Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.334 McSkimming Rd.0073-2020-BRES (26)Engineering1 - 334 McSkimming - 0073-2020-BRES Page: [1] EX-03 FEMA File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf There is an updated FEMA map with an effective date of 8/15/20 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf (24) Page: [1] EXDR File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf The existing and proposed basin pdf pages are not showing up correctly on my screen. Can you flatten the sheets so all the topo lines do not draw individually? I can't see the legend boxes. It appears to be an issue with the pdf. Page: [1] PRDR File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Some parts of the report use Type A soils, other parts use type B soils. Please verify what type of soil is on the site and consistently use that type. Page: [1] PRDR File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf This table is not correct. It lists PR-1 as 0% impervious and 0 cf of required WQCV. There is an alternative table in the drainage report that appears to be correct with PR-1 at 73.2% impervious and PR-2 at 20.5%. The areas called out on this table do not match the areas called out in the drainage report or the callout boxes for each basin on this page. Page: 4 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf The lot is not undeveloped. It has an existing house and existing utilities. Please revise this statement. PROJECT NO. FE M A F L O O D P L A I N M A P AS P E N G R O V E S U B D I V I S I O N LO T 1 1 CI T Y O F A S P E N , C O . DI C K H A M P L E M A N FEMA 2181046.00 There is an updated FEMA map with an effective date of 8/15/20 S 56 ° 5 7 ' 4 3 " W 1 8 2 . 3 9 ' 57 ° 0 1 ' 0 0 " W 1 8 2 . 8 0 ' ) The existing and proposed basin pdf pages are not showing up correctly on my screen. Can you flatten the sheets so all the topo lines do not draw individually? I can't see the legend boxes. It appears to be an issue with the pdf. Some parts of the report use Type A soils, other parts use type B soils. Please verify what type of soil is on the site and consistently use that type. This table is not correct. It lists PR-1 as 0% impervious and 0 cf of required WQCV. There is an alternative table in the drainage report that appears to be correct with PR-1 at 73.2% impervious and PR-2 at 20.5%. The areas called out on this table do not match the areas called out in the drainage report or the callout boxes for each basin on this page. I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The subject property is located at Lot 11 in the Aspen Grove Subdivision within the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. The site is located at the physical address of 334 McSkimming Road. A Vicinity Map has been included as Exhibit 1. B. Description of Existing Property The existing lot is approximately 15,913 square feet (0.365 acres). The lot is currently undeveloped and consists mainly of Aspen trees and grassed ground cover. The site is bordered by private property to the west, north and east, and McSkimming Road right-of-way to the northwest. Generally site drainage flows from east to west across the property. Existing site drainage discharges offsite via sheet flow at the northwest property corner to McSkimming Road right-of-way and the adjacent western private property. Two offsite basins drain onto the property from the east. Grades on the property range from 4-percent to 11-percent, approximately. C. Proposed Improvements Proposed improvements consist of construction of an approximately 2,497 square foot single- family residence with concrete driveway, 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 76 – Mine loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes. The Soil Conservation Service describes the soil as well-drained with low runoff, moderately high to high permeability, and low water storage capacity. The soils are classified as hydrologic soil group The lot is not undeveloped. It has an existing house and existing utilities. Please revise this statement. FEMA map has been updated with FIRM map 08097C0366E effective 8/15/19. Table has been updated to match report output. Narrative has been updated to accurately reflect the existing conditions. NRCS websoil survey indicates Type A soils, however URMP soils map indicates Type B soils. Type B soils were analyzed per the URMP. The topo has been extracted from surfaces and converted for easier file manipulation. 04/08/2021 Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok Page: 4 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Mcskimming Rd ROW is to the east not northwest. There is private property to the north, south, and west. This description does not seem right. Please revise. Page: 4 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf According to the survey runoff leaves the site and runs on to the neighboring property to the west. It does not drain directly to McSkimming Rd. Page: 4 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Pitkin County has an updated floodplain map with an effective date of 8/15/19. Please revise. Page: 6 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf The plans show two bioretention ponds. Page: 7 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf The lot in not undeveloped, a house currently sits on the parcel. ming loped rivate west. inage f-way east. Mcskimming Rd ROW is to the east not northwest. There is private property to the north, south, and west. This description does not seem right. Please revise. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION is located at Lot 11 in the Aspen Grove Subdivision within the City of Aspen, te of Colorado. The site is located at the physical address of 334 McSkimming ap has been included as Exhibit 1. isting Property proximately 15,913 square feet (0.365 acres). The lot is currently undeveloped of Aspen trees and grassed ground cover. The site is bordered by private t, north and east, and McSkimming Road right-of-way to the northwest. age flows from east to west across the property. Existing site drainage sheet flow at the northwest property corner to McSkimming Road right-of-way ern private property. Two offsite basins drain onto the property from the east. ty range from 4-percent to 11-percent, approximately. ements nts consist of construction of an approximately 2,497 square foot single- family rete driveway, landscaping and stormwater conveyance and management oils map locates this site in the Type “B” soils area. Per the NRCS Web Soil arily lies within mapping unit type 76 – Mine loam, 12 to 25 percent slopes. n Service describes the soil as well-drained with low runoff, moderately high to d low water storage capacity. The soils are classified as hydrologic soil group information can be referenced in Exhibit 2. According to the survey runoff leaves the site and runs on to the neighboring property to the west. It does not drain directly to McSkimming Rd. of exploratory boring, subsurface sand fill with gravel underlain by the time of exploratory boring. A ibit 7. ea on its Flood Insurance Rate Map , 1987. The area of interest within ermined to be outside the 100-year p. Pitkin County has an updated floodplain map with an effective date of 8/15/19. Please revise. Page 6 J:\SDSKPROJ\218\1046\Drainage\2181046 - DRAINAGE ST design flows anticipated in a major storm event. See basin D. Site Constraints There are no utilities, streets or structures that cause major s design. E. Easements and Irrigation Facilities There are no major drainage ways, drainage easements or tr no irrigation facilities onsite that affect the overall propose F. Low Impact Site Design One bioretention pond will be implemented to provide the r per the URMP. Should the bioretention pond capacity be e along historic flow paths. G. Principles The 9 Principles for storm water quality management were The plans show two bioretention ponds. Page 7 J:\SDSKPROJ\218\1046\Drainage\2181046 - DRAINAGE STUD 7. Use a treatment train approach Vegetated swales provide a level of treatment prior to t 8. Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained The proposed storm water quality facilities have been d safely maintained, as recommended. 9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind The proposed storm water quality facilities have been de required. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept Currently the property is an undeveloped parcel. Proposed imp The lot in not undeveloped, a house currently sits on the parcel. Narrative has been updated to accurately reflect the existing conditions. Narrative has been updated to accurately reflect the existing conditions. FEMA map has been updated accordingly. Narrative has been updated to describe two brioretention ponds. Narrative has been updated to accurately reflect the existing conditions. 04/08/2021 Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok Page: 8 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf This is a different square footage than what is called out on page 4 section C. Page: 66 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf According to the Drainage Basins table shown on page 79 PR-1 is 0.03 ac, PR-2 is 0.234 acres and PR-3 is 0.052 acres. Make sure the table and callouts match on the drainage basin map. This table and the callouts show different numbers than the table on the drainage basin map. Page: 75 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Provide a title. What is Page 75 and 76 showing? Page: 76 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Basin PR-2 is not 100% pervious. What is this page showing? an approximately 3,515 square foot single- family residence with concret and stormwater conveyance and management facilities. Runoff from all imp be directed to either of two proposed bioretention ponds for treatmen downspouts will surface discharge and sheet flow to either swales within y inlets within the driveway and piped to the bioretention ponds. Offsite d will be intercepted by swales and directed to the bioretention ponds. required detention volume will be allowed to discharge along histori conveyance facilities have been sized to safely convey the 100-year storm B. Historic Drainage Basin Descriptions This is a different square footage than what is called out on page 4 section C. UBDIVISION 0.051 1,633 73.2 AREA (ACRE) IMPERVIOUS AREA (SF) PERCENT IMPERVIOUS EFF IMPER According to the Drainage Basins table shown on page 79 PR-1 is 0.03 ac, PR-2 is 0.234 acres and PR-3 is 0.052 acres. Make sure the table and callouts match on the drainage basin map. This table and the callouts show different numbers than the table on the drainage basin map. R PR-SITE Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www HydroCAD® 10.00-24 Sampler s/n S11218 © 2018 HydroCAD S This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applica HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. F support,training materials, and additional features which are e Provide a title. What is Page 75 and 76 showing? D which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technica aining materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Subcatchment PR-2: = 0.69 cfs @ 0.09 hrs, Volume= 0.009 af, Depth= 0.48" Rational method, Rise/Fall=1.0/1.0 xTc, Time Span= 0.00-1.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Duration=10 min, Inten=6.33 in/hr ac) C Description 234 0.46 234 100.00% Pervious Area Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) Direct Entry, Basin PR-2 is not 100% pervious. What is this page showing? Square footage has been updated to 2,497-sf to match page 4 section C. This is an automatically generated note from HydroCAD and is not included or applicable to the hydrologic calculation. The C value corresponds to the impervious area, imperviousness percentage and calculated C value from the URMP runoff coefficients table 3.2. This is a subcatchment report for the drainage basins contributing to the bioretention ponds. HydroCAD uses these subcatchments for the bioretention pond analysis. It's a recreation of the hydrologic analysis performed by the URMP rational method. A routing diagram has been included for clarity. The table on the proposed drainage basin map has been updated to correspond to this table. 04/08/2021 Ok Ok Ok Ok Page: 79 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Provide a section in the report that walks through how the bioretention areas were sized and their required volume in cubic feet. Section 5.6.1 of the URMP requires the FAA method be used to size detention volume or the Excel sheet from Mile High Flood Flood District, if an alternative method is used we need to verify the correct volume is provided and that the runoff from the bioretention ponds is at or below the historic runoff rate. Please provide a step through of the inputs and outputs on HydroCAD to arrive at the required detention volume. Show that runoff leaves the site at the historic rate and manner which is 0.07 cfs and 0.61 cfs for the five and ten year storms respectively. The title of this page does not correlate to any of the proposed basins. There are different numbers on different tables and basin callouts. Check the same inputs and numbers are shown in all tables and callouts. What is the required detention for PR-1 and PR-2 provided in BP-1 and BP-2? Show the required volume is provided for both the 5 year and 100 year storms. Page: 79 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Show a weir that meets these dimensions on the plan set if this shape weir is required to control outflow to the historic rate. Page: 79 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf The time of concentration should be 5 minutes but the detention volume should be sized for the 100 year one hour storm. Is this rainfall duration or time of concentration? (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 8,115.00 67 0 0 8,116.00 205 136 136 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 8,115.75'2.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=8,115.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Provide a section in the report that walks through how the bioretention areas were sized and their required volume in cubic feet. Section 5.6.1 of the URMP requires the FAA method be used to size detention volume or the Excel sheet from Mile High Flood Flood District, if an alternative method is used we need to verify the correct volume is provided and that the runoff from the bioretention ponds is at or below the historic runoff rate. Please provide a step through of the inputs and outputs on HydroCAD to arrive at the required detention volume. Show that runoff leaves the site at the historic rate and manner which is 0.07 cfs and 0.61 cfs for the five and ten year storms respectively. The title of this page does not correlate to any of the proposed basins. There are different numbers on different tables and basin callouts. Check the same inputs and numbers are shown in all tables and callouts. What is the required detention for PR-1 and PR-2 provided in BP-1 and BP-2? Show the required volume is provided for both the 5 year and 100 year storms. method, Time Span= 0.00-1.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 5' @ 0.17 hrs Surf.Area= 116 sf Storage= 32 cf time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) time= (not calculated: no outflow) Avail.Storage Storage Description 136 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) urf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 67 0 0 205 136 136 Invert Outlet Devices 8,115.75'2.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=8,115.00' (Free Discharge) d Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Show a weir that meets these dimensions on the plan set if this shape weir is required to control outflow to the historic rate. Rainfall Duration=5 min, Inten=3.29 Printed 4/3 droCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net -24 Sampler s/n S11218 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC repared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design wo Summary for Pond 2P: BP-1 The time of concentration should be 5 minutes but the detention volume should be sized for the 100 year one hour storm. Is this rainfall duration or time of concentration? The URMP 5.6.1 rational detention volume method outlines that the duration is the time at peak detention volume. For this site, the 5-YR detention volume peaks at a 20 minute duration, and 100-yr detention volume peaks at a 12 minute duration. The HydroCAD model has been updated accordingly for the calculated duration times from the detention analysis. A detention analysis summary has been added to the report. Detention has been performed per URMP section 5.6.1 rational detention volume method. Outputs for detention analysis and required detention volume has been added to the appendices. Please note the intensity equation used in the rational detention method is equation 2-1 from chapter 2 of the URMP. The intensity equation 5-1 in chapter 5 produces negative outflow volumes for the 100-yr event. Additionally equation 2-1 was used in the hydrologic analysis per the URMP rational method. The volume provided in the bioretention ponds has been highlighted on the HydroCAD outputs to show compliance with the required detention volume. Concrete weir structures have been added to the plans to control the outflow to be at or below the historic rate. The weirs are labeled "1" for pond BP-1, and "2" for pond BP-2. Weir details have been added to the civil plans. 04/08/2021 Ok Ok Ok Page: 79 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Label the ponds on the civil sheets. And correlate basin and biopond names in the drainage report. Is this for PR-1 and the five year storm and the north bioretention pond? Page: 80 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Is this the other bioretention pond? Same questions apply from the previous page. Is it for the north biopond and 100 year flow? P;lease clarify. Page: 81 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Is this the north or south pond? Label the ponds on the civil sheets. The previous page and the plansheet calls out the overflow weir at elevation 8,115.75. According to this page that provides 87 cubic feet of storage. Call out required and provided volumes. Page: 82 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf According to the drawings and the weir information below there is a lowpoint at 8,115.62 where the pond will overtop. Thus the full storage to elevation 8116 will not be provided. Call out the overflow weir low point height on the civil plans. Show the total available volume given the weir lowpoint. Page: 82 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Is this basin PR-2 and the south biopond and five year storm? Rainfall Duration=5 min, Inten=3.29 in/hr Printed 4/3/2020droCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net 0-24 Sampler s/n S11218 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of h may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete t,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Pond 2P: BP-1 0.051 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.18" 0.10 cfs @ 0.08 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 0.0 min 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af nd method, Time Span= 0.00-1.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 5.35' @ 0.17 hrs Surf.Area= 116 sf Storage= 32 cf ion time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) det. time= (not calculated: no outflow) vert Avail.Storage Storage Description .00' 136 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) Label the ponds on the civil sheets. And correlate basin and biopond names in the drainage report. Is this for PR-1 and the five year storm and the north bioretention pond? Rainfall Duration=5 min, Inten=6.33 in/hr Printed 4/3/2020CAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Sampler s/n S11218 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC ared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and LY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of y be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete ning materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Pond 2P: BP-1 0.051 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.34" .20 cfs @ 0.08 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af .00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 0.0 min .00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af method, Time Span= 0.00-1.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' @ 0.17 hrs Surf.Area= 147 sf Storage= 62 cf time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) time= (not calculated: no outflow) Avail.Storage Storage Description 136 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) urf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store Is this the other bioretention pond? Same questions apply from the previous page. Is it for the north biopond and 100 year flow? P;lease clarify. 8,115.42 125 40 8,115.44 128 43 8,115.46 130 45 8,115.48 133 48 8,115.50 136 51 8,115.52 139 53 8,115.54 142 56 8,115.56 144 59 8,115.58 147 62 8,115.60 150 65 8,115.62 153 68 8,115.64 155 71 8,115.66 158 74 8,115.68 161 77 8,115.70 164 81 8,115.72 166 84 8,115.74 169 87 8,115.76 172 91 8,115.78 175 94 8,115.80 177 98 8,115.82 180 101 8,115.84 183 105 8,115.86 186 109 8,115.88 188 112 8,115.90 191 116 Is this the north or south pond? Label the ponds on the civil sheets. The previous page and the plansheet calls out the overflow weir at elevation 8,115.75. According to this page that provides 87 cubic feet of storage. Call out required and provided volumes. Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.S (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic- 8,114.00 81 0 8,115.00 225 153 8,116.00 1,090 658 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 8,115.62'2.0' long x 5.0' breadt Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4 Coef. (English) 2.34 2. 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2 Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=8,114.00 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs According to the drawings and the weir information below there is a lowpoint at 8,115.62 where the pond will overtop. Thus the full storage to elevation 8116 will not be provided. Call out the overflow weir low point height on the civil plans. Show the total available volume given the weir lowpoint. Rainfall Duration=5 min, Inten=3.29 in/hr Printed 4/3/2020CAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Sampler s/n S11218 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC ared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and LY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of ay be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete ining materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Pond 3P: BP-2 0.196 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.12" 0.28 cfs @ 0.08 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 0.0 min 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af method, Time Span= 0.00-1.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 6' @ 0.17 hrs Surf.Area= 177 sf Storage= 86 cf time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) time= (not calculated: no outflow) Avail.Storage Storage Description 811 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Is this basin PR-2 and the south biopond and five year storm? Bioretention ponds are labeled on the civil sheets. Basin PR-1 is routed to pond BP-1, basin PR-2 is routed to pond BP-2. Storm events have been added to top of sheets. Bioretention ponds are labeled on the civil sheets. Basin PR-1 is routed to pond BP-1, basin PR-2 is routed to pond BP-2. Storm events have been added to top of sheets. This is the stage storage output for pond BP-1, the north pond. Ponds are labeled on civil sheets. The pond label is at the top of the stage storage sheets. The storage volume provided at the discharge is highlighted on the pond summary outputs. The overflow weirs have been labeled on sheet C200. The peak water elevation and storage volume at peak elevation are highlighted. Basin PR-2 is routed to pond BP-2, routing diagrams have been included for clarity. The storm event has been added to the top of sheets. 04/08/2021 Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok Page: 82 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf According to the drainage basin map PR-2 has an area of 0.196 acres but it doesn't have an inflow of 0.28 for either the five or 100 year storm. Please make sure all inputs match the drainage basin map. Page: 83 File Name: 40.DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 11 ASPEN GROVE.20200814.pdf Basin PR-2 is not 0% impervious Page: [1] October 09 2019 PLANS-HC 1.1 Historic Contours File Name: 80.SURVEY.20200814.pdf Survey must be performed or verified within the last 12 months 80.SURVEY.20200814.pdf (3) Page: [1] October 09 2019 PLANS-HC 1.1 Historic Contours File Name: 80.SURVEY.20200814.pdf Call in utility locates and show all existing utilities on the survey. Page: [1] October 09 2019 PLANS-HC 1.1 Historic Contours File Name: 80.SURVEY.20200814.pdf Include in surveyor's certificate that the error of closure is less than 1/15,000. PR-SITE Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800- HydroCAD® 10.00-24 Sampler s/n S11218 © 20 This report was prepared with the free HydroC educational use ONLY. For actual design or m HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.h technical support,training materials, and addit Summa Inflow Area = 0.196 ac, 0.00% Imperv Inflow = 0.28 cfs @ 0.08 hrs, V Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, V Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, V Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00 According to the drainage basin map PR-2 has an area of 0.196 acres but it doesn't have an inflow of 0.28 for either the five or 100 year storm. Please make sure all inputs match the drainage basin map. ared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which Y. For actual design or modeling applications y y be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full prog ning materials, and additional features which ar Summary for Pond 3P: BP .196 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 53 cfs @ 0.08 hrs, Volume= 0.004 00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 Basin PR-2 is not 0% impervious ELD SURVEY: NOVEMBER 26-27, 2018. MED BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF S80°52'40"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE BETWEEN "A" THE NORTHWEST CORNER A FOUND ILLEGIBLE YELLOW CAP AND "B" T T CORNER A FOUND YELLOW PLASTIC CAP LS 19598 AS SHOWN HEREON. EY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS SURVEYOR OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN D HEREON TO DETERMINE: RSHIP OF THE TRACT OF LAND TIBILITY OF THIS DESCRIPTION WITH THOSE OF ADJOINERS S-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD AFFECTING THIS PARCEL. FORMATION REGARDING EASEMENT, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, HIGH COU NG, INC. RELIED UPON TITLE COMMITMENT NO. Q62010641 ISSUED BY LAND TITLE GUARANT VICINITY MAP Survey must be performed or verified within the last 12 months 9 1 1 1 Call in utility locates and show all existing utilities on the survey. SSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO (#2 DRAWING SHOWN HEREON, WITH NOTES ATTACHED HERET MENTED LAND SURVEY MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIO MATION AND BELIEF, AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF SAID SUR DUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS O HER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THIS SURVEY PLAT COMPLIES TES. OFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR #23875 ERAL SURVEYOR #1699 Include in surveyor's certificate that the error of closure is less than 1/15,000. Inputs are updated to match drainage basin map. Storm event has been added to top of sheets. This is an automatically generated note from HydroCAD and is not included or applicable to the hydrologic calculation. The C value corresponds to the impervious area, imperviousness percentage and calculated C value on page 66 from the URMP runoff coefficients table 3.2. Existing utilities have been added. Error of closure statement has been added to the surveyor's certificate. Survey has been verified. 04/08/2021 Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok Page: 3 File Name: 90. Shoring Plans.pdf Shoring Walls cannot be placed in utility easements. Please revise. 90. Shoring Plans.pdf (1) Page: [1] C100 File Name: 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf The maximum width permitted for a driveway at the asphalt is 24'. Per standard 4.1.3 which allows an 18' width and 3' wings. This plan shows 31' width at the edge of asphalt. Please revise. 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf (10) Page: [1] C100 File Name: 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf Verify the transformer has adequate clearance. Call out the transformer vault size and show there is 3' clear on all sides and 10' on the front. Show the proposed landscape plan and demonstrate there are no conflicts with the transformer location and existing or proposed trees. Page: [1] C100 File Name: 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf Call out proposed water service line size and material. Will the new house have a fire sprinkler system? If so does the existing service line provide adequate water flow? If a 2" is proposed wither fire flow calcs or a memo is required showing the need for a 2" and that a smaller line will not be adequate. The project shall install a new water service line with a new tap on the main. It is not feasible to install the line as shown. How will the water be shut off to install the new curb box? Also the Water Dept does not permit buried couplings. Given the age of the infrastructure and the complications of installing the line as shown a new tap should be performed at the main.     $ :$//   0 F 6 N L P P L Q J  5 G HP S R U D U \  6 K R U L Q J Shoring Walls cannot be placed in utility easements. Please revise. M c S The maximum width permitted for a driveway at the asphalt is 24'. Per standard 4.1.3 which allows an 18' width and 3' wings. This plan shows 31' width at the edge of asphalt. Please revise. D Verify the transformer has adequate clearance. Call out the transformer vault size and show there is 3' clear on all sides and 10' on the front. Show the proposed landscape plan and demonstrate there are no conflicts with the transformer location and existing or proposed trees. Call out proposed water service line size and material. Will the new house have a fire sprinkler system? If so does the existing service line provide adequate water flow? If a 2" is proposed wither fire flow calcs or a memo is required showing the need for a 2" and that a smaller line will not be adequate. The project shall install a new water service line with a new tap on the main. It is not feasible to install the line as shown. How will the water be shut off to install the new curb box? Also the Water Dept does not permit buried couplings. Given the age of the infrastructure and the complications of installing the line as shown a new tap should be performed at the main. Contractor has provided a foundation excavation plan to avoid shoring walls within the utility easement. Driveway width at asphalt has been revised to 24'. A 1" dia. type k copper water service is called out. A new water service line with a new tap at the main is proposed and shown. Transformer vault is shown for location reference. Transformer sizing and dimensions to be provided by electrical engineer / Utility Owner. A 3' side and 10' front clear zone has been added. 04/08/2021 Not ok. No revised shoring plan was submitted. Ok Ok Plan show a 2" line. need fire flow calcs. Page: [1] C100 File Name: 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf Call out the water main in McSkimming is 6" DIP Page: [1] C100 File Name: 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf Show all shallow utilities. Show existing and proposed cable and telephone pedestals. All pedestals need to be on private property. Pedestals are not permitted within the ROW. Page: [1] C200 File Name: 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf Show the proposed landscaping plan on the civil sheets. Ensure it aligns with the landscape plan sheets. It appears the existing trees are currently shown not the proposed tree planting plan. Utility easements must be preserved for utility uses and cannot be blocked by landscaping. Please ensure the plans reflect this. Page: [1] C200 File Name: 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf Call out the required bioretention pond dimensions and volume so it is easy for the contractor to ensure proper volume and it is easy at the time of asbuilt to verify adequate storage is provided. Page: [1] C300 File Name: 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf Provide rip rap or some type of permanent erosion control where runoff leaves the pipe and enters the biopond to avoid scouring. G R D . Call out the water main in McSkimming is 6" DIP Show all shallow utilities. Show existing and proposed cable and telephone pedestals. All pedestals need to be on private property. Pedestals are not permitted within the ROW. Show the proposed landscaping plan on the civil sheets. Ensure it aligns with the landscape plan sheets. It appears the existing trees are currently shown not the proposed tree planting plan. Utility easements must be preserved for utility uses and cannot be blocked by landscaping. Please ensure the plans reflect this. Call out the required bioretention pond dimensions and volume so it is easy for the contractor to ensure proper volume and it is easy at the time of asbuilt to verify adequate storage is provided. Provide rip rap or some type of permanent erosion control where runoff leaves the pipe and enters the biopond to avoid scouring. Existing watermain has been called out as 6" DIP. The existing cable tv pedestal is shown near the southwest property corner. Bioretention pond area and volumes have been added. Dimensions are shown on sheet C100 for clarity. Riprap with geotextile fabric has been called out at pipe discharges. The proposed landscape plan has been shown on the civil sheets. Proposed and existing trees which are to remain are shown, existing trees which are to be removed are no longer shown for clarity. 04/08/2021 Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok Page: [1] C300 File Name: 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf Verify these are all existing trees to be removed and there are no tree conflicts with the proposed storm drain plans. Page: [1] C401 File Name: 90.CIVIL PLANS.20200814Part-1.pdf Include City of Aspen Standard Water Details Sheet. Page: 2 File Name: 90.LANDSCAPE PLANS.20200814.pdf Extensive landscaping is not permitted within utility easements. The utility easement needs to remain usable. Please revise. 90.LANDSCAPE PLANS.20200814.pdf (1) Verify these are all existing trees to be removed and there are no tree conflicts with the proposed storm drain plans. Include City of Aspen Standard Water Details Sheet. Extensive landscaping is not permitted within utility easements. The utility easement needs to remainusable. Please revise. Existing trees that are to remain within the proposed grading limits have boulder retaining walls around to maintain grades and keep existing trees. The plans have been updated to show only the existing trees which are to remain and proposed trees that are to be planted. City of Aspen Standard Water Details sheet has been added. An easement variance request was developed and submitted. The variance was coordinated and approved with Holy Cross, and correspondence of approval was forwarded to city engineering for documentation. 04/08/2021 Ok Ok Ok