Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.234 W Francis St.0118-2020-BRES (71) DRAINAGE REPORT FOR 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET CITY OF ASPEN, COL ORAD O PARCEL ID: 273512417003 PREPARED FOR: Selldorf Architects PREPARED BY: High Country Engineering, Inc. 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8676 January 21, 2022 HCE JOB NUMBER: 2191025.00 Reviewed by Engineering 02/22/2022 8:48:29 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. _ RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 4 II. DRAINAGE STUDIES 4 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 5 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 8 IV. CONCLUSION 11 V. REFERENCES 11 EXHIBITS: 1. Vicinity Map (8.5"xl l") 2. SCS Soils Map (8.5"x11") 3. FEMA Map (11"x 17") 4. Historic Drainage Conditions (24"x36") 5. Proposed Drainage Conditions (24"x36") 6. Detail Sheets (24"x36") 7. Soils Report APPENDICES: Hydrologic Computations • Historic Conditions • Proposed Conditions • Detention Computations Hydraulic Computations • Storm Sewer Calculations • Drywell Calculations Aspen Charts and Figures RECEIVED Paget 01/28/2022 J:\SDSKPROJ\219\1025\Drainage\2191025 -DRAINAGE STUDY 234 W FRANCIS_REV 2022-01-21. oc ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Engineers Certification "I hereby affirm that this report and the accompanying plans for the proposed Single-family Residence at 234 West Francis Street 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. " , ' 47653 3,; SStONAL E . / . 2! - License No. 47653 Michael G. Grzesiak, P.E. Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Colorado RECEIVED Page3 01/28/2022 J:\SDSKPROJ\219\1025\Drainage\2191025 -DRAINAGE STUDY 234 W FRANCIS_REV 2022-01-21.cioc ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The subject property is located at 234 West Francis Street within the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. A Vicinity Map has been included as Exhibit 1. B. Description of Existing Property The existing lot is approximately 9,000 square feet (0.206 acres). The lot is currently developed with an approximately 1,995 square foot single-family residence and 614 square foot guest house. Existing pervious ground cover consists mainly of grassed lawn,mature cottonwood and aspen trees. Impervious surfaces consist of brick paver walkways and a brick paver patio. The site is bordered by private property to the east, West Francis Street right-of-way to the south, North Second Street right-of-way to the west,and a public alley to the north. On the south and west sides of the existing residence drainage flows to the Francis Street and Second Street right-of-ways respectively. Along the north and east sides of the existing residence drainage sheet flows northeast the alley. Overall the existing drainage pattern is to the north, northeast and drainage surface discharge offsite. Grades on the property are minimal at 1.5-percent approximately. C. Proposed Improvements Proposed improvements consist of construction of an approximately 3,472 square foot single-family residence in-place of the existing residence, remodel of the existing guest house, flagstone walkways, grassed lawns, landscaping and stormwater conveyance and management facilities. D. Soils Description The City of Aspen soils map locates this site in the Type `B" soils area. Per the NRCS Web Soil Survey,this site primarily lies within mapping unit type 110—Uracca,moist-Mergel complex,25 to 65 percent slopes. The Soil Conservation Service describes the soil as well-drained with high runoff, moderately high to high permeability, and very low water storage capacity. The soils are classified as hydrologic soil group `B'. Additional soils information can be referenced in Exhibit 2. A site specific geotechnical investigation has been performed by Kumar&Associates(Project No. 19-7-496 dated September 11,2019). At the location of exploratory borings,subsurface conditions consist of approximately 3 feet of natural,stiff slightly sandy clay underlain by relatively dense,silty sandy gravel and cobbles with boulders to a boring depth of 16 feet. Groundwater was not observed at the time of exploratory boring. A copy of the geotechnical investigation can be referenced in Exhibit 7. II. DRAINAGE STUDIES A. Major Drainage Way Planning and Influential Parameters RECEIVED Page4 01/28/2022 J:\SDSKPROJ\219\1025\Drainage\2191025 -DRAINAGE STUDY 234 W FRANCIS_REV 2022-01-21. oc ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT The site is located within FEMA's major drainage study of the area on its Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 08097C0354E which has an effective date of August 15, 2019. The area of interest within the site is located in Zone X. This zone is described as areas determined to be outside the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. Refer to Exhibit 3 for the FEMA map. Mud flow was not analyzed for the site since the site is located outside of the Mud Flow Zone as indicated in the Storm Drainage Master Plan for the City of Aspen,Colorado by WRC Engineering, Inc. in November of 2001. B. Previous Drainage Studies Per the November 2001 study completed by WRC Engineering,Inc.titled,"Storm Drainage Master Plan for the City of Aspen,Colorado,"the site is located within"System 3"as shown on figure ES-2 and is subject to the recommendations of that study. C. Receiving System and Effects of Adjacent Drainage Issues To our knowledge,there are no major drainage issues with the adjacent properties that affect the site or that the site affects. Runoff from the west side of the existing site surface discharges to the Second Street curb and gutter and flows north ultimately discharging in the open space at the Smuggler Street park. Runoff from the south side of the existing site surface discharges to the West Francis Street curb and gutter and flows east to a grassed roadside swale east of the property. Runoff from the central area of the site surface discharges northeast to the alley north of the site and is believed to route to a grassed swale along First Street. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Criteria This drainage study was prepared in conformance with the City of Aspen, Colorado Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP), dated April of 2010 and the revised sections dated thereafter. 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 1,000 square feet are being disturbed and more than 25-percent of the overall 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. no improvements). Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) will be determined for the site that will undergo site grading 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(watershed-inches)x 1/12(ft./in)x area(acres)x 43,560 ft2/acre. Runoff for the onsite basins will be routed through a series of storm sewer receiving storm water from sheet flow and downspouts to a proposed drywell where runoff will be treated for WQCV and detention volume. RECEIVED Page 5 01/28/2022 J:\SDSKPROJ\219\1025\Drainage\2191025 -DRAINAGE STUDY 234 W FRANCIS_REV 2022-01-21. oc ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT B. Hydrologic Criteria The hydrologic methods for this study are outlined in the URMP from the City of Aspen,Colorado (April, 2010) and the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for the Rational Method. 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 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 3.3 from the URMP was used to determine the runoff coefficients for the 5-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events since the soils were determined to be type `B' soils. This site is located within the Aspen Mountain Drainage Basin delineated in URMP Figure 1.1 and will discharge directly to the city storm sewer. Therefore detention to the historic peak flow rates is not required. The drywell has been sized to handle the WQCV and rational method detention volume per section 5.6.1 the URMP. Type `B' soils were used for the site per Figure 3.1 NRCS Soil Map for Aspen. 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 storm sewer within the proposed system have been sized using the Hydraflow Express and Hydraflow Storm Sewer calculator within AutoDesk Civil 3D. All drainage features and structures have the capacity to carry entire basin design flows anticipated in a major storm event. See basin descriptions below for explanation. D. Site Constraints There are no utilities, streets or structures that cause major site constraints for the drainage system design. E. Easements and Irrigation Facilities There are no major drainage ways, drainage easements or tracts located on the site. There are also no irrigation facilities onsite that affect the overall proposed development. F. Low Impact Site Design A proposed drywell will be implemented to provide the required WQCV and detention volume per the URMP. Should the drywell capacity be exceeded, runoff will discharge offsite by surface discharge from catch basin CB-1 near the east side of the property. RECEIVED Page6 01/28/2022 J:\SDSKPROJ\219\1025\Drainage\2191025 -DRAINAGE STUDY 234 W FRANCIS_REV 2022-01-21. oc ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT G. Principles The 9 Principles for storm water quality management were followed during the design process to create the best storm water design and water quality management. The following is a summary of compliance with the Storm Drainage Principles outlined in the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan: 1. Consider storm water quality needs early in the design process Storm water quality needs were considered early in the design process, as recommended. 2. Use the entire site when planning for storm water quality treatment. With the use of drywells and vegetated swales, the entire site is utilized for water quality treatment. 3. Avoid unnecessary impervious area Efforts were made to avoid unnecessary impervious areas in drainage design. Existing impervious areas will be redeveloped,but the site will have an overall increase in impervious area. 4. Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions Runoff rates and volumes have been reduced, as recommended,by implementing a drywell served by vegetated swales and storm sewer. All impervious areas will drain the proposed facilities. 5. Integrate storm water quality management and flood control The proposed facilities have been sized to provide water quality and detention volume as required by the URMP. All conveyance facilities have been adequately sized to handle the required design storms. 6. Develop storm water quality facilities that enhance the site and environment. Vegetated swales enhance the landscaping aesthetic. The water quality facility is a drywell which is subgrade and not visible. 7. Use a treatment train approach Vegetated swales provide a level of treatment prior to the drywell. 8. Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained The proposed storm water quality facilities have been designed to be easily accessible and safely maintained, as recommended. 9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind The proposed storm water quality facilities have been designed with public safety in mind,as required. RECEIVED Pagel 01/28/2022 J:\SDSKPROJ\219\1025\Drainage\2191025 -DRAINAGE STUDY 234 W FRANCIS_REV 2022-01-21. oc ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN General Concept Currently the property is an existing single-family residence. Proposed improvements consist of construction of an approximately 3,472 square foot single-family residence with landscaping and stormwater conveyance and management facilities.Runoff from all impervious areas onsite will be directed to a proposed drywell for treatment. Roof downspouts will be piped to the drywell. All conveyance facilities have been sized to safely convey the 100-year storm event. II. Historic Drainage Basin Descriptions The existing drainage pattern onsite generally flows from southwest to northeast and surface discharges at the northeast corner of the property. The site is currently developed but has been analyzed in its historic conditions. The historic site has been analyzed as a single onsite basin,EX-1. Basin EX-1 is comprised of the property boundary. An existing conditions drainage map, EXDR can be referenced in Exhibit 4. The existing basins are more described as the following: EX-1 Basin EX-1 encompasses the entire property boundary. This basin has been modeled in a historic, undeveloped condition of trees and grasses. Runoff from this basin sheet flows generally from southwest to northeast and surface discharges near the northeast property corner. This discharge point is labeled as "1" on the existing drainage map. There are no negative impacts from the runoff to the adjacent properties as runoff has low discharge rates that sheet flow across permeable land. Runoff does not drain directly to downstream structures. Refer to Exhibit 4 for an existing drainage basin delineation and information. Table 1 below summarizes existing basin information. Table 1 —Historic Basin Information AREA C, Ibo BASIN (AC) 10YR (IN/HR) Qio(CFS) C, 100YR lioo (IN/HR) Qioo(CFS) EX-1 0.207 0.15 2.00 0.06 0.35 3.20 0.23 ONSITE 0.06 ONSITE 0.23 TOTAL TOTAL Proposed Basin Description The proposed site has been analyzed as three onsite basins; PR-1, PR-2, and PR3 respectively. Basin PR-1 is comprised of the proposed single-family residence, cabin, patio and landscaping. Basin PR-2 consists of the northeastern portion of the property and is landscaped with pervious area. Basin PR-3 consists of the western landscaping areas. A proposed conditions drainage map,PRDR can be referenced in Exhibit 5. RECEIVED Page 8 01/28/2022 J:\SDSKPROJ\219\1025\Drainage\2191025 -DRAINAGE STUDY 234 W FRANCIS_REV 2022-01-21. oc ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT PR-1 Basin PR-1 consists of the proposed single-family residence,driveway,cabin,patio and landscaping. Ground cover for this basin includes roofing, concrete driveway, paver patio and pervious landscaping. Drainage from this basin will be directed to a proposed drywell located near the south side of the property near Francis Street. Drainage from the driveway and roof drain downspouts will be collected within a storm sewer system and routed to the drywell. The drywell discharge is an inlet at discharge point"1". The proposed storm sewer system from the patio is a redundant dual pipe system that will prevent overflow of the patio area should either of the pipes be clogged. The system overflow is a proposed inlet located north of the cabin which provides an overflow route that surface drains along historic drainage patterns along the alley northeast of the site, ultimately to North 1st St. PR-2 Basin PR-2 consists of the northeastern portion of the property. Ground cover for this basin consists of grassed lawns and landscaping. This basin is surface discharges to the northeast property corner along historic drainage routes at discharge point"2". PR-3 Basin PR-3 consists of the western and southern lawn areas. Ground cover for this basin includes grassed lawn and pervious landscaping. Surface drainage will be directed to the Second Street curb and gutter, then along historic drainage routes north on Second Street. This basin is surface discharges to the western property line along historic drainage routes at discharge point"3". Refer to Exhibit 5 for proposed drainage basin delineation and information. Table 2 below summarizes the proposed basin information. Table 2—Proposed Basin Information AREA C, ho BASIN (AC) 10YR (IN/HR) Qio(CFS) C, 100YR 1100 (IN/HR) Q1oo(CFS) PR-1 0.158 0.55 3.61 0.31 0.71 5.76 0.65 PR-2 0.030 0.06 2.91 0.00 0.43 4.65 0.06 PR-3 0.020 0.06 2.70 0.00 0.43 4.32 0.04 ONSITE 0 32 ONSITE 0.74 TOTAL TOTAL D. Downstream Impacts The proposed onsite grading and drywell will not produce negative downstream impacts during frequent storm events by capturing and treating the onsite WQCV and detention volume. This will result in less flow from the site during frequent storm events. There are no downstream facilities from the site to be negatively impacted by the site's redevelopment. The onsite runoff will leave the site after cleansed in the water quality facilities thus preventing the spread of pollutants downstream. RECEIVED Page9 01/28/2022 J:\SDSKPROJ\219\1025\Drainage\2191025 -DRAINAGE STUDY 234 W FRANCIS_REV 2022-01-21. oc ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Table 3 -Proposed WQCV Table DRYWELL WQCV(Watershed BASIN VOLUME (CF) _ inches) WQCV (CF) PR-1 373 _ 0.110 63.0 PR-2 0.000 0.0 PR-3 0.000 0.0 TOTAL 373 0.110 63.0 F.S. = 1.5 FOR DRYWELL 94.5 IMPERVIOUS % EFFECTIVE BASIN AREA (SF) AREA (SF) IMPERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS (%) PR-1 6,873 _ 4,189 60.9% 60.9 PR-2 1,294 0 0.0% 0 PR-3 850 0 0.0% 0 TOTAL 8,167 4,189 51.3% 51.3% The drywell has been sized to detain both the WQCV and detention volume. The detention volume has been calculated per URMP section 5.6.1,Rational Volume Method for Detention Volume(FAA Method). The detention volume required to be provided is 232cf for the 100-yr event. The proposed drywell provides a volume of 373cf, thus there is an excess detention volume available. Runoff and detention volume calculations can be referenced in the hydrologic computations index. The drywell has been designed with a controlled release at or below the historic rate as required for the FAA method by an overflow inlet, labeled CB-1, acting as a weir. The 100-year flowrate for basin PR-1 with detention is 0.08 cfs. If the drywell surpasses the detention volume,the system will overflow through inlet CB-1 located north of the cabin near the east side of the property,and surface discharge to the alley north of the property then along historic drainage patterns northeast of the site. Drywell calculations can be referenced in the hydrologic computations appendix. F. Operation and Maintenance The proposed drainage facilities are to be constructed in conformance with the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan, dated April 2010 and revised thereafter. The drywell will need to be inspected and maintained quarterly to verify clogging has not occurred and it is functioning properly. Debris and liter removal shall occur routinely. Clean outs can be used to inspect pipes by cameras to determine the location of clogging or collapsed pipe. If clogging or standing water is observed,thoroughly run a sewer snake through the pipe to unclog. Solid pipes may be jetted clear if clogged. Swales shall be maintained annually and kept clear to ensure proper conveyance function as intended. Any deposited debris that blocks or restricts conveyance shall be removed immediately in order to protect onsite and adjacent structures and property. RECEIVED Page 10 01/28/2022 J:\SDSKPROJ\219\1025\Drainage\2191025 -DRAINAGE STUDY 234 W FRANCIS_REV 2022-01-21. oc ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT The owner 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. This project includes "Low Impact Site Design" to mimic the natural pre-development hydraulic pattern. Storm water runoff is to be treated for water quality prior to reaching the City of Aspen storm sewer system. Plants and soil are to act as filters to remove pollutants from surface drainage and are present along the lengths of proposed graded swales. The drywell will provide the required water quality capture volume and detention volume. III. CONCLUSION A. Compliance with Standards This drainage report has been prepared in accordance with City of Aspen Regulations. The proposed drywell will capture and treat the proposed WQCV and detention volume for impervious areas added to the site. B. Drainage Concept The proposed drainage design will be effective in controlling any adverse downstream impacts on landowners or structures. Water quality issues will be minimal as the runoff will be intercepted and routed to the proposed drywell. IV. REFERENCES United States Depai lucent of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service: Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and GARFIELD Counties, May 1992. 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. RECEIVED Page 11 01/28/2022 J:\SDSKPROJ\219\1025\Drainage\2191025 -DRAINAGE STUDY 234 W FRANCIS_REV 2022-01-21. oc ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 1 VICINITY MAP RECEWED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT .._, , Ac-----4 \o �, Z ,),:. z ti �G `oc......____. , . •„. , ,4 RFvwii RPJ O 'Pi ` qYqGE-RD RD j. P< if ,, 3Q` s* Gv.. O,`, �� N NH .d Gyer -. 1� y lc( L"' —air • 0 ring Fork . \1:3%Z HUNTER CREEK�� ��t✓' Oa ry t` NKt: F 1g V11.11V11 Y 1V11-11' .0,,,..- iii‘. op 1 73 II W/LLOUGHBY WAY / :: A1s 4W• FRl r C • t �41 '. to m // ■ w� `�ta� � � 0 � I F ` ST. ��G I AMERICAN\N q y.� m 73 o . N�,�_� I AIP o ate Highway - YMI l_ 11d,�� N 1 � II . lir creek. Road Centerline 9K 4 ♦ itiw,vo,i l p Z ,q �Z(}' gi a Primary Road \yiyY % � F� `� yLakeG DSPRUCE STSecondary Road Le ti ` Service Road iy,� •� ? 2 SMLI"G���'? L73,t. c gun �'°� �' Road Centerline �, O_ ■.� ,t Sj Rout R. L,�, z�\ d3! s� a m, 82 �p 2 N. W S , ,4 EST �L a Primary Road Y CO Z MUG �' �^/ > m o Secondary Road N► W H� W FRgN�� 't; � R ST F'°� AtAil \ r Q �A44 SS Lor4 y OParcel Boundacrk � = IST /ti'TT /ti1�,,, PUjiP yC �tn v\NJAH- O Boundary 013 / n 2�[Z /0.--2 NC/S ST �f+�Lgv , x. O o �� p Rivers and Creeks ,�� �y. '�/ ti 1,� N ! / W j Continuous !' _ 2 ill 2 W HgL gMe 7'Li Af GIBS Q 51''"i O Intermittent • - '� LAM ST, ..'T/ ^ SAR �qL 0• W MA/Ai W BLEE� EHgL — ii , River, Lake or Pond N ST KER ST LAIy Sj � PARK-'06? a Town Boundary - \ I. C:i741114A/ArU' /® � R� Federal Land Boundary L S �L l?� 1 O 1 , M9C3 �OWHOT W I wA/N SjE SLEKER yG,QgNDEPL �'�• O� �°e�. 0BLM (j P/{/ � ST l.• �S+O � 0 State of Colorado u, ,o yc NS AVE C:JC:71,....;11 .-J ; \ aka 2 usFs To a* a ., . 0 & To �lE HO �� o 'P� CI,y H e PKUyS AV E MgINrr��;• I,�<v c.) q v �� ` -- 7 YMgN AVE E `� -- r/\ SrT E Mq a v(<,Q p ��NG ST P42- ' n" �O HyMq �is� ti Q QNAVEliDi Q tn� �Q,= COOPE �2 Q Ej r R AVE c� 7.1 , QCIF HOP/{/NS YI17L\11 o /1:1) ��' ct 2 AVE I ti D J r F COOP v� Li)HYMi t W� ul EgN,ST ER AVE NAVE ;` Q� ARDMO k-- 0 ct C / 2 DURANT I ,n1 ;i1"r. y AVE Q E COOP i yO 3 _, ol so. W i' ti J �P (�URA AVE IN// 82 Thomifas ��� O� NTgVE ORD F ReseilJpr t ,, PPENco �MTN��O i� II'ATERS AVF v Notes THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. , 2,000.0 0 1,000.00 2,000.0 Feet Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee �!r' .'' L's ... \ - concerning the completeness,accuracy,or reliability V - . ED of the content represented. • Map Created on 3:16 PM 10/10/19 at yam:, ;," FM WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com '' "- 1_._.r )2 2 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 2 SCS SOILS MAP RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Soil Map—Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado,Parts of Eagle, Garfield,and Pitkin Counties N :Ti- a 342430 342440 342450 342460 342470 342480 342490 342500 342510 342520 342530 39°11'42"N - 39°11'42"N 111111111**/ _ o g iiit ' 1_ a i 111118 1WS49g/er 3r' -11k 7 I , ___ . ,, ..„43. I i VS . _ I 1 VIII I .• -?itiol;(„ gvii". ip ii.'"'"NiN00,..„41wile . loc. fiP --vc-w 'llit:110 I , iivioffroti 7. it . . a WFranc/s,st. 1 1 i. 011 r l' kill 401/ IP - 4 AV I plimpriiiit, Y I' VADN cramp ay mi�bQ Bali . -th-i. scal p I i dir 39°11'37'N — I 'I I 39°11'37'N 342420 342430 342440 342450 342460 342470 342480 342490 342500 342510 342520 342530 bl Ma Scale:1:720 if printed on A p p' portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet. o N 0 10 20 40 60 MetersFeet RECEIVED A0 35 70 140 210 Map projection:Web Merotor Comer coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 13N WGS84 01/2 8/2 0 2 2 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/10/2019 O G G G MIMI Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 o�3SPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Soil Map—Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle,Garfield,and Pitkin Counties MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest(AOI) 1:24,000. Q Stony Spot Soils Very Stony Spot Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 0 Soil Map Unit Polygons Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause .�� Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Other line placement.The maps do not show the small areas of p Soil Map Unit Points contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Special Line Features Special Point Features scale. w Blowout Water Features Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map cs Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation X Clay Spot Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service 0 Closed Depression Web Soil Survey URL: ti Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) X Gravel Pit US Routes 040 Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator ,. Gravelly Spot Major Roads projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the 0 Landfill Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Background 46 Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s)listed below. iRk Mine or Quarry Soil Survey Area: Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado,Parts of O Miscellaneous Water Eagle,Garfield,and Pitkin Counties Q Perennial Water Survey Area Data: Version 10,Sep 13,2019 v Rock Outcrop Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. + Saline Spot Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Data not available. Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor • Sinkhole shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 3) Slide or Slip oa Sodic Spot RECEIVED 01/28/2022 i i\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/10/2019 001. Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 oASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Soil Map—Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado, Parts of Eagle,Garfield,and Pitkin Counties Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI ■ 110 Uracca,moist-Mergel complex, 0.3 100.0% 25 to 65 percent slopes, extremely Totals for Area of Interest 0.3 100.0% RECEIVED USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/10/2019 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 01/238e/32f02 2 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Map Unit Description: Uracca, moist-Mergel complex,25 to 65 percent slopes,extremely--- Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado, Parts of Eagle,Garfield,and Pitkin Counties Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties 110—Uracca, moist-Mergel complex, 25 to 65 percent slopes, extremely Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jg41 Elevation: 6,800 to 8,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 16 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 40 to 43 degrees F Frost-free period: 75 to 95 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Uracca, moist, and similar soils: 45 percent Mergel and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Uracca, Moist Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, structural benches, valley sides Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Mixed alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock Typical profile H1 - 0 to 6 inches: cobbly sandy loam H2- 6 to 12 inches: very cobbly sandy clay loam H3- 12 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 25 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Available water storage in profile: Very low(about 2.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: B RECEIVED USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/10/2019 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey O 1/28et2f02 2 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Map Unit Description: Uracca, moist-Mergel complex,25 to 65 percent slopes,extremely--- Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado, Parts of Eagle,Garfield,and Pitkin Counties Hydric soil rating: No Description of Merge! Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, structural benches, valley sides Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: cobbly loam H2- 7 to 18 inches: very cobbly sandy loam H3- 18 to 60 inches: extremely stony sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 25 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Available water storage in profile: Low(about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Other soils Percent of map unit: 15 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 13, 2019 f1 it USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10/10/2019 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey O 1/2a8eA2f02 2 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 3 FEMA MAP RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette OFEMA Legend 39°11'53.87"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT • I 1 • A =' 7$20 FFE� ' ' �� Without Base Flood Elevation(BFE) 1. -�_+ '4 V.1 j 28 Zone A.V.A99 ui • 77r 0802o • =pot 0 J • With BFE Or Depth zone AE,AO,AH,VE,AR v AMVP • .• • YIN SPECIAL FLOOD � 7. I V HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway' L Zone AE Zone'AE 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard,Areas �� © of 1%annual chance flood with average a .,t11 r 110011t\ 21�� r depth less than one foot or with drainage 18 W ' areas of less than one square mile zone x �• .= tco • , r J 7x2s FEE-1)DWAY ra .A 2.4°,`Z gyp Future Conditions 1%Annual �� » Zone AE F � °�7p '�` .? Chance Flood Hazard zone x f �•^w On��L Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to '� -«� I. 2 n=w 3 FT_� 11‘ OTHER AREAS OF " Levee.See Notes.zone x Zone'AE- -s`.--IN•:1- :• -,• ? \ 'i -- T cror _. FLOOD HAZARD r d Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone o 4tr �1 • - 9�F�� 7 ne AE �y INo SCREENI Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x 6 1 I, 1$ (4,� _-Z(_ AE Effective LOMRs t . • # Ii� j# ,'4<� +r FA�jWR' OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o Ile • •` j 1 I - Q"�, w Zonn;T a ---- •r+•I • J 4. n�p ,• GENERAL Channel,Culvert,or Storm Sewer , `� gill 1I ! , • 1 �n� - Y Zo,-1 y e f STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Levee,Dike,or Floodwall ///""" , w •f • ? S a ' r + LL 'I `'� �(� • �r O zos Cross Sections with 1%Annual Chance ' W ` Tlio ljto ns Water Surface Elevation •• ' • A '1 iy. p•" eo- - - Coastal Transect ,* ( inrat ASPEN �� .41 j}• ^ i ••-^-sfs••w- Base Flood Elevation Line(BFE) AREA OFAMIN IMA° FLOOD HAZARD ! Limit of Study 080143 •1 '- T10S R85w S012 4 ) Jurisdiction Boundary ( �1 w T10S R84W S007 r ` • -'' itg a -—- — Coastal Transect Baseline • st i P • 0 8 0 97 CD 3 54 E !� - •� OTHER - Profile Baseline to %. ' ( • FEATURES Hydrographic Feature • eff.8/15/2019f r i •A •{, y �(, r ' S ' '� •f DitalData Available T} 4 411416 • • fit •��� ` No Digital Data Available 1•� �� ` • ` Igirott�� ► MAP PANELS Unmapped ti. wI , iv .*.‘ I . y f4 • The pin displayed on the map is an approximate /) point selected by the user and does not represent • Am rJ V , an authoritative property location. • el:41rlierotip‘ ifom�L This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of 111 ., • ah A. • , digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. • 4 _ . The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap „•��� / ' • �, accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the • ` 1 . ti authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA.This map tio04- + t • • was exported on 10/14/2019 at 11:41:27 AM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and • aei A "1ar • - ,_ • ? 4 • •o time.The NFHL and effective inf EtyE I:) `` .,• •,lr imp r', i iir . �• become superseded by new dat d/ 10:44, 44::441.-1 l r This map image is void if the one or more of the following map • ! •� �y- ' elements do not appear:basemap I alter �1p z e2 _r USES The N_ational Map:OO rthoimagery.Data refreshed Aprilr201'9. legend,scale bar,map creation dat cArr i�iil ibe i= 39°,.. . 98"N FIRM panel number,and FIRM effective date.Map images for Feet 1:6,000 unmapped and unmodernized areas cannoAsysg (or 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 regulatory purposes. L-�V BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 4 HISTORIC DRAINAGE CONDITIONS RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1 1 e I I , I a I z I , r LT GRAPHIC SCALE Ti=w•o,ENw,Ho=.,,00A.woxa 01 10 0 5 10 20 40 I»PA.E— PRE I PP I (IN FEET) Loc.mcxrrEcr 1 inch=10 ft 'FRIDAY DESIGN PO BOX 7928 ASPEN,CO 81612 o,3 9.0696 CONTACT: DEREK KO uxosEAE/RCMP r LEGEND ` TEoECONTpsPp.8675 SUITECT:SHERI °NE II f o o ° o D G D D o EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION x ire 202 —8010— EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR —8008- - EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR corv.nGszs.zess snNs (8160) PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR OR.PPPEER nD (8158) PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING OFFSITE DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY 1517 BLAKE AVENUE,SUITE 101 GLENWOOD SPRINGS,Co 81801 TEL:M.925.2855 EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY CONTACT:ROGER NEAL JPROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY _g RIJjo AL ME ER OCK ®` _ E%-1 PR-1 DRAINAGE BASIN ID RESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP CONTACT AVE. ODSON HARPER UITE w p.g ACRES /./ ACRES DRAINAGE BASIN SIZE(ACRES) T x123156x \- DRAINAGE YEAR RUNOFF COEFFICIENT : Q100= CFS 0100=/.�/CFS P..[PPPPER _ ' r •��`'' g' C,D=.#(j C1D-0. _ Q100=100 YEAR RUNOFF FLOW(CFS) 09 CONTACT: INTERNATIONAL__ .V®�1 �9® _ • aftmeaf� 0 0 0 0 0 0 o D 010=1. CFS ..Q10-/-//CFS 010=10 YEAR RUNOFF FLOW(CFS) ®9, I�,i — r _ I¢ �zo wnLRxEa srRaE 7e ®��® DESIGN POINT T� ► =/ e _— DRAINAGE FLOW PATTERN A1 BF •ill DING LLC 4•j ` ! - LITTTL ON,COLORADO 0027LT Q \ � 0 DESIGN POINT 1: RECEIVES SHEET FLOW FROM BASIN EX 1. CONT303.763.1863 AoT:EVERET RSCHAVE Z a NOTES: L 1.) A SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPORT WAS COMPLETED FOR 234 -61 WEST FRANCIS ST,ASPEN,COLORADO BY KUMAR&ASSOCIATES, TEwew%sozzssou Z• * '� DATED SEPTEMBER 11,2019.PROJECT NUMBER 19-7-496. GRAVE(GLOTZeECKER) Ej PAmnou,rnxT P. 2.)THE ENTIRE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE X ON THE RRM MAP. y. / #08097C0354E. nx1 w 43RD DR,SU DESIGNS C Z 3.)EXISTING SURVEY INFORMATION BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING FOR GOLDTEL:720.693.8146 CONTACT:OLORADOANDY 8040 LLE 234 WEST FRANCIS ST,ASPEN,COLORADO- 5.)PITKIN COUNTY AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR GENERAL VICINITY ONLY. PROJECT TOPOGRAPHYlIIVNEX-1PROVDED BY SURVEYOR.0.207 ACRES I 0 C10= 0.15 Q1G°= 0.23 CFS \\ Q10= 0.06 CFS DRAINAGE BASIN EXISTING CONDITIONS CHART N ils 5 YR RUNOFF 10 R RUNOFF 100 YR RUNOFF ® A BASIN AREA(S.F.) AREA(ACRE) IMPERVIOUS AREA(SF) PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT ..A,..K„Aru.. EX-1 9,000 0 207 0 0.0 0 08 0.15 0 35 ° TOTAL ON-SITE 9,000 0.207 All.=.0 0.0 a. o -I REACH AREA IDENTIFIER EX-1 RATIONAL COEFFICIENT.C5(FIGURE 3.2 OF URMP) 0.08 a FLOW LENGTH,L(TOTAL<300 FT)(if) 134 3 LAND SLOPE,S (ft./ft.) 0 0149 a o To(MIN) 18.7 LIP/0 111 II > CONVEYANCE COEFFICIENT,K(TABLE 3.3 URMP) Ilia rid7 I T (5 minute min.) B.7 234 W.FRANCIS ST. TT: URBAN CHECK=10+U180 1D.7 ASPEN,...76 O 81611 RESIDENCE -0— P,-10yr 0.77 P1-100yr L23 • 10 YEAR INTENSITY 2.00 0 CO 100 YEAR INTENSITY 3.20 1��A 'V l� • • ° ° , H d E il p J • 0 , • s HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING,INC. III rxoN 2.ss \ M .RCENa.CoN REVISIOPS ' 4/ 2,2= 23,,,,..,...NRa..2NITT., Mgi I mre WEST FRANCIS ST. 74.72'R-O-W EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN MAP I EXDR 1 PAGE AP. PALE R EIVED —I 7 I s I 5 I ` I a I a I 1 I DRAWN 1/7a/9422 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 5 PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT I 7I B I I , I 3 I z I 1 I 11:fI1 IT ° o r° e G ° ° ° o \ ��Y ' / \ GRAPHIC SCALE - ,,L MOT BE COPIED.PEPRODUCEO.DISCLOSED 70 OiNERS.013 USED .„E PRIOR w„I„ w„p WRIT/EN « w T�°xOF..°°„FC„ER�, .. U, �r eit 10 0 a 10 20 40 )) I = 11 I,.„E a><E r E= I (IN FEET') \ \,e \ ® .\.., l 1 Inch=10 ft. 1O°"BOX 799 DESIGN wB1Bu ,6. \ . \ PO�T0�3090089K _ SKALKO til w .w _® _wow* E 3LUs R ARCM.,SUITE .el,,.•f��•1 •~! iff oAr.�,.Avmd Mi ri4s • _I.�®®'II` r \ ISPEN,CO 81611 LEGEND Ga. N 4 '- ' ® -' ` )`' A7® 1 / - ---- EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY H9�O" e s 1 _ ' -8010- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR o v /�� �� ���.� 1 WEST STORM_1 / 1 Y1 Ila \ �� PR-2 �` ` I 0.08 ACRES Iii. -8008- EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR TEL:corv.noE25.2855 SUITE m2 \ it III � -- IR&_ 0.030ACRES -�' I \ \ rl IcP,R- 00=0.90Ig10°=0.37 CFSJ _ E (8160) PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR n7°E. EA RA ao / ,�I CFS Q1D-022 CFS HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING EE ING pOI i �'\ r CIr 0.06 Q1 4�5 CFS 81801 r �8158) PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR 1517 BLAKE AVENUE, GLE I0 , ® HIGH WOOD SP ENGINEERINGP■ = OFFSITE DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY7 L -1EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY E .2855 GrvTA T. NEALit STRUCTURAUMP ENGINEER -r F I `• PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY�r -_ I - _ _ _ 502WHITEROCKlAVEaSUI 2 liro ` ' .. / PROPOSED DRAINAGE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARYUP - I caEsrED BI1rrE,co B12zaa10 / C10=10 YEAR RUNOFF COEFFICIENT I C1_ Ig100=#.##CFS O g100-###CFS g100=100 YEAR RUNOFF FLOW CFS 4ik1 ! PR-1 / o-###Q10=#.##CFS G10� ##qi0=#.##CFS )L 0.158 ACRES � Q100=0.16 As I coN*o�5cne 3NAGEaACI I 0. / ,..78 _ ,I .v°O„W,Taxr I Q1aa� 85CFS : ) I -- _ Ig10-0.08 CFS / \I „,/-�__ © DESIGNPOINT N;111V C10-0.55 QI�0.31CFB ' ,� DRAINAGE FLOW PATTERN orveauTrO67 WEST sTa w EE _! =;_-=liii! it qq , V D St t•_� �7 �► ' / I/ill. l , ,Lt ;'%%� eE�sn 3ee.aozsvGan nszz ,� , , CONTACT:MA ° I�.I b / ,�ie���l� I /OPR-S CABIN STO M A DESIGN POINT 1: RECEIVES PIPE FLOW FROM BASIN PR-1th 41 ���IF L����L 1 II .7.4IEREMOS ACOUSTICS ,,., ,,..1;.... ,,I AA��� I PR WEST STORM 0.007 ACRES I ®DESIGN POINT 2: RECEIVES SHEET FLOW FROM BASIN PR-2. .wOOHOOOwExE*µ* r I' --- `' I 10p=0'87 Q100-0.02 AS A DESIGN POINT 3: RECEIVES SHEET FLOW FROM BASIN PR-3. 12T0 BROADWAY,SUITE 202 ,Ew � �J • PR-3 Al \ NOTES:-- CONTACT: IGUGTZBecnenl Z EF,� 0.02 ACRES I,�'=��� 1. A SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPORT WAS COMPLETED FOR 234COLORADO POOL DESIGNS C'ICU OB l0, 0.04 CFS - • ATE FRANCIST ER 11,ASPEN C.PROJECT BY KUMAR&ASSOCIATES, 11501 W.45RD DR_SUITE GOLDEN, LORADO 80 a1o�O q1B=0.003 CFS II. / DATED SEPTEMBER 11,2019.PROJECT NUMBER 19-7-496. n03 I I ../i T , L ,.., _ 0ENTIRE SITE KEIRPN Dvu EUE Al , 81. - " / PR-S CABI e' 2. 8 ENTIRE SITE IS LOCATED WHIN ZONE%ON THE FIRM MAP. CONTACT:AN c ---- ------ __ 3. EXISTING SURVEY INFORMATION BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING FOR Ilki IIIII • ___--1 tkal" . . 234 WEST FRANCIS ST,ASPEN,COLORADO. "', / T 4. PI THIN COUNTY AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE ON ADJACENT ,� \ 1) svr �a �'L/// PROPERTIES FOR GENERAL VICINITY ONLY. PROJECT TOPOGRAPHY Olp IIDRYWELL-1 g-2 cPROVIDED BY SURVEYOR. �� I lE� givA REQUIED •IC 232CF � olru � RI • / „(� PROVE ED VO 373 5-C ° \, p��� N..iff _r q��, 1�;1_ I • ° ® . - C, � 9� r� I PROPOSED DRAINAGE SUB BASIN MAP '�""� • ��/% EQU,�{} i ii• DRYWELL-1� 4 A • PROVIDED VOL. 3733 F`,. k0 1 . 1---\,,,----- __ .. / J DRAINAGE BASIN PROPOSED CONDITIONS CHART 234 W.FRANCIS ST. \- _ - - ASPEN,C081611 RESIDENCE y TYPE B SOILS IMPERVIOUS AREA PERCENT EFFECTIVE WQCV(Watershed 5 YR RUNOFF 10 YR RUNOFF 100 YR RUNOFF , COU/\T BASIN AREA(S.F.) AREA(ACRE) (SF) IMPERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS(%) inches) WQCV(CF) COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT .7 A PR-1 6,873 0.158 4,189 60.9 60.9 0.110 63.0 0.50 0.55 0.71 T....7,I,� w I PR-2 1,294 0.030 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 00 0 06 0 43 LJ l�j PRJ 850 0.020 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 00 0 06 043 H(ti WEST FRANCIS ST. Onsite Only �, 0.207 4,189 46.5 465 0_110 630 m1' )1l C7 74 72'R-O-W \ SUB-BASIN CANEERv2 PR-WEST STORM 2,806 1 0.064 2,806 100.0 100.0 0.86 0.87 0.90 B HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING.INC. B PR-EAST STORM 1,498 0.034 1,050 70.1 70.1 058 062 076 ,E,,.u„E.vExxE_s,EO,. - PR-N CABIN STORM 208 0.005 207 99.7 100.0 0.86 0.86 0.89 ,„0„ .,° PR-S CABIN STORM 317 0.007 317 100.0 100.0 0.86 0.87 0.90 WWW.ceeNa.C.1 PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN MAP PR-TRENCH STORM PR-CB-1 224 •548 0.005 ji 224 100.0 DOG 0.86 0.87 0.90 I.Ev1.w a« • 0.005 100 16.2 18.2 0.14 0.20 0.51 PR-CB-2 2,516 0.058 336 13.4 13.4 0.10 0.17 0.49 2"°1" `°a°°I`°I"`PE.„IT.EE,."L." M`,E (Watershed BASIN STRUCTURE inches) WOCV(CF) PR-1 DRYWELL-1 0.110 63.0 PR-2 N/A 0.000 0.0 PR-3 N/A 0000 00 TOTAL 0.110 63.0 F.S.-1.5 FOR DRYWELL 94.5 REACH AREA IDENTIFIER PR-1 PR-2 PR-3 FR-NSEST STORM PR-EAST STORM PR-S CABIN STORM RATIONAL COEFFICIENT.Cs(FIGURE 3.2 OF URMP) 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.58 0.86 5FLOW LENGTH,L(TOTAL<300 FT)(ft.) 54.0 39.8 523 15.0 36.0 9.7 L.3 LAND SLOPE,S(ft./ft.) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 1 0 o To(MIN) 6.4 10.1 11.6 1.4 4.5 0.3 SURFACE DESCRIPTION Paved Water Way FLOW LENGTH,L(ft.) 95.0 PROPOSED DRAINAGE L' FLOW SLOPE,S (ft./ft.) 0.01 I CONVEYANCE COEFFICIENT,K(TABLE 3.3 URMP) 20.0 BASIN MAP A S FLOW VELOCITY,V(fps.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 A T1=U)60V)(min.) 00 00 00 0.0 OB 0.0 T. (5 minute min.) 6.4 10.1 11.6 5.0 5.3 5.0 T. URBAN CHECK=10-FU180 10,3 102 103 10.1 107 10.1 P,-loyr 0.77 0.77 0.77 077 077 0.77 PR D R-1 P,-1 o0y r 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 10 YEAR INTENSITY 361 2.91 270 396 388 396 100 YEAR INTENSITY 5 76 4.65 432 033 020 fi 33 I I BI I I I _ � REEVE® MGG- EY 2191025.00 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1 7 I 6 I 5 I I a I z I I ZWER&°/ ° GRAPHIC SCALE '-�~2 10 o s 10 20 40 M ���r`� ire, h . J 11N FEET) I onwn nw�nw.on�s.,,,o,, �� PR-TRENCH I.,j.ip gAi 0,'167 Qm°'a0°23C /W/1 I 1 m h-10 ft. ,�.,.n7„�R.��i r���rr „ r , ,C says G ► IX/ I/ I/I WA [ CONTACT:DEREK E • I I \ E os o ass SUITE I� LEGEND CONTACT:SHERI PRESERVATIon oNE \ - \ EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY Pa NGMST re mz - -8010- - - EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURSPRING co aG ST U11 ® \ \ -8008- EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR CONTACT: SUITE • \) (8160) PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR EL ��� -(8158) PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR RCNcourrmv ENC Nco aN� I I OFFSITE DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY GLENWOOD SPRINGS, O TEL:M.925.2855 • c I EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY CONTACT:ROGER NEAL s,xvo.n,w...,now,sn PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY -RESOURCE ENGINEERING GROUP • PROPOSED DRAINAGE SUB-BASIN BOUNDAR c0W*eo°u<°*„E��81224 oUITE 102 HARPER 1}(-1 PR-1 DRAINAGE BASIN ID orvrncr BUTTE, I / @.p ACRES /.//SORES DRAINAGE BASIN SIZE(ACRES) �oesERvnrolRE INTERNATIONAL DEeloNER I`\ g100=// CFS gipp- r FSS C1010 YEAR RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 120 WALKER ��3 / • C'o-it'd g10=p.yy CFS Go-p•##qip-p.p$CFS C1100=100 YEAR RUNOFF FLOW(CFS) ,z BSERV asrREETER / / p10=10 YEAR RUNOFF FLOW(CFS) NEW NEW R' �-f-�-_ 0 DESIGN POIN7 CONTACT,EN „ncERnci DRAINAGE FLOW PATTERN ONEBU�sraw / �� �' I • D St t co ACCT:MATT EMMIR nzzz o \ + I DESIGN POINTS ° ENzs�wEENCLOSURE r rvscnnn CONSULTING ,s0T5 F308 rnEroR,coioRAoo so,z7uE 0 DESIGN POINT 1: RECEIVES PIPE FLOW FROM BASIN PR-1. TEL:303.763.1863 At„O �'' • A DESIGN POINT 2: RECEIVES SHEET FLOW FROM BASIN PR-2. CONTACT:EVERETT.zoxx„ ws„µ EREMOS ACOUSTICS Rscnnvo AA DESIGN POINT 3: RECEIVES SHEET FLOW FROM BASIN PR-3. rvEW YORK,NY E T846.65RYAN GO a ICB-1 NOTES: s,>mnsu[rnM [ICLorzsacRERI 1 • , 1. A SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPORT WAS COMPLETED FOR 234 1I/ WEST FRANCIS ST,ASPEN,COLORADO BY KUMAR&ASSOCIATES, °30°p 235595,0<070 SIGNS yl JI/� I I DATED SEPTEMBER 11,2019.PROJECT NUMBER 19-7-496. a / 1 ,� 2. THE ENTIRE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE S ON THE FIRM MAP. EC CT nNov vcEu� J I I ' j /r08097C0354E. x"°�""- , I J 3. EXISTING SURVEY INFORMATION BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING FOR 1 / / I I , ��, 234 WEST FRANCIS ST,ASPEN,COLORADO. f4. PITKIN COUNTY AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE ON ADJACENT ` PROPERTIES FOR GENERAL VICINITY ONLY. PROJECT TOPOGRAPHY ' i P PROVIDED BY SURVEYOR. L 1 : p / h I / : � \O Q013ACt DRAINAGE BASIN PROPOSED CONDITIONS CHART "\ //%H� /��H�// / ////%/ram �///O� G,.q.51 4+00 °•°3 GFs ®.n I��J°01� + 10TYPE B cIMPERVIOUS AREA PERCENT EERVIOUS WQCV c(Watershed 5 COEFFICIENT 1 OE RUNOFFICIENT 100 COEF RCOEFFICIENT c -A •- - I�1 - BASIN AREA(S.F.) AREA(ACRE) (SF) -IMPERVIOUS-IMPERVIOUS(%) inches) WQCV(CF) COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT ........... ,. JJ PR-1 6,873 0.158 4,189 fi0 9 60.9 0.110 63.0 0.50 0 55 0.71 ilivirffairgArir. . , ✓ -y, PR-2 1,294 0.030 0 U.S 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.43 _ PR-3 850i. 0.020 0 U.S 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.43 II Onsite Only 9,017 0.207 4,189 46.5 46.5 0.110 63.0 PR-N CABIN STORM SUB-BASIN 0.005 ACRES PR-WEST STORM 2,806 0.064 2,806 100.0 100.0 0.86 0.87 0.90 °1ao-0.03 CFS PR-EAST STORM 1,498 0.034 1,050 70.1 70.1 _ 0.58 0.62 0.76 it Ctoo-O.86 q,o=0.0E CFS PR-N CABIN STORM 208 0.005 207 99.7 100.0 0.86 0.86 0.89 ! PR-S CABIN STORM 317 0.007 317 100.0 100.0 0.86 0.87 0.90 PR-TRENCH STORM 224 0.005 224 100.0 100.0 0.86 0.87 0.90 PR-CB-1 548 0.013 100 18.2 18.2 0.14 0.20 0.51 • IIV ---p PR-CB-2 2,516 0.058 336 13.4 13.4 0.10 0.17 0.49 - REACH AREA IDENTIFIER FR-N CABIN STORM FR-TRENCH STORM PR-CB-1 PR-C13-2 234 W.FRANCIS ST. RATIONAL COEFFICIENT.C5(FIGURE 32 OF URMP) 086 0.86 0.14 0.10 ASPEN,C081611 RESIDENCE j J 1 5 3 FLOW LENGTH,L(TOTAL<300 FT.)(ft.) 18.5 4.2 95.0 46.2 I LAND SLOPES (ft./ft.) 0.33 0.02 0.02 0.04 Cpu n o To(MIN) 0.6 0.7 13.7 7.9 Y� tit, II SURFACE DESCRIPTION 1Ne 1 'A� FLOW LENGTH,L(ft.) _ •«7 ////(4II _ m' FLOW SLOPES (ft./ft.) -,( HC/E 'TT/ CONVEYANCE COEFFICIENT,K(TABLE 3.3 URMP) 1' �- FLOW VELOCITY,V(fps_) 0 00 0 00 0.00 0.00 G ,� I� PR-CB-2 1I T,=u(60V)(min.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a NEER` I O5B ACRES Tc (5 minute min.) 5_0 5.0 13.7 7.9 HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING.INC. 1 C1ao-°•49la°0.I CfS T, URBAN CHECK=10A/180 10.1 10.0 10.5 10.3 ,„o„ _ E•ro,>.se,76,..oro..s - , • II -i- / - ° P,-10yr 077 0.77 0.77 0.77 ,.s7 1 Y.., �.E rtnE �R P1-100yr 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 , zM,a>m .o«E.„«, 0 10 YEAR INTENSITY 3.96 3.96 2.45 3.29 '"""" ',-2EF NERM7 M ® _®.. 11 ®.. - . , 100 YEAR INTENSITY 6.33 6.33 3.91 5.26 ° ly E \ . _ / \ I ° ° •,' .... ,r„7dlmliI...I,I,I,,,..... 1 G - _ CB-2 ° DRYWF� REQUIRED VOL/232.4-CF 1 ° PROPOSED DRAINAGE •ROVIDED VOL: 373.5-CF 111 G -\ ° BASIN MAP 1 d° PRDR-2 AGE -I I I I I 3 I _P � REIVED MGGnY 2191025.00 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 6 DETAIL SHEET RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT I I I I 6 I I I NEENAH R-1553 FRAME AND SOLID "oA*E— °"`E t u« I GRASS TRAY"LID OR EQUIVALENT SLOTDRAIN® 7000 SERIES SLOT DRAIN° 4" ---6" 24" — L�.LAA=RR.R SLOPE SLOPE RIM-7885.08' SPECIFICATION SHEET R=o.25"- _ DESIGN PO BOX ASPEN,CO 81612 • ,,. BASE COURSE d f ACT:DDEREK INLET FILTER BYPASS FOR T a 6" 1'IFT OR 8.3% TEL: H° 2 . CLOGGING AND OVERFLOW SPECIFICATIONS 1 - . '^^'° ^^��� e GENERAL: DESIGN OPTIONS: LOAD CLASS: E BLUEGREEN BLD ° The surtace dra nage system shall be]000 Slot Opening(Al Yz"(0)l Ill]Ya"(5) Load Class C a -- R D.�S" 6" AS c0 S. a esi SUITE 2o2 • _ Ser es Slot Dra n complete wth slotted linear Fed(*)Open(0)End Cap Ill Flush Nipple(5) d - -� "f • • PRECAST SODD trench opening as manufactured by Slot Oran Seetoe Lengths Full98,Half 410" ACCESSORIES: a R=1.5a - -d' CONTACT: one a1�STEPS(TYP.) CONCRETE SECTION,TOP Systems Typical runs start with 102 or 102E(Half Section. Cleaning paddle,Cleaning Brush,Flush Fla,CIP RSTORCR..VAT. 5.7' • _5. BACKFlLL _ , _ SHENDON PRING SUITE MATERIALS: FLOW RATE: INSTALLATION: 34"* e T304 Stainless Steel,T316 Stainless Steel h" 11 (per foot of drain) The 7000 Series Slot Drain System shall be HOPE.P.E FLO glom p y ASPEiEissAD Y I1 18 gpm(per foot of drain)I installed in accordance with the manufacturer'sCONTACT:SARA A __ n 4' - Al lei" 27gpm(perfootofdrain) inatallatonnstructonsandrecommendations. MOUNTABLE CURB&GUTTER-TYPEA iELepOIVILEW.I1517 KE AVENUE,SUITE 101 NRz6.2aaa AMGDa,eo, EER 1HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING GLENW OD (Catch Type for Typical Edge of Street) D eel"Na 12 Er ... T ` 6"51EEL STRncruROYMPERowem — ROUP ERFORATED PIPE TYPICAL MODULAR LAYOUT OF A 7000 SERIES SLOT DRAIN°SYSTEM = COVERED IN MIRAFl (Sectionsr Belherasw illustrated below) RESOURCE 02 wxrEROCK ENGINEERING z FABRIC SOCK CRESTED BUTTE co e122a,u 13'MIN 6"THICK PRE—CAST = , 4" —6" 12" - CONTACT:AUGUST HA=wODSON HARPER CONCRETE U — ��� 1 °1"a R=0.25" ,RRTR•oCS insen SECTION WITH RUST — L ' RESISTANT ACCESS UNDISTURBED VOL _ TONAL THATCH WITH LIFTING = n•" 5 - 'a > -'a e'/. R„ wowALRces snorer 7Eoma 5' ('"—3' HANDLE = �1IIa d d 0.5"/FT'R 4.2o i.5" roewvoz saawvoaer L1 _ 48"MIN PRECAST xr,� 1L CONTACT,,rPxr NnGESAC 20 MIL HDPE UNER - 5' __PERFORATED PCC RING a",.. TO BE INSTALLED 24•GRAVEL 1"DIA.PERFORATION °NEBUTTON R=1.5" 6 67WESTST#527 BETWEEN FOUNDATION HOLES - R=0.25" WALL AND DRYWALL — = DRAIN CHANNELS - a. eiEEii Tee ao2sYORH nzzz ' W OF 1.5•CRUSHED DESCRIPTION PART NO. INVERT SHALLOW INVERT DEEP CONTACT:MUTT EMMI -�1 WASHED SCREENED INCHES 12 INCHES 1MM 3 III 22° ENVE4PEON3a`T""` 12• = ROCK AT 30%VOID 7000 SERIES SS SLOT 102 HALF S075#'-102B "413i16 122 51/es 130 0 RATIO AROUND APPLIED ENCLOSURE CONSULTING LLC , r -� I PERIMETER OF 7000 SERIES SS SLOT 102 SD75#"-102 41/2 114 5 r/a 130 ° 11757 57 WEST cEN CARYRADO AENUE,SUITE F308 27 — — PERFORATED BARRELS. MOUNTABLE CURB&GUTTER-TYPE B 5 7000 SERIES SS SLOT 203 SD75M*-203 5 1/a 130 5 Ei4 146 UNDISTURBED SOIL 7000 SERIES SS SLOT 304 SD75M*-304 530, 146 63/e 162 (Spill Type for Raised Medians) corvTACT.eveReTr veRscHAve AOOOROOOONSO.TANT MIRAFl NON-WOVEN eRemosncousncs GEOTEXTILE FABRIC,OR 7000 SERIES SS SLOT 405 SD75#*-405 6 a/a 162 7 178 eoz 014 EQUAL WRAPPED AROUND 7000 SERIES SS SLOT 505 N SO75#"-5053 6 WLe 170 7 178 EL:846.6soz235 GRAVEL SECTION. : GRAYE,GLGT2BEGaER, TYPICAL CROSS SECTION 7000 SERIES SS SLOT 506 SD75N"-506 7 178 ]Sig 194 N.T.S. 7000 SERIES SS SLOT 607 SD75#"-607 755e 194 8r/4 210 COLORADO POOL DESIGNS ]000 SERIES SS SLOT]os 5575#"-7oa a 1/4 2 0 8 7/a 225 Note:Concrete must conform to CDOT Class"D"(minimum 28-day compressive strength of 80403 4500 psi).80%of this strength must be gained in the first 7 days. CONTACTsUSO vLACELEE NOTE: / 7000 SERIES SS SLOT 809 SD7514*-809 8 F/n 225 9 1/2 241 CORE DRILL HOLES TO ACCEPT(1)6"HDPE&(1) / R""AN- - 4"HDPE STORM PIPES.APPLY WATER TIGHT / / / 7000 SERIES 90°SS SLOT - - - - - **Width of Curb and Gutter dependent on designated location for installation — SEALS AT ALL PIPE PENETRATIONS. i ij''yij' S 7000 SERIES SS TRANSITION PIT - - - `I. S�`.. `, `i // 'i >if >if 7 \ 2 / 3• ili ili{it `,0•5 CATCH BASIN 20 MIL HDPE UNER ..... TOP WIDTH TOP LENGTH BOTTOM WIDTH BOTTOM LENGTH HEIGHT OUTLET HEIGHT TO BE INSTALLED BETWEEN�.� Aft. - 70000DESCRIPTI°" 1NCHE$ MN 1NCHE5 MD INCHES NN INCHES NM INCHES NM 1NpHE$ MN MOUNTABLE CURB AND GUTTER DETAILS FOUNDATION WALL AND DRYWALL �`i Ei�. 1 100V _ 6"0 7000 SS CB LARGE 5 152 12 305 6 152 12 305 121/,s .,5 4or6 102-1526 I Ntitis% RISER 7000 SS CB SMALL s 152 6 152 6 152 6 152 12.46 3os 4or6 1➢2-152A 1 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF ASPENREVISIONS N I '1 s,n,OR.N s.:,t.:a aVE:TRta O„TTOORANOtTRt>aoOnn"NO:PEete<,orvsw,nOO7rv0,et "^"01oO..---. 1410 130 S GALENA ST •�,,•• \s ® . I I STANDARD DETAILS 6PI6 RO IRORIIN 6"I6RO 6a1I m"< IR aaI.IRTR=I am O"O=^EEOO rA ASPEN,CO81611 (1)6"HDPE PIPE , TF 855.497 7508 F 204.775.2324 E info@slotdrainsystems.com W slotdrainsystems.com CITYOF PHONE:(970)9205080 sEeLasic,NATuRE c (1)4"HDPE PIPE ASPEN CREATION DATE,11.01(13 INITIALS,GCS LAST MODIFICATION DATE.03n01s INITIALS,TAD c NOTES: \� ^A CAPACITY ANAI YSIS, SLOT DRAIN DETAIL • NOT TO SCALE i 1"SLOT OPENING=18 GPM/FT • DRYWELL LOCATED IN VEHICULAR AREAS s a '' TOTAL LENGTH=23.5 FT N.T.S. SHALL BE HS-20 LOAD RATED. \ r-41_ -00= SLOTDRAIN CAPACITY=423 GPM(0.94 CFS) • VOLUME WITHIN GRAVEL SPACE IS APPLICABLE \ - -•v'• TO WQCV AND DETENTION UP TO 24"FROM \ 100-YR FLOWRATE(PATIO)=0.06 CFS DRYWELL. • INLET AND OUTLET PIPES SHOULD ENTER CHECK: 0.06 CFS<0.94 CFS: O.K. DRYWELL AWAY FROM DRYWELL STEPS. ' --.--_ • DRYWELL CAPACITY CALCULATED WITH 2' CONE SECTION,5'SOLID/PERFORATED SECTION A—A BARRELS BELOW THE LID AND 5'OF GRAVEL _ AT 24". N.T.S. • 10'MINIMUM DRYWELL DEPTH PER CITY OF — ASPEN'S URMP. 234 W.FRANCIS ST. DRYWELL DETAIL_ DRYWELL-1 ASPEN,CO 81611 RESIDENCE N.T.S. S 0 CO(/4 EER E B HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING.INC. REVISPHS R-1G5 Manhole Frame,Solid Lid Heavy Duty 2.-_.1rl 318' 3' T ^a2 Ur MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 51 1M' D Available G I ate:R-2553 NEENAH R-1553 FRAME C401 N.T.S. — „,, E" R21 EIVED MGG91025.00 -I I I /,14/9(122 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT I 7 I e I 5 I 4 I , I 2 I , I NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN WITH DOME GRATE 1 a,.'E- .T- I wx 1 Nyloplast 6"Drop In Grate Inlet Capacity chart DRIVEWAY FINISH GRADE L mo (1)INTEGRATED DUCTILE IRON AY DESIGN GRATE TO MATCH BASIN O.D. 0'w I~7•-1 PO BOX 7928 OO81B12 ASP I1,1,1'I'I'1'1,1,1ITE 5A0CT:DDEREK SKALKO/'l\\ e scE • / l` � °15 - E3osa r•' csSUITE 202 .PEN,CO 81511 CONTACT:SHERI 8'-30" If 0.30 - - - • - HISTORIC PRESERVATION oNE t_ 1.'I e SUITE 202 C L 9709 2 552 6 5AD MINIMUM PIPE BURIAL CO 81811 0'2" IP: Ib ti8 CONTACT: AMS DEPTH PER PIPE cmLExwxErx INVERT ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER ,y`. v HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING PLANS/TAKEOFF RECOMMENDATION " 1517 BLAKE AVENUE,SUITE Coe101 (3)VARIOUS TYPES OF INLET 8OUTLET ADAPTERS 050 - DRIVEWAY TRENCH DRAIN GLENWOOD SPRINGS, 001 TEL:970.925E855 SCONTACT:ROGER NEAL TRUCTURAL_.ENaINEER AVAILABLE 4"-30'FOR CORRUGATED HDPE (ADS N-12JHANCOR DUAL WALL,ADSIVNCOR N.T.S. - SINGLE WALL),N-12 HP,PVC SEWER(EX:SDR 35), -RESOURCE ENGINEERING PVC DWV(EX:SCH 44),PVC C9001C905, 015 CRESTED BUTTE,CO 224E GROUP CORRUGATED B RIBBED PVC 10-YR FLOW RATE: Chu: 0.02 CFS 100-YR FLOW RATE: Q,00: 0.03 CFS 10-YR DEPTH: d.: 0.06 FT 100-YR DEPTH: d10u 0.08 FT HASwODSON HARPER WATERTIGHT JOINT CAPACITY: 0.10 CFS 0.10 - - CAPACITY 0 0.4%SLOPE: 0.27 CFS L...oEawNER (CORRUGATED HDPE SHOWN) INTERNATIONAL ` NO WALKER STTREET YORK,NEW R E0013 \� TEL 122554a 3 Kt 0.05 `\�\ _ CONAV TACT, ONEBUTTON 07 THE BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSHED STONE OR OTHER •fi T ST#527 GRANULAR MATERIAL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLASS I, BE�at7 SaeA SvoRK 11222 CLASS II.OR CLASS II MATERIAL A8 DEFINED IN ASTM 02321. 0.00 I I I I I CONTACT:MATT EMMI BEDDING&BACKFILL FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 025 0.30 0.35 0A0 0.45 0.50 0.55 OM0.05 0.70 0.75 0.80 OM 0.90 095 1.00 1.05 1.10 ENVELOPE BBB vaur PLACED&COMPACTED UNIFORMLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321. D 100-YR DEPTH: 0.08' D XiiO it) TT7 WEST KEN 0o AVENUE,SUITE F308 TEL:303.763.1863 CONTACT:EVERETT 1-6".30'DOME GRATES SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER AST,A536 GRADE10.5005, THIS PRINT DISCLOSES SUBJECT MATTER IN WHICH DRAWN BY ESC MATERIAL 3130 VERONAAVE ® N000.....EREMOS AOUSTI 80127 RSCHAVE 2-DRAINAGE CONNECTION STUB JOINT TIGHTNESS SHALL CgJFORM TO ORPOSSESSION OF RIGHTS..E RECEIPT BUFORD,GA30510 1270 BROADWAY, 202 AaIMO HOPE(ADS N-12JHANCOR DUAL WALL), OF THIS PRINT DOES NOT CONFER, DATE 012310 PHN(77019J22Y3 r^� YORN NY70 HP,B PVC SEWER Ia•2<T RANSFER,ORUCEN3E1HE U3EOF THE DESIGN OR NA) last FAXI7 7 01 9 3 2-2A90 Nyn N■la EL+6W.650.22350a 3-6'-30.DOME GRATES HAVE NO LOAD RATING iEPROOCnONORMFH10 PSHOWN NO ORANYEIN IN N REVISED BY NMH PROJECT NO.MAME wwx.nylaPMsius.wm �_�"'rr G OF 7IT� 3130 Verona Avenue•Buford.GA 30518 SPACONSULT.M RAYS ICLorzsacKEa) CONTAINED HEREIN,oR MANu.RAE.ANYAio DATE 0a15•16 INUNE BRAN v4111 DOMECRATE (866)60644791(770)932-2443•Faa:(770)932-2490 ARTICLE HERFFR012 FOR THE DISCLOSURE TO OTHERS CRACK SPEC INSTALLATION DETAIL 0 Nyloplast Inlet CapecipChans June 2012 COLORADO POOL IS FORBIDDEN EXCEPT BY SPECIFIC WRITTEN DESIGNS E P10 O PERMISSION FROM NYLOPLAST. ®m,,„,„,,DWG SIZE A SCALE . SHEET 1OF1 DWG NO, 700,11.57 REV D 00403 TEL:720E93E1. CONTACT:ANDY LACELLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS ,,,E,,,,, CAPACITY=0.10 CFS®O.OB'HEAD 0R CLOGGINGCAPACITY=0.0 CFS 100-YR FLOW IN-LINE DRAIN DETAILS FLOWRATE(CB-1)=0..03 CFS CHECK: 0.03 CFS<0.05 CFS: OK RE I� 2.2' 3.6' •I BEAL8SMATURE C � Nyloplas110"Drop In Grate Inlet Capacity Chart c 11 c 4.a "'`'ao • 140 ... 010o W.S. IA TRIB.BASINS: PR-1 120 c c SLOPE: 5: 0.020 FT/FT - ROUGHNESS n: 0.030 10-YR FLOW RATE: Q,e: 0.31 CFS 100-YR FLOW RATE: Cho, 0.65 CFO - 10-YR DEPTH: d7e: 0.20 FT 100-YR DEPTH: d,m: 0.26 FT 1.00 - 10-YR FREEBOARD: Fb,p: 0.30 FT 100-YR FREEBOARD: Fb,ao 0.24 FT - - 10-YR VELOCITY: V,4 1.34 FPS 100-YR VELOCITY: Van 1.66 FPS • - • 234 W.FRANCIS ST. 0.59 ASPEN,CO 81611 RESIDENCE STORM OVERFLOW SWALE N.T.S. cR 2. - O 60 �co u T\(, ^',A ,a CAPACITY: 0.44 CFS H %) B - \ .\\ B 'tiEER� HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING.INC. 0.20 - \ • \\\\_..- - rxoN zPsa W W W HCRN CCM I. 2.2' 3.6' I I : Y.% Old - - I am , I , I . I I s zara 2M:22 MIT n....,,, Mw 1 , ` 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 025 0.30 0.35 OA0 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.56 0,65 0,70 0.75 D.80 085 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 n c 4.4 S 010o W.S. 100-YR DEPTH: 0.16• Head(0) 1010 W5, 1 • + TRIB.BASINS: SUBBASIN CB-1 c c SLOPE: S: 0.020 FT/Fr - ROUGHNESS n: 0.030 Nyloplast 10-YR FLOW RATE: Ow 0.01 CFS 100-YR FLOW RATE: QMu 0.03 CFS 3120 Verona Avenue•Buford.GA 30518 10-YR DEPTH: d10: 0.06 FT 100-YR DEPTH: dm: 0.08 FT (866)8838479 1(770)932-2443•Fax.(770)932-2480 10-YR FREEBOARD: Fb1u 044 FT 100-YR FREEBOARD: Fb,m 0.42 FT @Nyloplast Irk Capacity Charts June 2012 10-YR VELOCITY: V,6 0.48 FPS 100-YR VELOCITY: V,au 0.81 FPS CB-1 SWALE CAPACITY AN0.YSIS 50X CLOGGING 10.44 CFS®0= 0'HEAD F 50R CLOGGING CAPACITY=0.22 CFS N.T.S. 100-YR FLOWRATE(CB-2)=0.15 CFS CHECK: 0.15 CFS<0.22 CFS: OK MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS C402 A10- BY: RECEIVED MGG91025.00 -I I 6I I I I ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 7 SOILS REPORT (KUMAR & ASSOCIATES) RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT I( Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Geotechnical and Materials Engineers 5020 County Road 154 and Environmental Scientists Glenwood Springs,CO 81601 phone: (970)945-7988 fax:(970)945-8454 email:kaglenwood@kumarusa.com An Employee Owned Company www.kumarusa.com Office Locations: Denver(HQ),Parker,Colorado Springs,Fort Collins,Glenwood Springs,and Summit County,Colorado SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED ADDITION 234 WEST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 19-7-496 SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 REVISED JANUARY 13, 2021 PREPARED FOR: STEVEN ELLS do 1 FRIDAY DESIGN ATTN: DEREK SKALKO P. O. BOX 7928 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 derek(&,,1 fridaydesign.com RECEIVED 01/28/2022 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 - 5 - UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 6 - DRYWELL - 6 - SURFACE DRAINAGE - 6 - LIMITATIONS - 7 - FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING FIGURE 3 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 4 GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE 2-PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS RECEIVED 01 /28 /2022 Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.19-7-496 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located at 234 West Francis Street, 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 1 Friday Design, dated August 19, 2019. A field exploration program consisting of an exploratory boring 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 addition 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 an addition connecting the existing historic buildings on the property. The addition will generally be 2-story wood frame construction above a basement level. Ground floors will typically be slab-on-grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to involve cut depths up to about 12 to 15 feet. Excavation shoring could be needed to maintain cut slope stability. We assume relatively light to moderate 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 by a two-story residence with an attached garage and a detached single- story carriage house, all to remain and be renovated. The ground surface is relatively flat and gently sloping down to the northeast with about 2 feet of elevation difference. Vegetation_^ ivE consists of lawn, landscape planter beds and mature trees. 1 01/28/2022 Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.19-7-496 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT -2 - FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on August 30, 2019. One exploratory boring was drilled at the approximate location shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Drill rig access to other parts of the property was not practical due to site features and soft, wet ground. The boring was advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-45B drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Kumar& Associates, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/8 inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were 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 Log of Exploratory Boring, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A graphic log of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site is shown on Figure 2. The subsoils, below about 2 feet of topsoil, consist of about 3 feet of natural, stiff slightly sandy clay underlain by relatively dense, silty sandy gravel and cobbles with probable boulders down to the boring depth 16 feet. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture content and density and gradation analyses. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the clay, presented on Figure 3, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting and a low expansion potential when wetted under a constant 1,000 psf surcharge. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 11/2-inch size fraction) of the coarse granular soils are presented on Figure 4. The laboratory test results are summarized in Table 1. No free water was encountered in the boring at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist. RECEIVED 01/28/2022 Kumar&Associates,Inc.® Project No.19-7-496 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 3 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The natural granular soils encountered below the topsoil and clay materials are adequate for support of spread footing foundations. The topsoil and clay should be completely removed from beneath the proposed building area. The new building as planned is above a full basement and the excavation is expected to extend down below the clay material. Further evaluation of the extent of clay should be performed 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. 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 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. 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 RECEIVED area. 01/28/2022 Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.19-7-496 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT -4 - 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 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, clay soils, 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. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations 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 on 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, clay 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 it standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill placed in pavemer 14, 4 ���walkwayareas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor de . �� p 01/28/2022 Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.19-7-496 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 5 - 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 400 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. FLOOR SLABS The natural granular soils encountered below the topsoil and clay soil 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 6 inches. RECEIVED 01/28/2022 Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.19-7-496 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 6 - 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 11/2 feet deep. 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 are Soil Type B as identified in the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan and should be suitable for surface water treatment and disposal as needed. The results of percolation(infiltration)testing performed in Boring 1, presented in Table 2, indicate an infiltration(hydraulic conductivity equivalent units) rate of about 30 inch/hour(2 minutes per inch) for the soils below basement level. Bedrock and groundwater levels are expected to be relatively deep 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 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. RECEIVED 01/28/2022 Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.19-7-496 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 7 - 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 6 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. 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 boring drilled at the location 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 boring 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 CC monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendatRE CE I 01/28/2022 Kumar&Associates,Inc.° Project No.19-7-496 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 8 - 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& Associates,Inc. Robert L. Duran, E. I. Reviewed by: •�0.► \ .� � III, • -. /� /� N • :fA 15222 A. Steven L. Pawlak,P.':. ? �'� '• )3 /Z: l RLD/kac 4 O ••... .• '� �' S ,I ) 01/28/2022 Kumar&Associates,Inc.® Project No.19-7-496 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1 • \\ Alley \ \ ` Ed of Alley (20' R 0 W) \ I ` > N 7•509'11" r° 90.00' / _ 3 ` ° 1 Q°�oncrete P ° "0 I..J Tr nth Dr M ' /��� Y g6 2115 m t0 a��.• ��& Iw .7 ...:12 m •... 10 A2.0 2 `.....1CPM I�,..`=�"� :Tao o c9 I h I I ' �Sm 9"m . s I ti I I / %rucee 1 / 7"t ,12 0 IffIm:c Potloo1 ;,74. artlo\sn yti' ,4e I 1 I I I``ivy)I I I �� � © p9• 178� v/ o,i ,1�0 10. • 6.T 1 ` ' I • I R\M o�g 4.10' O �� ° I r..i��`*>o I 1N� O o I I I I` c BORING 1 , Si `` �UI use t : Lot Al k \ W 11• ifir o°ao 9�°� SP F I " c• ? O.Zt O / h 3 r ,, ,..._...g., j° :5111. ';i4. A - l' f.414 -0.5' a : � 0 9.5' N1• \o Story ° < 4N i 24, 1 Nou50 4 i 11.0' ti h 1� o 788s W t Story 1.7' N 7887 Cov 4.�14� 'c 89 8 S FCome 0.2 � \ 0.5t,ev r F Por . I P o89 H Usee ro ui c con o �h/kh \ I M 1 I° 29 4' dow \ 0.9' o 0.5 cu- 1' f—t. 4" °, o ��44' 2a t1\ever- 3 \ >8 I Porch We t ' j,.._. ',a :\ '0,.. Cov d 6B �B6 \ I torµed Porch s•� 1 s•/s 1 p a W1: I o t L� b 7885.75 ' (-1"--..- R.RWaU29.1 e . IID Ret. V H' Zp$ I 1I 88 (•: LRto//k . ? e10 Z0 ��ro -----• c)erel, L 5.E 31.32' M S 75'09'11" A' 9e00' \ S 69 srzz"E > era' 2‘6 ,8g8.89' 3" Basis of Bearing --..../$81 888. 0 \ 788 liso 1'9 4\ >886•s>• A• �0• • I 1� ti6 788.,.41' `1117:>. I A�0�• ^�0ra I f_Z886 E g Pavement >866.80• ��0 \' 9 6 >886.63 1� Vest Francis Sereet c i r Q E, o rn L- ip 10 0 10 20 APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET RECEIVED ,,,,::,', 4,, o1L28/2o22 11. 19-7-496 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING ig. 1 • AGFCP� BUILDING DEPARTMENT BORING 1 LEGEND EL. 7886' TOPSOIL; ORGANIC, CLAY, SLIGHTLY SANDY, TRACE GRAVEL, p STIFF, MOIST, BROWN. 10/12 //CLAY (CL); SLIGHTLY SANDY, TRACE GRAVEL, STIFF, MOIST, WC=22.3 BROWN. DD=101 / / o GRAVEL AND SAND (GM—SM); SILTY, SCATTERED COBBLES, 5 :. PROBABLE BOULDERS, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST, BROWN. X. 16/12 > ROUNDED ROCK. • DRIVE SAMPLE, 2—INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. w— 1 0 DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8—INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD 36/12• PENETRATION TEST. 1O/12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 10 BLOWS OF A 140—POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED f TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES. 1 5 41/6, 50/4 NOTES ■ 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS DRILLED ON AUGUST 30, 2019 COMBINED WITH A 4—INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER. WC=5.4 2. THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS MEASURED +4=41 APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE 20 —200=12 SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 3. THE ELEVATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 4. THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATION AND ELEVATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED. 5. THE LINES BETWEEN MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE EXPLORATORY BORING LOG REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MATERIAL TYPES AND THE TRANSITIONS MAY BE GRADUAL. 6. GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. 7. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS: WC = WATER CONTENT (%) (ASTM D 221 6); DD = DRY DENSITY (pcf) (ASTM D 2216); +4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 6913); —200 = PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140). A R re �.. E1 19-7-496 Kumar & Associates LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 L% 8, 2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT SAMPLE OF: Slightly Sandy Clay FROM: Boring 1 @ 2.5' WC = 22.3 %, DD = 101 pcf 1 EXPANSION UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE UPON WETTING 0 J —1 J —2 F- Q —3 c3 —4 These test results apply only to the samples tested.The testing report shall not be reproduced,except in full,without the written approval of Kumar and Associates, Inc.Swell Consolidation testing performed in accordance with ASTM D-4546. .1 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE — KSF 10 100 1 G o` I y MoRECEIVED Ec 19-7-496 Kumar & Associates SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS /F' 0 s/32o22 VI fJ 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 6OMIN 19MIN 4MIN 1MIN #200 #100 050#40#_30 #16 #1?#8 #4 3/8" 3 4" 1 1 2" 3" 5"6" 8"0 I 90 10 80 20 70 30 60 40 50 50 40 60 30 70 20 80 10 90 0 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100 .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 .600 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 19 38.1 76.2 127 200 .425 2.0 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE GRAVEL 41 % SAND 47 % SILT AND CLAY 12 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Silty Sand and Gravel FROM: Boring 1 ® 10' & 15' (Combined) e These test results apply only to the �°. samples which were tested. The testing report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written $� approval of Kumar & Associates, Inc. Sieve analysis tests sffi ed in accordance with A STM D7928, ASTM C136 and/o 40. _I 19-7-496 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS F' O1/18f2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT I( i A Kumar&Associates,sInc.° Gumar&Aland Materials Engineers and Environmental Scientists TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. 19-7-496 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PERCENT PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE BORING DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY (%) (%) PASSING 200 S EVE LIQUID LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH SOIL TYPE (ft) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (psf) 1 2Y/2 22.3 101 Slightly Sandy Clay 10 & 15 5.4 41 47 12 Silty Sand and Gravel combined • • RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Ic+A Kumar&Associates,s ° Gumar&Aland Materials Engineers and Environmental Scientists TABLE 2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. 19-7-496 HOLE HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER WATER DROP IN AVERAGE NO. (INCHES) INTERVAL DEPTH AT DEPTH AT WATER PERCOLATION (MIN) START OF END OF LEVEL RATE INTERVAL INTERVAL (INCHES) (MIN./INCH) (INCHES) (INCHES) 60 46 14 .1 46 43 3 .7 43 40 3 .7 40 38 2 1 38 361/2 I 11/2 1.3 B-1 I 125 2 361/2 35 11/2 1.3 35 331/2 11/2 1.3 331/2 I 321/2 I 1 2 32% 31% 1 2 31% 30% 1 2 301/2 29'/2 1 2 Note: Percolation testing was conducted in Boring 1, located as shown on Figure 1. The percolation test was conducted on August 30, 2019. RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS HISTORIC CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS RECEWED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 234 W FRANCIS ST DRAINAGE REPORT BY: MGG CHECKED BY: MGG DATE: 1-21-22 Type B Soils 5 YR RUNOFF 10 YR RUNOFF 100 YR RUNOFF BASIN AREA(S.F.) AREA(ACRE) IMPERVIOUS AREA(SF) PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT EX-1 9,000 0.207 0 0.0 0.08 0.15 0.35 TOTAL ON-SITE 9,000 0.207 0 0.0 RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 234 W FRANCIS ST DRAINAGE REPORT BY: MGG CHECKED BY: MGG DATE: 1-21-22 REACH AREA IDENTIFIER EX-1 o RATIONAL COEFFICIENT. C5 (FIGURE 3.2 OF URMP) 0.08 FLOW LENGTH, L (TOTAL <300 FT.) (ft.) 134 WILAND SLOPE, S (ft./ft.) 0.0149 ° T (MIN) 18.7 ou SURFACE DESCRIPTION 2 FLOW LENGTH, L (ft.) ▪ FLOW SLOPE, S (ft./ft.) CONVEYANCE COEFFICIENT, K (TABLE 3.3 URMP) • FLOW VELOCITY, V (fps.) 0.00 Tt = L/(60V) (min.) 0.0 T, (5 minute min.) 18.7 T� URBAN CHECK= 10+L/180 10.7 Pi-10yr 0.77 Pi-100yr 1.23 10 YEAR INTENSITY 2.00 100 YEAR INTENSITY 3.20 To = [0.395 (1.1 - C5) SQRT(L)] /(S°333) EQUATION 3-4 C= 5 YR runoff coefficient from City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan V=K*SQRT(S) T,=To+Tt INTENSITY 1=88.8P1/((10+Td)"1.052) EQUATION 2-1 P TAKEN FROM TABLES 2.2 AND 2.3 RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT CALCULATED BY:MGG STANDARD FORM SF-3 JOB NO.2191025.00 DATE:1-21-22 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN PROJECT:234 W FRANCIS ST CHECKED BY:MGG (RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE) DESIGN STORM:EXISTING 10 YEAR DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF CHANNEL PIPE TRAVEL TIME r z l wEiip � z ci E in z U E in o o 0 = a z d Q w0 Q 2 0 M Q 2 0 LL o z l~iV Li- STRUCTURE NO. z 0 Z ¢ ? �Co' LL Co' - x > REMARKS o Contributing Area ¢ LL V w z u- z u- w w i. cn LU o ¢ Lk' z" o ( w o L. - o i n - o 5 o � Lu CC a _1 > a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) 1 EX-1 0.207 0.15 18.7 0.03 2.00 0.06 DESIGN POINT 1 RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT CALCULATED BY:MGG STANDARD FORM SF-3 JOB NO.2191025.00 DATE:1-21-22 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN PROJECT:234 W FRANCIS ST CHECKED BY:MGG (RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE) DESIGN STORM:EXISTING 100 YEAR DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF CHANNEL PIPE TRAVEL TIME 1— Er 5o = F= a z z LL Z U Co- Z U Cl)in o 0_ ¢ CO - a I U a I U J O 0 V U- STRUCTURE NO. 00 ? ¢ -J CO win z x >- REMARKS z Contributing Area < LL v w z U Z U w w I in Ui 0 a g p z" 0 0 5 Z O 0 ¢ D g 0 — 0 1 — 0 CO U 0 co w J w '' IT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) 1 EX-1 0.207 0.35 18.7 0.07 3.20 0.23 DESIGN POINT 1 RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 234 W FRANCIS ST DRAINAGE REPORT BY:MGG CHECKED BY:MGG DATE:1-21-22 _ TYPE B SOILS IMPERVIOUS AREA PERCENT EFFECTIVE WQCV(Watershed 5 YR RUNOFF 10 YR RUNOFF 100 YR RUNOFF BASIN AREA(S.F.) AREA(ACRE) (SF) IMPERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS(%) inches) WQCV(CF) COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT PR-1 6,873 0.158 4,189 60.9 60.9 0.110 63.0 0.50 0.55 0.71 PR-2 1,294 0.030 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.43 PR-3 850 0.020 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.43 Onsite Only 9,017 0.207 4,189 46.5 46.5 0.110 63.0 SUB-BASIN PR-WEST STORM 2,806 0.064 2,806 100.0 100.0 0.86 0.87 0.90 PR-EAST STORM 1,498 0.034 1,050 70.1 70.1 0.58 0.62 0.76 PR-N CABIN STORM 208 0.005 207 99.7 100.0 0.86 0.86 0.89 PR-S CABIN STORM 317 0.007 317 100.0 100.0 0.86 0.87 0.90 PR-TRENCH STORM 224 0.005 224 100.0 100.0 0.86 0.87 0.90 PR-CB-1 548 0.013 100 18.2 18.2 0.14 0.20 0.51 PR-CB-2 2,516 0.058 336 13.4 13.4 0.10 0.17 0.49 WQCV BASIN STRUCTURE (Watershed WQCV(CF) PR-1 DRYWELL-1 0.110 63.0 PR-2 N/A 0.000 0.0 PR-3 N/A 0.000 0.0 TOTAL 0.110 63.0 F.S.=1.5 FOR DRYWELL 94.5 RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 234 W FRANCIS ST DRAINAGE REPORT BY:MGG CHECKED BY:MGG DATE:1-21-22 REACH AREA IDENTIFIER PR-1 PR-2 PR-3 PR-WEST STORM PR-EAST STORM PR-N CABIN STORM PR-S CABIN STORM PR-TRENCH STORM PR-CB-1 PR-CB-2 o _RATIONAL COEFFICIENT.C5(FIGURE 3.2 OF URMP) 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.58 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.14 0.10 FLOW LENGTH,L(TOTAL<300 FT.) (ft.) 54.0 39.8 52.3 15.0 36.0 18.5 9.7 4.2 95.0 -F 46.2 w o LAND SLOPE,S (ft./ft.) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.33 1 0.02 0.02 0.04 p LL To(MIN) 6.4 10.1 11.6 1.4 4.5 0.6 0.3 0.7 13.7 7.9 SURFACE DESCRIPTION Paved Water Way FLOW LENGTH,L (ft.) 95.0 w FLOW SLOPE,S (ft./ft.) 0.01 CONVEYANCE COEFFICIENT,K(TABLE 3.3 URMP) 20.0 0 dFLOW VELOCITY,V(fps.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tt=U(60V) (min.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 To (5 minute min.) 6.4 10.1 11.6 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 13.7 7.9 To URBAN CHECK=10+L/180 10.3 10.2 10.3 10.1 10.7 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.5 10.3 P,-10yr 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 P1-100yr 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 10 YEAR INTENSITY 3.61 2.91 2.70 3.96 3.88 3.96 3.96 3.96 2.45 3.29 100 YEAR INTENSITY 5.76 4.65 4.32 6.33 6.20 6.33 6.33 6.33 3.91 5.26 To=[0.395(1.1-C5)SQRT(L)]/(So.333) EQUATION 3-4 C=5 YR runoff coefficient from City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan V=K`SQRT(S) T To+T, INTENSITY 1=88.8P,/((10+Td)^1.052) EQUATION 2-1 P TAKEN FROM TABLES 2.2 AND 2.3 WITHIN THE URMP *INTENSITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 2.1"IDF CURVES FOR ASPEN,COLORADO"FROM URMP RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT CALCULATED BY:MGG STANDARD FORM SF-3 JOB NO.2191025.00 DATE:1-21-22 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN PROJECT:234 W FRANCIS ST CHECKED BY:MGG (RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE) DESIGN STORM:PROPOSED 10 YEAR DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME I- z LL LL (-7, Z LL U U U _ a w Z ¢ _ Z ? = LL 0• = LL LL Z O 7 o- J STRUCTURE NO. 0 ? w ¢ ? = REMARKS z Contributing Area 4 Li O C.) w OJ 2 w w U a. LL LL a.O N W Z 4 Q LL O H Z O y W O O ¢ 0 - a Z Z g r, - O o W c� N CC CT) a > I- cb -CCco o a (1) I (2) (3) l (4) l (5) l (6) (7) l (8) I (9) l (10) I (11) (12) I (13) (14) (15) I (16) I (17) I (18) (19) I (20) (21) I (22) 1 PR-1 0.158 0.55 6.4 0.09 3.61 0.31 0.38 121.15 Design Point 1 2 PR-2 0.030 0.06 10.1 0.002 2.91 0.005 0.49 3.01 Design Point 2 3 PR-3 0.020 0.06 11.6 0.001 2.70 0.003 0.52 2.10 I I I I Design Point 3 SUB-BASINS PR-WEST STORM 0.064 0.87 11.6 0.056 3.96 0.22 PR-EAST STORM 0.034 0.62 5.3 0.021 3.88 0.08 I I I I I PR-N CABIN STORM 0.005 0.86 5.0 0.004 3.96 0.02 I I I I I PR-S CABIN STORM 0.007 0.87 5.0 0.006 3.96 0.02 I I I I I PR-TRENCH STORM 0.005 0.87 5.0 0.004 3.96 0.02 I I I I I PR-CB-1 0.013 0.20 13.7 0.003 2.45 0.01 I I I I I PR-CB-2 0.058 0.17 7.9 0.010 3.29 0.03 Notes Peak Flow=Q,=CIA(Eq 3-1) Runoff Volume= Va= C 12 PA(Eq 3-2) Rainfall Depth= P=601(Eq 3-3) RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT CALCULATED BY:MGG STANDARD FORM SF-3 JOB NO.2191025.00 DATE:1-21-22 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN PROJECT:234 W FRANCIS ST CHECKED BY:MGG (RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURE) DESIGN STORM:PROPOSED 100 YEAR DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME I- z LL LL (-7, Z LL U U U _ a w Z ¢ _ Z ? = LL 0• = LL LL Z O 7 o- J STRUCTURE NO. 0 ? w ¢ ? = REMARKS z Contributing Area 4 Li O O w OJ 2 w w ci. LL O LL N U W Z 4 Q LL O H Z (7) W O 0 Q H 0 - a Z Z H rr, - O s) w 0 N a > I- s) o a (1) I (2) (3) l (4) l (5) l (6) (7) l (8) I (9) l (10) I (11) (12) I (13) (14) (15) I (16) I (17) I (18) (19) I (20) (21) I (22) 1 PR-1 0.158 0.71 6.4 0.11 5.76 0.65 0.61 250.37 Design Point 1 2 PR-2 0.030 0.43 10.1 0.013 4.65 0.06 0.78 35.92 Design Point 2 3 PR-3 0.020 0.43 11.6 0.008 4.32 0.04 0.83 25.11 I I I I Design Point 3 SUB-BASINS PR-WEST STORM 0.064 0.90 6.4 0.058 6.33 0.37 PR-EAST STORM 0.034 0.76 10.1 0.026 6.20 0.16 I I I I I PR-N CABIN STORM 0.005 0.89 11.6 0.004 6.33 0.03 I I I I I PR-S CABIN STORM 0.007 0.90 5.0 0.007 6.33 0.04 I I I I I PR-TRENCH STORM 0.005 0.90 5.3 0.005 6.33 0.03 I I I I I PR-CB-1 0.013 0.51 13.7 0.006 3.91 0.03 I I I I I PR-CB-2 0.058 0.49 7.9 0.028 5.26 0.15 Notes Peak Flow=Q,=CIA(Eq 3-1) Runoff Volume= Va= C 12 PA(Eq 3-2) Rainfall Depth= P=601(Eq 3-3) RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT RATIONAL VOLUME METHOD FOR DETENTION VOLUME Project Name: 234 W Francis Event 10 yr Project No: 2191025.00 Basin PR-1 By: MGG A 0.158 ac Date: 1/21/22 t, 6.4 min P1 0.77 in Qa 0.06 cfs C 0.55 Duration (td) Intensity Inflow Vol Outflow Vol Detention (min.) (in/hr) V;(cf) V.(cf) Vol Vd (cf) 5 3.96 104.09 20.52 83.57 8 3.27 137.47 25.92 111.55 11 2.78 160.73 31.32 129.41 14 2.42 177.76 36.72 141.04 17 2.13 190.69 42.12 148.57 20 1.91 200.81 47.52 153.29 23 1.73 208.90 52.92 155.98 26 1.58 i 215.49 58.32 157.17 29 1.45 220.94 63.72 157.22 32 1.34 225.51 69.12 156.39 35 1.25 229.39 74.52 154.87 38 1.16 232.70 79.92 152.78 Required Detention Vol (cf) 157.22 EQUATIONS PER URMP CHAPTER 5.6.1 -DETENTION 88.8P, f = Equation 2-1 (10+Td)i.o52 I'. = 1 C I Td A Equation 5-2 720 Va = 30(1+ T` )QaTd Td Equation 5-3 Vd = Vi -va Equation 5-4 RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT RATIONAL VOLUME METHOD FOR DETENTION VOLUME Project Name: 234 W Francis Project Event 100 yr No: 2191025.00 Basin PR-1 By: MGG A 0.158 ac Date: 1/21/22 t, 6.4 min P, 1.23 in Qa 0.23 cfs C 0.71 Duration (td) Intensity Inflow Vol Outflow Vol Detention (min.) (in/hr) V;(cf) Vo(cf) Vol Vd (cf) 6 5.91 - 240.66 85.56 155.10 7 5.54 _ 263.42 92.46 170.96 8 5.22 _ 283.49 99.36 184.13 9 4.93 _ 301.29 106.26 195.03 10 4.67 317.18 113.16 204.02 11 4.44 331.44 120.06 211.38 12 4.23 _ 344.30 126.96 217.34 13 4.03 _ 355.95 133.86 222.09 14 3.86 - 366.55 140.76 225.79 15 3.70 _ 376.22 147.66 228.56 16 3.55 _ 385.09 154.56 230.53 17 3.41 _ 393.23 161.46 231.77 18 3.28 400.73 168.36 232.37 19 3.16 407.66 175.26 232.40 20 3.05 414.08 182.16 231.92 Required Detention Vol (cf) 232.40 EQUATIONS PER URMP CHAPTER 5.6.1-DETENTION 88.8P Equation 2-1 1 = (10+Td)'.o52 V. = 1 C 1 Td A Equation 5-2 720 T Vo = 30(1+T` )QaTd Equation 5-3 d Vd = Vr -Vo Equation 5-4 RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS STORM SEWER CALCULATIONS SWALE CALCULATIONS INLET GRATE CALCULATIONS DRYWELL CALCULATIONS RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday,Sep 29 2021 EAST STORM 4-IN 100-yr Circular Highlighted Diameter (ft) = 0.33 Depth (ft) = 0.23 Q (cfs) = 0.160 Area (sqft) = 0.06 Invert Elev (ft) = 7882.82 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.51 Slope (%) = 1.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.65 N-Value = 0.012 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.23 Top Width (ft) = 0.30 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.33 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.16 Elev (ft) Section 7884.00 7883.50 7883.00 7882.50 7882.00 RECEIVED 0 1 2 O1/28/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Thursday,Sep 2 2021 N CABIN STORM 100-YR Circular Highlighted Diameter (ft) = 0.33 Depth (ft) = 0.09 Q (cfs) = 0.030 Area (sqft) = 0.02 Invert Elev (ft) = 7883.82 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.58 Slope (%) = 1.04 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.36 N-Value = 0.012 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.10 Top Width (ft) = 0.29 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.13 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.03 Elev (ft) Section 7885.00 7884.50 7884.00 (.79 7883.50 7883.00 REINED- 0 1 2 O1/28/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Thursday,Sep 2 2021 S CABIN STORM 100-YR Circular Highlighted Diameter (ft) = 0.50 Depth (ft) = 0.09 Q (cfs) = 0.040 Area (sqft) = 0.02 Invert Elev (ft) = 7883.90 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.65 Slope (%) = 1.04 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.44 N-Value = 0.012 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.10 Top Width (ft) = 0.39 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.13 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.04 Elev (ft) Section 7885.00 7884.50 7884.00 0 7883.50 7883.00 REEVED 0 1 2 O1/28/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday,Sep 29 2021 WEST STORM 100-YR Circular Highlighted Diameter (ft) = 0.50 Depth (ft) = 0.29 Q (cfs) = 0.370 Area (sqft) = 0.12 Invert Elev (ft) = 7882.10 Velocity (ft/s) = 3.12 Slope (%) = 1.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.87 N-Value = 0.012 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.31 Top Width (ft) = 0.49 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.44 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.37 Elev (ft) Section 7883.00 7882.75 7882.50 7882.25 7882.00 7881.75 + 0 1 O1/28/2022 BUILDI FIRIftTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Friday,Jan 21 2022 CB-1 STORM 100-YR Circular Highlighted Diameter (ft) = 0.33 Depth (ft) = 0.09 Q (cfs) = 0.030 Area (sqft) = 0.02 Invert Elev (ft) = 7883.88 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.58 Slope (%) = 1.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.36 N-Value = 0.012 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.10 Top Width (ft) = 0.29 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.13 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.03 Elev (ft) Section 7885.00 7884.50 7884.00 0 7883.50 7883.00 REINED- 0 1 2 O1/28/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Friday,Jan 21 2022 CB-2 STORM 100-YR Circular Highlighted Diameter (ft) = 0.50 Depth (ft) = 0.17 Q (cfs) = 0.150 Area (sqft) = 0.06 Invert Elev (ft) = 7882.95 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.52 Slope (%) = 1.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.62 N-Value = 0.012 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.20 Top Width (ft) = 0.47 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.27 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.15 Elev (ft) Section 7884.00 7883.50 7883.00 7882.50 7882.00 RECEIVED 0 1 2 O1/28/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday,Sep 29 2021 CB-1 SWALE 10-YR Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.40, 7.20 Depth (ft) = 0.06 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Q (cfs) = 0.010 Area (sqft) = 0.02 Invert Elev (ft) = 7484.51 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.48 Slope (%) = 2.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.71 N-Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.05 Top Width (ft) = 0.70 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.06 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.01 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7486.00 1.49 7485.50 0.99 7485.00 0.49 7484.50 -0.01 7484.00 RECE!Y D 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 01/ 8/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday,Sep 29 2021 CB-1 SWALE 100-YR Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.40, 7.20 Depth (ft) = 0.08 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Q (cfs) = 0.030 Area (sqft) = 0.04 Invert Elev (ft) = 7484.51 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.81 Slope (%) = 2.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.94 N-Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.07 Top Width (ft) = 0.93 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.09 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.03 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7486.00 1.49 7485.50 0.99 7485.00 0.49 7484.50 -0.01 7484.00 RECE!V D 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 01/ 8/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday,Sep 29 2021 STORM OVERFLOW SWALE 10-YR Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.40, 7.20 Depth (ft) = 0.20 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Q (cfs) = 0.310 Area (sqft) = 0.23 Invert Elev (ft) = 7484.51 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.34 Slope (%) = 2.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 2.36 N-Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.18 Top Width (ft) = 2.32 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.23 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.31 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7486.00 1.49 7485.50 0.99 7485.00 0.49 7484.50 -0.01 7484.00 ■ R""CEl0WD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 O1/ 8/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday,Sep 29 2021 STORM OVERFLOW SWALE 100-YR Triangular Highlighted Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.40, 7.20 Depth (ft) = 0.26 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Q (cfs) = 0.650 Area (sqft) = 0.39 Invert Elev (ft) = 7484.51 Velocity (ft/s) = 1.66 Slope (%) = 2.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 3.06 N-Value = 0.030 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.24 Top Width (ft) = 3.02 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.30 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.65 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7486.00 1.49 7485.50 0.99 7485.00 0.49 7484.50 -0.01 7484.00 ■ R""CEl0WD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 O1/ 8/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday,Sep 29 2021 TRENCH DRAIN 10-YR Rectangular Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 0.42 Depth (ft) = 0.06 Total Depth (ft) = 0.35 Q (cfs) = 0.020 Area (sqft) = 0.03 Invert Elev (ft) = 7885.35 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.79 Slope (%) = 0.40 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.54 N-Value = 0.013 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.05 Top Width (ft) = 0.42 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.07 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.02 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7886.00 0.65 7885.75 0.40 7885.50 0.15 v 7885.25 -0.10 7885.00 .. __ r lovfp 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 01/i8/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday,Sep 29 2021 TRENCH DRAIN 100-YR Rectangular Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 0.42 Depth (ft) = 0.08 Total Depth (ft) = 0.35 Q (cfs) = 0.030 Area (sqft) = 0.03 Invert Elev (ft) = 7885.35 Velocity (ft/s) = 0.89 Slope (%) = 0.40 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.58 N-Value = 0.013 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.06 Top Width (ft) = 0.42 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.09 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.03 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7886.00 0.65 7885.75 0.40 7885.50 0.15 7885.25 -0.10 7885.00 \.. r lovfp 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 01/i8/2022 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT `.c'�cot�,v� Project: 234 Francis St. .2',* �' %1" Project No: 2191025.00 HQE n Date: 9/29/21 -a By: MGG ,tiEER‘c� Inlet Grate Capacity Structure Trench Drain Frame &Grate Neenah R-4996-A2 Weir Capacity L 18 Length (ft) P 36 Perimeter(ft)1 h 0.06 head (ft) (Hydraflow) Q 1.75 Capacity (cfs)2 50% Q 0.87 50%Cloggin Capacity(cfs) — 100-YR Required Q 0.03 cfs Check OK Frame & Grate Capacity > 100-YR Flow? Notes 1) From Neenah catalog: R-4996-A2 perimeter=2.0ft/lineal foot 2)Weir flow: Q=3.3P(h)1.5 RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Nyloplast 6'•Drop In Grate Inlet Capacity Chart 0.40 - - - - - - 0.35 - - - 0.30 - 0.25 S ` £ 0.20 - . CAPACITY: 0.10 CPS 0.10 . - - 0.05 ., 000 . . . . 1 OAS US 0.90 0.10 0]S 0]0 0.70 0.30 1.11 OAS S00 0.01 0.01 OM 0.70 ITS 0.00 0 85 0 90 0 95 1.00 1.00 1.11 100-YR DEPTH: 0.08' IUOOpQ Nyloplast 3130 Verona Avenel•8ulcra.GA 30518 10661888A1791(7701932-2443•Po 1770)932-2490 C Nrppesi Het Caplan Clans Jur 2012 CAPACITY ANALYSIS CAPACITY=0.10 CFS O 0.08'HEAD 50%CLOGGING CAPACITY=0.05 CFS 100-YR FLOARATE(C8-1)-0.03 CFS CHECK: 0.03 CFS<0.05 CFS: OK Nyloplast 10"Drop In Gate Net Capacity Chart 1.411 170 US IM • YC ' CAPACITY: 0.44 CPS 010 • 000 0.05 0.10 015 02$ 121 010 031 0.10 041 010 III Iw 005 110 175 040 015 090 0.95 1II 105 111 100-vR DEPTH: 0.18' NOWeI Nyloplast 3110 Veron•Amur•eukr.GA 10511 106041104479 ism 9121413.Fa 17701932-2110 11104000411441 Cannon Chris no*2012 CAPACITY ANA1 KM, CAPACITY I 0.41 CFS Y 0.10'HEAD RECEIVED 50%CLOGGING 0 CAPACITY 0.22-0.22 CPS 100-1R+FL09RATE(CB-2)-0.15 as CHECK: 0.15 as c 0.22 CFO C0. r� r�r� 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 234 WEST FRANCIS ST DRAINAGE STUDY DRYWELL CALCULATIONS January 21,2022 HCE#:2191025.00 BASIN PR-1,100 YR Drywell Calculations Calculation of DrvwelI and Gravel Variables Volume to Width of Depth of gravel Die of Percent Concrete Cylinder Detain(cf) Gravel(ft) Below M.H.(ft) M.H. Voids(%) Thickness(h) 232.4 2.0 1 5 30 5 Area of M.H.(sqft) 19.6 Area of Gravel(sqft) 49.2 Area of Concrete Cylinder(sqft) 7.09 Volume of 6"PCC Slab(sqft) 9.8 Volume of Gravel Bottom 22.8 Depth Volume of Vol of Gravel Vol of Drywell Vol of Drywell Vol of Total Volume Varied Gravel Voids Conic Section Cyl.Section Drywell Volume Met (ft) (cf) On (cf) (cf) (cf) (cf) 1 U.0 U.0 U.0 U.0 U.() U.0 no 2 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 3.0 3.0 no 3 22.8 6.8 12.8 19.6 22.6 29.5 no 4 72.0 21.6 12.8 39.3 42.3 63.9 no 5 121.2 36.4 12.8 58.9 61.9 98.3 no 6 170.4 51.1 12.8 78.5 81.6 132.7 no 7 219.7 65.9 12.8 98.2 101.2 167.1 no 8 268.9 80.7 12.8 117.8 120.8 201.5 no 9 318.1 95.4 12.8 137.4 140.5 235.9 Meets Min. 10 367.3 110.2 12.8 157.1 160.1 270.3 Meets Min. 11 416.5 125.0 12.8 176.7 179.7 304.7 Meets Min. 12 465.7 139.7 12.8 196.3 199.4 339.1 Meets Min. 13 515.0 154.5 12.8 216.0 219.0 373.5 Meets Min. 5'DIAMETER.MINIMUM 13'DEEP DRYWELL K from NRCS National Engineering Handbook,figure 3-10 Transmissivity Calc. Depth of Gravel(ft)= 12 CO C_/ K from NRCS National Engineering Handbook,figure 3-10,soil class GM (j� �� AP=(VR)/(K)(43,200) ..Z. * / F �.0 AP=Total area of sides(sf) 370.71 ^r VR=runoff volume(cf) 232.4 fv LF� K=Hydraulic Conductivity(ft/s) 0.000035 tiC `' .1' Area of Percolation Required(sf) 153.70 iN E E R` 1517 BLAKE AVENUE Glenwood Springs,W 81601 Tele:(970)945-8676-Fax(970)945-2555 RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT PR- 1 3P DRYWELL- 1 _5 DIA (24" GRAVEL) (Subca) Reach 'on. 111 Routing Diagram for 2191025-DRYWE � E I\IE D Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net, HydroCAD®10.10-4b Sampler s/n S11218 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2191025 - DRYWELL Aspen URMP 100-Year Duration=19 min, Inten=3.15 in/hr Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Printed 1/21/2022 HydroCAD® 10.10-4b Sampler s/n S11218 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Subcatchment PR-1: Runoff = 0.36 cfs @ 0.11 hrs, Volume= 0.009 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by Rational method, Rise/Fall=1.0/1.0 xTc, Time Span= 0.00-1.10 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Aspen URMP 100-Year Duration=19 min, Inten=3.15 in/hr Area (ac) C Description 0.158 0.71 60.9% IMP 0.158 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.4 Direct Entry, Subcatchment PR-1: Hydrograph ❑Runoff 0.38 0.36 cfs , — — — 0.36 0.34 / ♦ - Aspen U-RMP 1-001`ear / 0.32 / Duration=19-rnin; 0.3 0.28 Infen=3,i5iti/hr 0.26 0.24 Runoff Area=O 15 ac 0.22✓ , / RunoffVolume=$.0�9 af 0.2 0.18 a —Runoff Depth=0:71- 0.14- Tc 6. in 0.12 / v . 0.1 71- 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 ,////////z/z/z/z/z/z/z/z/z/z/z/z/z/ 0 1 Time (hours) RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2191025 - DRYWELL Aspen URMP 100-Year Duration=19 min, Inten=3.15 in/hr Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Printed 1/21/2022 HydroCAD® 10.10-4b Sampler s/n S11218 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Pond 3P: DRYWELL-1_5 DIA (24" GRAVEL) Inflow Area = 0.158 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.71" for 100-Year event Inflow = 0.36 cfs @ 0.11 hrs, Volume= 0.009 af Outflow = 0.08 cfs @ 0.40 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 76%, Lag= 17.5 min Primary = 0.08 cfs @ 0.40 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-1.10 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs/ 3 Peak Elev= 7,884.70' @ 0.40 hrs Surf.Area= 179 sf Storage= 400 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 22.9 min calculated for 0.000 af(2% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 12.0 min ( 24.7 - 12.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 7,870.86' 23 cf GRAVEL BOTTOM (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) 76 cf Overall x 30.0% Voids #2 7,871.86' 99 cf GRAVEL RING (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) 549 cf Overall - 220 cf Embedded = 329 cf x 30.0% Voids #3 7,871.86' 220 cf 5.00'D x 11.20'H VOL DRYWELL CYL. SECTION Inside #2 #4 7,883.06' 79 cf 5.00'D x 2.00'H CONE Z=1.0 420 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 7,870.86 76 0 0 7,871.86 76 76 76 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 7,871.86 49 0 0 7,883.06 49 549 549 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #0 Primary 7,885.06' Automatic Storage Overflow (Discharged without head) #1 Primary 7,884.64' 6.0" Horiz. CB-1 C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 0.40 hrs HW=7,884.70' (Free Discharge) 4-1=CB-1 (Weir Controls 0.08 cfs @ 0.82 fps) RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2191025 - DRYWELL Aspen URMP 100-Year Duration=19 min, Inten=3.15 in/hr Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Printed 1/21/2022 HydroCAD® 10.10-4b Sampler s/n S11218 ©2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Pond 3P: DRYWELL-1_5 DIA (24" GRAVEL) Hydrograph ❑Inflow 0.36 CfS ❑Primary 0.38, ii,///,,, _ _ 0.36 In low area=0-.1p5-�8�a/�c 0.32i/ ' 0.32� Peak Etev=7 i884.I/ O' 0.3 0.281 Storage 4Ou cf 0.26 V 0.24i/ L, �0.22 0.2V .° 0.18: ; 0.16 0.14 I' 0.12 0.1 0.08 cfs 0.08 ,/ 0.04 0.02 ///////�//////// ,�'i 0 0 1 Time (hours) RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT ASPEN CHARTS AND FIGURES RECEIVED 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 100 o so 080 / o/o , --100-yr oso o —�—50-yr V g 0 50 t 25-yr x—10-yr c 5-yr 0 a0 t 2-yr 0 30 �c/X 020 0 10 000 0% EC' Watershed Percentage Imperviousne Figure 3.3— Runoff Coefficients for NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group B 100 0 90 080 / // 0.70 0.60 t 100-yr f 50-yr 0 50 —16—25-yr —x—10-yr o —_—5-yr cc 0 40 x —a—2•yr 0 30 0 20 0 10 0 00 0% 10Yo 2C 3G 100% Watershed Perccntayc Imp . ousnc. Figure 3.4— Runoff Coefficients for NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 100 - 90 4, Live'1 • I 80 • .. MOCIA • ��. • Level o 'I � 70 • Trasewnal f ' Dexlownerx I' I Practice • o 60 - ; I N Ir I I • 5 50 %o • I / N ' ' I a 40 • I 7 II / I 30 • ' ' level 1. I- IADCIA I / I • I i' 20 • / f • > ,I r I r I 10 / .'• . • ' 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 I,.t,il Impel viousness(percent) Figure 8.14 Imperviousness Adjustments for Level 1 and 2 MDCIA(UDFCD 1999) 0.30 0.25 0 0.20 T C) N a, 0.15 is 0.10 U 0 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 BMP(percent) Er E IVE D 01/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Table 2.2 Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency in Aspen, Colorado Return Rainfall Intensity in inch/hr for Various Periods of Duration Period 5-min 10-min 15-mm 30-mm 1-hr(P1) 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 24-hr 2-yr 2.06 1.51 1.23 0.77 0.47 0.28 0.21 0.13 0.06 5-yr 2.98 2.17 1.77 1.09 0.64 0.36 0.26 . 0.16 0.07 10-yr 3.72 2.72 2.22 1.35 0.77 0.43 0.30 0.18 0.08 25-yr 4.75 3.47 2.82 1.71 0.95 0.53 0.36 0.21 0.09 50-yr 5.53 4.05 3.30 1.98 1.09 0.60 0.41 _ 0.24 0.11 100-yr 6.32 4.63 3.76 2.24 1.23 0.67 0.45 0.26 0.12 Using the data in Table 2.2 (derived from NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 8), the following equation was derived that can be used to determine intensities not shown in the IDF table or curve. 88.8P, / = (Equation 2-1) (10+Td)'0`- Where. I = rainfall intensity(inch/hr). P, = 1-hr rainfall depth (inches).and T, = duration or time of concentration (minutes) Table 3.3 Conveyance Coefficients for SCS Upland Method Linings for Conveyance Conveyance Coefficient Meadow (rough bushes) 2.5 Tillage (crop fields. mountain vegetation) 4.5 Lawn (turf strip, gravel pavement) 7.0 Bare Soils (unlined ditches) 10.0 Grass Lined Swale (grass ditches) 15.0 Paved Water Way (street gutters) 20.0 RECEIVED O1/28/2022 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT