12 Slope (%) = 0.50 Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.36 N-Value = 0.015 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.28 Top Width (ft) = 0.58 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.46 Compute by: Q vs Depth No. Increments = 30 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7829.00 1.38 7828.50 0.88 7828.00 _ 0.38 7827.50 -0.12 7827.00 RECE1VD 0 .25 .5 .75 1 02,)f4/2019 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, May 16 2018 Drainage Swale A 100-Year Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 17.00, 17.00 Depth (ft) = 0.15 Total Depth (ft) = 0.25 Q (cfs) = 1.010 Area (sqft) = 0.38 Invert Elev (ft) = 7824.75 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.64 Slope (%) = 9.80 Wetted Perim (ft) = 5.11 N-Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.19 Top Width (ft) = 5.10 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.26 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 1.01 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7826.00 1.25 7825.50 0.75 7825.00 - 0.25 7824.50 -0.25 7824.00 RECEYD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 02/14/2019 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, May 16 2018 Drainage Swale B 100-Year Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Depth (ft) = 0.34 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Q (cfs) = 1.010 Area (sqft) = 0.46 Invert Elev (ft) = 7824.03 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.18 Slope (%) = 2.20 Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.80 N-Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.34 Top Width (ft) = 2.72 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.41 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 1.01 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7825.00 0.97 7824.75 0.72 7824.50 0.47 v 7824.25 0.22 7824.00 -0.03 7823.75 RECEIYFD 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 02/i4/2019 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Aug 21 2018 Drainage Swale C 100-Year Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00 Depth (ft) = 0.16 Total Depth (ft) = 0.75 Q (cfs) = 0.250 Area (sqft) = 0.10 Invert Elev (ft) = 7820.80 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.44 Slope (%) = 13.10 Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.32 N-Value = 0.035 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.19 Top Width (ft) = 1.28 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.25 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.25 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7822.00 1.20 7821.50 0.70 7821.00 0.20 7820.50 -0.30 7820.00 RECEOD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 02/14/2019 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, May 16 2018 Trench Drain 100-Year Rectangular Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 0.58 Depth (ft) = 0.74 Total Depth (ft) = 1.30 Q (cfs) = 1.050 Area (sqft) = 0.43 Invert Elev (ft) = 7827.62 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.46 Slope (%) = 0.50 Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.05 N-Value = 0.015 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.47 Top Width (ft) = 0.58 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.83 Compute by: Q vs Depth No. Increments = 30 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7829.00 1.38 7828.50 0.88 v - 7828.00 0.38 7827.50 -0.12 7827.00 RECE1VD 0 .25 .5 .75 1 02,)f4/2019 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Nyloplast 12"Standard Grate Inlet Capacity Chart 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 Ul 1.25 - U lE Q 1.00 A 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 . I I I 1 1 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Head(ft) RECEIVED Nyloplast 0 2/14/2 019 3130 Verona Avenue•Buford,GA 30518 (866)888-8479/(770)932-2443•Fax:(770)932-2490 ASPEN ©Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Nyloplast 12"Drop In Grate Inlet Capacity Chart 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 P 0.80 �a c �a c.� 0.60 0.40 Wit. 0.20 0.00 I I I 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 Head(ft) RECEIVED Nyloplast 0 2/14/2 019 3130 Verona Avenue•Buford,GA 30518 (866)888-8479/(770)932-2443•Fax:(770)932-2490 AS 0 (� ©Nyloplast Inlet Capacity Charts June 2012 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Inlet Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Aug 21 2018 100-Yr 6-Inch Area Drain Capacity Calculation, 25% Open Area Drop Grate Inlet Calculations Location = Sag Compute by: Known Q Curb Length (ft) = -0- Q (cfs) = 0.08 Throat Height (in) = -0- Grate Area (sqft) = 0.06 Highlighted Grate Width (ft) = 0.50 Q Total (cfs) = 0.08 Grate Length (ft) = 0.50 Q Capt (cfs) = 0.08 Q Bypass (cfs) = -0- Gutter Depth at Inlet (in) = 0.74 Slope, Sw (ft/ft) = 0.020 Efficiency (%) = 100 Slope, Sx (ft/ft) = 0.020 Gutter Spread (ft) = 6.66 Local Depr (in) = -0- Gutter Vel (ft/s) = -0- Gutter Width (ft) = 0.50 Bypass Spread (ft) = -0- Gutter Slope (%) = -0- Bypass Depth (in) = -0- Gutter n-value = -0- All dimensions in fed • • • 3.08 D.50 3.D8 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Inlet Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Aug 21 2018 100-Yr 4-Inch Area Drain Capacity Calculation, 25% Open Area Drop Grate Inlet Calculations Location = Sag Compute by: Known Q Curb Length (ft) = -0- Q (cfs) = 0.08 Throat Height (in) = -0- Grate Area (sqft) = 0.03 Highlighted Grate Width (ft) = 0.33 Q Total (cfs) = 0.08 Grate Length (ft) = 0.33 Q Capt (cfs) = 0.08 Q Bypass (cfs) = -0- Gutter Depth at Inlet (in) = 2.96 Slope, Sw (ft/ft) = 0.020 Efficiency (%) = 100 Slope, Sx (ft/ft) = 0.020 Gutter Spread (ft) = 24.96 Local Depr (in) = -0- Gutter Vel (ft/s) = -0- Gutter Width (ft) = 0.33 Bypass Spread (ft) = -0- Gutter Slope (%) = -0- Bypass Depth (in) = -0- Gutter n-value = -0- All d,nensions in fed 25 12-31 0.33 12-31 RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT ASPEN CHARTS AND FIGURES RECEIVED 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan 0.30 - 0.25 isi ai C a) c 0.15 L - 010 I — i p 1ti . I 0.05 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area to BIM(percent) Figure 8.13 Aspen Water Quality Capture Volume RECEIVED Chapter 8—Water Quality 8-33 Rev 8/2009 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Rainfall IDF for Aspen, Colorado 7 6 5 4 V -, C 3 2 0 fi 1 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Duration in Minutes 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr —t—25-yr -1 50-yr 100-yr Note: Accuracy is more reliable at 5 minute increments. Figure 2.1 1DF Curves for Aspen,Colorado RECEIVED Chapter 2 Rainfall 2-4 Rev 9/2014 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan too 090 0.80 7/ 0.70 , :/ V -cp ,'•/_ -o-100-yr o-50-yr u 1 .vd -a-25-yr -4-10-yr td -a--5-yr i0.40 --•-2-yr 0.30 0.20 010 0.00 • 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 80% 70% 80`s 9:i' 130°4 Watershed Percentage Imperviousness Figure 3.1 —Runoff Coefficients for NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group A 1.00 - 0.90 / 0.80 // / 0.70 I--a-100-y ra 0.60e - - -yr l -r"� -a-25-yr 0 50 v I-x-10-yr a !-�5-yr 0.40 C -•-2 yr ce 0 30 0.20 ..---✓ :: A - 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% - 90 Watershed Percentage Imperviousness Figure 3.2—Runoff Coefficients for NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group B Chapter 3-Runoff 3-6 Rev 2/2010 02/14/2019 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT