The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFile Documents.234 W Francis St.0118-2020-BRES (64) Eng i neeri ng2_234 W Francis_0118-2020-B RES 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pdf(11) Page: 9 Author: pjm If the sump pump is no longer If the sump pump is part of the design, remove from no longer part of the File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pd design,remove from the drainage report. the drainage report. f in,posed single-family residence,driveway,cabin,patio ana to idacaping. includes roofing,concrete driveway,paver patio am pervious Drainage study has been revised t• •-ove this basin will be directed m a proposed drywe0lacated°discharge the driveway and roof drain downspouts will be colic.-d within a ed to the drywall.The drywall discharge is a 6-inch,ameter outlet sump pump disc . •- ascribe overflow : • • hat connects to storm sewer within Francis St.T proposed storm s aredundant dual pipe system that will prevent•er0ow of the patio .•• ". wi proposed inlet north of cabin. 7 panda li l� Vaems..i', 7.7 p• A ,rw.� �.,.a a� Page: 59 Author: pjm Where are the peak discharge ahonal Peakdischarge(cis) =0.227 ; File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pd calculations for this sub-basin 00 T sin al , ,� f that drains to the west system? .040 Runoff coeff.(C) =0.9 31E byUaer,mi"' =5 Only PR1 calculations were .314 NRMP.IDF Rec limbfactor =5 Wherearethe peakva.m,.�lamt.°�� The proposed drainage basin map has been provided. discharge Icalatinnsfor t„;a updated to include a sub-basin map for storm to the west '? sewers. Peak discharge calculations have been to the west at Only PR1 calculations were provided. added to proposed hydrologic modeling 1 1°s° appendix. Diameter Repth(t) Page: : What does this invert elevation Diameter(n) =0.50 Depth Author: pjm Invert Elev(f) =7883.5E ,,Vciry,N File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pd represent? Per the profile on Slaps(%) =1.02 Welled Pay _, CdtDept„, f sheet 302 the connection of west Top WitllM1 Calculations EGL(fi) roof storm is 84.49 and the slope Compute by: Known This location is at the 6"x4"wye shown at station is 1.44%. Clarify what this is Known O bast =own .. elevation repress serUepro on 1+76.01on sheet C302. Invert has been coea1ec02 showing. lion of west roof and storm modified to 82.10 and slope has been modified 1.4d�Clarify � Ele°R to 1.00% per sheet C302. () isshowing. ....an meson oesn Page: 62 of mna�r Inl =0.50 pm In)ll9n— 0(ors) Provide Author: m Provide rational method calcs Invert Elev(ft) =100.00 Velppiry(Na, p1 that support this peak discharge. Slope(%' ='.01 Wetletl Pedro File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pd Sl Value =1 012 CM1l DepIM1.Vc Top Width(n) f Is this for a 100 yr event? EGL(fl) Compute by: Knavm° ,, Known CI(ors) =o.°E , etli Peak discharge calculations ed to °d�l�'� ppe proposed modeling app endix. Thetllacnarge.Is Ns for a mo>T evenn Elev(ft) culation is for the 100-yr event. The storm routing and basins have been revised. 100-yr flow is calculated to be 0.16cfs. 10035 Page: 62 Author: pjm The profile for east storm shows File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pd mostly a 4" pipe which Channel Report pw`=mos�l, f transitions to 6" near the drywell. mnn—m- pa— �, a`pranM1ic Where are the capacity calcs for EAST STORM CcVZo erear Capacity calculations for the 4" pipe have been the 4l'pipe'?ry col a1 rorlM1e a"Pipes htetl Diameter(ft) =0.50 o(pm,ln, added to the hydraulic modeling appendix. The ors Area(soft) calculation is for the 100-yr event. The storm Invert Elev(fl) =1.0.00 Velacry(Ns) Slaps(%) =001 WetDe Pedro(fl) "-Value =°.oca ;o`°e•^ye`n' routing and basins have been revised. 100-yr p wlrnh(n) Compute by: EGL(fl) Knwpo ) Known034° flow is calculated to be 0.16cfs. RECEIVED 10/08/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Page: 62 Channel Repoli Author: pjm What does this invert elevation File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pd represent? EAST STORM f Dl velar Diameter(t) =0.m wna,aces ms Highlighted ertEle lN, ae.e"nnmprese 0 This location is at the 90 degree vert bend shown N-Value =0Al2 Cn Drom,ycla)) at station 0+96.18 on sheet C301. Has been Gmur,wne Top Width n(n) Compute by: Known Cl revised to actual elevation. Knpwn D lee) =oa4 Page: 64 axs+rtoK+eran Author: pjm Where does this flow come =m, File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis .21_04_13.pd from? _„ """' f This needs context. Show the -' Connection to Francis St storm o longer proposed. offsite basins in a plan.The `""°m`° "' calculation needs to account for the upstream basin and any new runoff added down stream. IEEE How did you determine how much runoff is leaving the site from the drywell? This property is changing watershed basins. Now draining to a basin that it didn't drain to previously.The analysis needs to show there is capacity in the city's main system for this property. ;m w : Page: 65 These calcs appear to be Author: pjm generic for diameter of the pipe File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pd in Francis. These calculations need to show that the pipe can Connection to Fra s orm is no longer proposed. accommodate additional drainage that it doesn't currently convey. Page: 67 Channel Report Author: pjm Provide context for these �®^ File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pd calculations as well. EX-P2(END FRANCIS ST) f I c la HIghlk 'a a" I0: I o(OR)' Connection to Francis St storm is no Ion osed. Area(s Invert Elev(fl)Slo N-CaCo Nots 20 Page: 70 Channel Report This invert doesn't match the Author pjm invert called out at sta 0+00.00 TRENCH STORM 5-YR File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pd Bottom a 42 ,e=) f on the profile. cmueNElev(ft) =9085.35 °.e"°°e=" '��Fs'/nm The invert elevation is the bottom of the trench �N-Value N , , =0.0,1 alletl ue atVsten F,Y 00 Cecnletlpn. pme_ °ne (a) channel. The pipe invert on profile sheet C301 Known (cfs) =0.03D has been updated for a bottom connection per EIVED the Neenah R-4996-A2 detail. E'eV`") 10/08/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT ...... �a..m. .. Page: 76 wsw.E,o^ R Author: pjm How was this flow calculated? 0 File Name: 40.DrainageReport_234WFrancis_2021_04_13.pd This is the emergency overflow 1.), from the system if the drywell f ° -°a, Swale capacity calculation has been revised to met capacity or wasn't p Y functioning correct? the 100-yr flow for basin PR-1 (0.65cfs)which represents the overflow if the drywell was at — _re, °„,°, capacity. 90.CIVIL-PERMIT_234 WFrancis_2021_05_14.pdf(7) /' I Page: [2] C200 GRADING& EROSION CONTROL PLA I Author: pjm The drainage report still / File Name: 90.CIVIL-PERMIT 234 cis 2021 05 14.pdf references a sump pump in the Ali / R°°^ — — — — basement of the cabin as the ® g�«wem Drainage stud/ een revised to remove emergency overflow and does le.AM- 1 iam, sum discharge and describe overflow not reference CB 1. Remove this 70. ` ondition with proposed inlet north of cabin. from the report. - iiAl 9'2' jo�� tw%/a 1 Page: [2] C200 GRADING& EROSION CONTROL PLAN 7—4'aillib The existing curb and gutter Author: pjm �� M File Name: 90.CIVIL-PERMIT_234 WFrancis_2021_05_14.pdf does not comply with COA C&G .�w standards, it a ears to be more 'v,` HPC will not allow new curb andgutter in Francis St. of a concr andsca a strip. p p Have coordinated w/engieering for existing curb and Does s have capacity? '° EIP gutter to remain and improvement agreement to be ,141111 submitted. Street conveyance needs to be 1�' provided along Francis (per 7 Mountable Type A curb and gutter per C URMP requirements)and C&G standard details is proposed on 2nd replaced on 2nd St.Will a Swale, per the URMP/Design Standards or C&G be installed on Francis? Depth of gravel is 6". Gr is flush with existing Provide capacity calcs, a detail, grade and acts as sc protection as requested. etc.for this design. What is the depth of the gravel area?Show that this gravel area conveys street drainage without negatively impacting the neighbor. II 1 Page: [2] C200 GRADING& EROSION CONTROL PLAN P �r ��< <' The calcu s for the drywell I�iAuthor: pjm _ ca and 24 hr drain down aka„,,,u File Name: 90.CIVIL-PERMIT 234 WFrancis_2021_05_14.pdf 71: -- ,A*1, % tom — ime show that the impermeable Albmow The drywell function is not impacted by the liner does not impact the 3- impermeable liner and drains within the - r function?The response to ° zs ma drain down time. comments just says"the drywell eweo; is not to be impacted by the , impermeable liner." Does that mean is it far enough away or MEN does it need to be installed in a way that won't impact the function? RECEIVED 10/08/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Page: [3] C300 UTILITY PLAN WSO s e located on or ,,,,,„ ‘ii Author: pjm File Name: 90.CIVIL-PERMIT 234 WFrancis 2021 05 14 ithin the property line per wso should be �,o.o - - — — — the COA Distribution Standards. located on or just PE X COPPER within the property ATER SERVICE WSO location has been revised to be insi line per the COA __ Distribution ,ems: property boundary Standards. '24"W 89.83' WATER '. SHUTOFF VALVE ABANDON EXISTNAIER SERVICE PER CITY OF ASPEN Page: [3] C300 UTILITY PLAN a\ �BNo�anV Clarify if the service line is above \ luzgsiya,EE„ Author: pjm - - = " ,� File Name: 90.CIVIL-PERMIT_234 WFrancis_2021_05_14.pdf or below the m ' rm line. 4__ 2 N v� Callout has been updated to note the water STORN... Sri service shall be below the storm sewer. WE N2 `. A� E„ -- r• Page: [3] C300 UTILITY PLAN .d� �J IT OF MANHOLE o Author: pjm Add note that the extents of ANC'S-p/� STANDARDS T to atch sho out of the - � � pr \ File Name: 90.CIVIL-PERMIT_234 WFrancis_2021_05_14.pdf p p whe o vehicles. • Nli Callout has been updated to note that patch Add „a„he extents shall be located out of vehic e ote t=o'rd�o paths. ame neei l+m or �n pies. J Page: [4] C301 STORM PLAN &PROFILE .....Q Author: pjm The s ' port states that if a ' MEM= File Name: 90.CIVIL-PERMIT_234 WFrancis 2021 05 1 well is used, it should have a - g - - - solid casing down to at least 2' /A A - ° w HCE corresponded with the geotech re ng the below the basement floor level. It `' _-■_ .. impermeable liner installation een the drywell and doesn't appear this condition is i E>. " __ foundation. Geotech rmed the perf section can being followed. Address this ... MI- be at the bas elevation as shown. discrepancy. E iE lb MI.117STA "fti 90.CMP-SHORING_234 W Francis_2020_09_04.pdf(5) i t -,--� Page: 24 What is this gravel pit? It isn't FC Author: pjm F.:66 6 File Name: 90.CMP-SHORING 234 W shown o the civil sheets. ali a i8.43 - 4. Francis_2020_09_04.pdf wal 6► - ��'^ Shoring plan was revised. Please note this pit i n�tr has been removed and only the pit of the cabin ,- ; 11 is proposed. 1 AL. RECEIVED 10/08/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT �� Page: 24 Confirm the water service line ®_ wi-L f - -'--i + A-mmu.. J Author: pjm ��' ,' can be ins of uii hout shoring ',1 �yz File Name: 90.CMP-SHORING 234 W I El �� .� 1 Francisrik7Alli _2020_09_04.pdf - i out impacting the trees since it is not included in the �a g L,�a. micropile area. Water line can be installed � additional "'° a A i 9 -- shoring. Routin etween existing trees t v can s reviewed with Parks Dept. onsite. �. �.� Page: 24 ' . -4 Author: pjm What will the phasing be for the Tar' File Name: 90.CMP-SHORING_234 W installation of the service line Francis 2020 09 04.pdf and the micropile - - - system/drywell? If the new si «_m�� e�. jorkildp f"b"" I Water for construction will be provided service line is or " _— from existing service with frost free hydrant. construction water before the LLtl " ' <.101 ��` New service line will go in after micropiles, so micropile system, how will III freezing will not be a concern freezing be prevented? If the C ✓ service line goes in after the micropiles, this shouldnt' be an issue. w;ma'} Page: 24 The plans should be Author: pjm "+' + u mitted as part of the building r- ` File Name: 90.CMP-SHORING_234 W permit documents rather than -11Q,,, Francis 2020 09 04.pdf - - - included in the CMP. The �W"o" 'I Shoringplan added to architectural drawingshoring plans need to be - r included in the issued set of 1. _�_al s o SH-001 through SH-006. building permit sheets. _.._____.__---- Page: 26 Author: pjm Per the Engineering Standards File Name: 90.CMP-SHORING_234 W checklist for excavation and ""' Francis_2020_09_04.pdf stabilization plans, surcharge - _ limitatio are not permitted in _._______. ___ ways. Revise the design so Note "3.4 Surcharge Loading"was updated the alley can accommodate ___�___7.__.____ accordingly. heavy loads. ._. __-=-•-..--_. The drywell will be lowered i e excavated area How willthe drywell ebe installed? y Will a crane be needed to lower by a crane parked on ncis St. The crane will be the structure?Can it park over 8' set up well ov away from the micropile wall. away to avoid the surcharge area? e has been added to the drawing depicting where the crane will be located and that it is outside Depict the surcharge area on the of the 8' surcharge limitation for heavy loads. shoring plan. RECEIVED 10/08/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT