Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File Documents.211 W Hopkins Ave.0078-2021-BRES (37)
DRAINAGE REPORT FOR 211 W. Hopkins ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel No:273512463003 PREPARED FOR: Rowland and Broughton Architects 500 W. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 PREPARED BY: High Country Engineering, Inc. 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8676 March 5, 2021 Reviewed by Engineering Revised: September 9, 2021 THE QO'OF 12/07/2021 2:48:10 PM "It should be known that this review shall not To obtain sign off from the Engineering Department on the Certificate of Occupancy(CO)the following requirements must be met, relieve the applicant of their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the City of Minor Drainage Reviews Aspen. The review and approval by the City is •All Areas must be landscaped or stabilized per the approved plan. 'All drainage features must be installed per the approved plans includingswales, offered only to assist the applicant's •All temporary erosion control devices must be removed, understanding of the applicable Engineering Major Drainage Reviews: requirements."The issuance of a permit based •All Minor(see above)review criteria must be met. on construction documents and other data shall •Submit an as-built survey of all drainage features on the property •Submit a Grading and Drainage Certificatesigned by the Engineer ofRecord. not prevent the City of Aspen from requiring the Submit a video)in DAD format)of any connections made lathe City's correction of errors in the construction infrastructure that shows that the connection is clean and in good working condition. ` documents and other data. Submit an Operations and Maintenance Plan Agreement signed by the Owner. HCE PROJECT NUMBER: 221 101 1.00 Right a Way improvements ustbeom includingt sidewalk,curb and gutter,and other RECEIVED appurtenances must be complete. After all required documents have been submitted,a final inspection from the Engineering Department can be requested at 920.50B0. NOTE:These are only the requirements of the Engineering Department. 0 9/13/2 0 21 Other departments may have additional requirements for obtaining a CO. ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 4 II. DRAINAGE BASIN 7 III. PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 8 IV. DRAINAGE ALTERATIONS 9 V. DOWN STREAM STORM WATER CONVEYANCE 9 VI. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 11 VII. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 11 VIII. PRINCIPLES 12 IX. CONCLUSION 13 X. REFERENCES 13 Exhibits 1. Historic Drainage Conditions Map 2. Proposed Drainage Conditions Map 3. Drainage Details Sheet 4. Soils Reports (Kumar&Associates) Appendices Hydrologic Calculations • Historic Conditions • Proposed Conditions Hydraulic Computations • Pipe Calculations • Trench Drain Calculations • Drywell Calculations • Inlet Calculations Aspen Charts and Figures RECEIVED Paget 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Engineers Certification "1 hereby affirm that this report and the accompanying plans for the property at 211 West Hopkins Avenue were prepared by me (or under my direct supervision)for the owners thereof in accordance with the provisions of the City of Aspen Storm Drainage Criteria and approved variances are exceptions listed thereto. 1 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. 1 fi rther assert that all developments adhering to designed facilities details and specification will not cause any damages to adjacent and downstream properties. " _ 9/71ZiIt Roger D. Neal Registration No. 29975 Licensed Professional Engineer,State of Colorado RECEIVED Page3 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The project is located at 211 West Hopkins Avenue,in the City of Aspen,Colorado. The property is in the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, and includes Lots F and G of Block 53. The lot contains 6000 square feet. A Vicinity Map is shown below with the property identified with a blue outline. The property is located a couple blocks north of the base of Aspen Mountain. The Roaring Fork River is approximately 2200 feet northeasterly of the property. i s PNCIt 273512463003 x :^a u:..,G. �— at y, Owns(vAucnAN CAPITAL PTNRS LP I' �` Seri Address 211 W HOPN,NS AVE Asu o.se.Acc t MIM1 `' QJ..., - Urx4 rrsaan eadmdrdn 4 ' t '' ifir if i .N,_ t' , , . ' ' 1 11- liq::-.-__ ..* / - .,, *kit,t .**** r."--7,- r h.. fi,.:::. ., Ithrit p ..i :/ Sk.. o w w, . ,. !-¢ ,r I' coun0'I Nelun Co. _ I Vicinity Map 211 W. Hopkins B. Description of Site The site currently has a historic log structure residence that will be remodeled as part of this project. Additionally there is a shed, wood decking and a spa located to the west and southwest of the structure. Mature trees exist around the site. The applicant proposes to remodel the existing historic cabin and construct a new residence behind the historic cabin. Both units will include a new basement structure. The site will be condominiumized at the completion of the project and easements will be provided for crossing utilities or access. Agreements for maintenance of any share facilities will also be prepared at the completion of the project. Most of the existing trees are to be saved to maintain the historic character of the property. The landscape architect has noted trees to be removed and trees RCEIVED Page4 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT maintained and protected from the proposed construction activities per the City Forester's recommendations during construction. The lot backs up to an alley that provides access for trash service and utility services. The storm water on the site flows from southeast to the northwest. Existing design points show the locations of existing runoff released from the site,but the flows convey offsite as sheet flow,thus the points are for flow volume information only. There are no existing point sources of release. The existing drainage of the site is delineated as a single basin; see attached existing basin map for site layout in the Appendices. C. Lot Soils Description Kumar and Associates completed a Subsoil study on March 4,2021 titled"Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Renovation and Basement Addition 211 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado", (Project No. 21-7-156). The study identified subsoils which consist of 12 feet of medium dense, gravelly sand fill overlying dense, slightly silty to silty sand and gravel with cobbles and possible boulders down to the maximum drilled depth of 21 feet. No free water was encountered at the time of drilling. A site-specific Percolation Test was completed for this site,and noted within the Kumar report to be 6 minutes per inch. The site is well above the river elevation and groundwater in not anticipated at the depth of the proposed drywell. The City of Aspen soils map locates this site in the Type"B" soils area. According to the USDA Web Soil Survey, the property is within section 107 and the report states that it consists of soil Type"B";see USDA Web Soil Survey. See Map on the following page showing the Soil Survey of Aspen - Gypsum Area, Colorado, published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, there is one surface soil type within the development area of the residence as shown. The soil type is designated as soil 107, Uracca. The Soil Conservation Service describes the soil as deep and well drained. The soil is defined as being classified as hydrologic soil group `B'. RECEIVED Pages 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Aspen-Gypsum Area,Colorado,Parts of Eagle, - •Garfield,and POI.Counties(C0655) oescnotlen of Urea.abbe Aspen-Gypsum Area.Colorado.Parts of - sob"0 Eagle,Garfield,and Pltkin Counties Lanoyorm.Structural bandhes,valley sides,alluvial fans (C0655) Al• y, Donn-sxCe sewer Linear e Across-slope char:Linear Map _ l Venom matey).-lived alluvium derived from igneous and Unlit Map INA Name b Percent metamorphic rock Symbol A01 of AOI Typical profile 107 Mengel,moist- 0.4 100.04n ,9`! M7-0ro 6 inches:cnbdy sandy loam Merge)complex,1 ei N3.6 176 incte very cmely sandy day loam sat0 6 percent slopes, lir. - M3•SS to 60 intros:extremely co6dr loamy sand extremely s P apa""one gwwnts Sbpe:i to 6 Der[ent Totals for Area of 0.4 100.0% 1 _ Omen GO resrx 2 feature:More than 60 inches Interest Gra:nape doss:Well drained �� Z. / Runoaf dsss:Low 11, Caaacrtr fit,*mos: loofa ere,to to snI water Mat. Modena r Mph to Mgt(0.20 to 2.00 ininr i perm to eater Mare:More than BO Metes Frequency of fgoding.Mont Fneoriercy ofgoralaipr None Caooum On:one*e,maximum pntrrt:10 percent _' - d f Avail 'nater vAyatyr Very low(abort 2.6 Mans; . r4 Interpralara.rwys Lone apadkty dassfia66.Vested):65 Land awalrte damotmaon(norvrnpar c).'6s • hydrniOpir Soil Group:B Ecological site:RO4BAV237C0•Stony Loam Other.epebbve dtnrrloon:Stony Loan(null_021 Mydre mil song:No " - _ Oacnp.Mn of Mewl Seim. Landfall.Valley lades.alluvial fans.structure benches Down-Same shade:Linear 4crosaaboe shape-Linear a ?meal file :lilm utv.al Oaen ` TKal profit v tc 6 iirnesr ro6My loam '•6 cc 20:neve.-very cobble sand,'loam 1 r3.20 ro 60 farm extremely story sandy loam • Propertim and quotients Sacs:1 to 6 percent r „ Dexrrn to rennctve fee or More than 60 inches Lrarnape dam:Well drained Rune crass:Very low •& , Capably a er:nog o NO hie to.0 Ill near Met): Mo10 OOC high to orn(0.60 to the iNlr) OmM to water cast:Moot than 60 hrehes I C•L Frootericy or flooding:None Frequency of pondxp:None Uhmon carbonate,rrbaormen content 10 percent _ Medal*wall capaate:Low(about 3.3 inches) lar sSca MOW _ �h ce land ai9dkty dass:frca0on(urgatec):es Lain caoaatte dass:frcatd r(ndylsin gottidi:45 rot:M oo t Sal Group:A i EcoMatel ate.-Ro4My237C0-Stony Wain Omar eigetabwe dasshcaton:Stony Loam(nub 62) -,...•_�•-._•..•-..era-.rr._.�r M'dnc soi/rating:No . . USDA WebSoil Survey NI apt)ing D. Description of Project Goals The proposed project will consist a remodel of an existing residence and construction of an additional residence. Both Residences will also have a below grade floor. Site grading changes will be minimal and much of the existing vegetation will be maintained. The site grades from the alley towards W. Hopkins Avenue and this historical drainage path will not be changed. A drywell will be added near W. Hopkins Avenue to provide water quality. The rest of the site will be minimally modified to create better drainage away from the structures and meet current day Aspen standards. The site is located in the Aspen Basin and a street inlet is located directly in front of the lot on West Hopkins; therefore, the property owner is required to do provide water quality for the whole site and no detention. The site will have a single discharge point located on the northwest side of the property onto West Hopkins. Underground downspouts and area inlets capture the majority of the stormwater that pipe flows to a drywell located on the norther property line. Once the drywell fills to capacity it will overflow and sheet flow across grasses before entering the West Hopkins curb and gutter. See attached WQCV and detention drywell calculations in the Appendices. RECEIVED Pages 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT II. DRAINAGE BASIN A. Basin Description The site is located on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Number 08097C0354E which has an effective date of August 15, 2019. The site is located in Zone X. This zone is defined by FEMA as areas determined to be outside the 0.2 annual chance floodplain. The FEMA mapping is shown on the followin: ea:e. _ © A st�. '' • f�2 ' v..*k,' . . • istI4c. t,s �. I '! ....__,,, . - . 3. • • . -,•• v-w, .. , i ;4. - . ..,, _ ...,.:•• - ak . _tit, ,.,•,t, t,. rot., ,. .1 , , 0 , ,4. . .. .. _ . it ;°‘ 1* '?'' ' • " %•' --- i ,r44 • D..' ZE )j• A , . . a /15/2019 ? . g .1g4r ti P!��,��If • sa A It �oo�•+-+I.«,00�case:en,n.t.,c�t wnw Sao Deal Bwrle.l�►EJ ' and doer non Iene..n1 M.uthd...l.t ly MJ Gu.Saawn.rm�l\annual Chanu SPUME R000 W IWE or0.p1. ..r .wrotsurt.c.tl.f.aon PIN ltwert. �' WARD AIMS R.MAtlaS R.00wP A-...a. .... .0---Coenly 11.n..at ...e F laud Elevator,Lone IAl to Wonted fbodteu Bounden Ine u, Name D 2,Annum/Memo Flood Ne *.Areas tom a se 'aN+'INu a.s+see of 1 e maned chance need*Ur wry. pn.a.von Bounder, AA 6Eb on w,.yG *Olen tees than one loot of eM .•I••M r.*• --Coasts.landed Cate.. .rode a enr than otr quya mlte= OTHER--Puder S..d*ne MAP PANELS ur..PP.d `�1*1nn Cuedlnos 1 111nm i FEMUR" _ltproppr c Feature C1.rn 1wd*wall -1 3".'1.,.e.ntl resod Ne:yd=:''' At..will,Noduud Flood Rah Ate to GENERAL -�-• CA.enN,Cued.or Slam sewn. 04 c"e trims OTHER AREAS Of u`°.S..Role` STROCTURES 'I I... Lave DI.*.a i lomw. Nod at undetetmood flood N.,-ye--.; FLOOD HAZARD area r*n 1 laud Nnh due 10 lnee �`10 S00*.Pwtl0ACAN. OREER AREAS\\\\I I'm a.....E0s!.n N.. FEMA Floodplain Mappiin from Map Service Center The site is situated within the urbanized area of the City. The region basin is comprised of commercial business, multi-family residential and single-family residences. B. Historic Basin Hydrology The site has been analyzed under historic conditions as a single watershed basin. The historic peak 100-year runoff rates, using the Rational Method, have been summarized for the basin as tabulated in Table 1 below: RECEIVED page? 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Table 1 Watershed Drainage Basin 100-Yr Time 100-Yr 100-Yr Basin Basin Area Runoff of Rainfall Peak Condition Designation (Acre) Coeff. Conc. Intensity Runoff (Cl®) (min.) (In./hr.)__ (c.f.s.) Historic EX-1 0.14 0.35 16.0 3.54 0.17 B. Proposed Basin Hydrology The site has been analyzed under proposed conditions as a single watershed basin. The proposed peak 100-year runoff rates, using the Rational Method,have been summarized for the basin as tabulated in Table 2 below: Table 2 Watershed Drainage Basin 100-Yr Time 100-Yr 100-Yr Basin Basin Area Runoff of Rainfall Peak Condition Designation (Acre) Coeff. Conc. Intensity Runoff (C I oo) (min.) (In./hr.) (c.f.$) Proposed PR-1 0.14 0.68 5.0 6.33 0.59 III. PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS A. Proposed Project Description The proposed project consists of remodeling an existing residence and construction of an additional residence. Both Residences will also have a below grade floor. The two buildings will share storm water resources. This includes a common pipe that will accommodate downspouts from both residences and be piped to a single drywell that will function to provide water quality for both buildings. B. Required Storm Water Quality Capture Volume The required WQCV has been calculated to be 80 Cubic Feet, as follows. Basin: PR-1 Basin Area: 6,000 sq. ft. or 0.14 Ac. Unadjusted Impervious Area: 4,633 Sq. Ft. Proposed Percent Imperviousness: 77% WQCV: 0.160 inch URMP (Fig. 8.13) Required Volume =WQCV x (1 Ft/ 12 in)x A x (43,560 Ft2/Ac)= 80 Cu. Ft RECEIVED Page8 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT C. Proposed Major WQCV Storm Water Storage Volume The required WQCV is 80 Cu. Ft. for the site. Because a drywell is being used for stormwater BMP storage, the WQCV will have a 1.5 factor of safety. Thus, the required WQCV for the proposed drywell is 120 Cu. Ft. The proposed drywell is four feet in diameter,ten feet deep and has two feet of gravel surrounding. The proposed drywell has a capacity of 133.1 Cu. Ft. for stormwater storage and meets the required 120 Cu. Ft. of WQCV. Drywell calculations can be found in the appendices of this report. IV. DRAINAGE ALTERATIONS A. Drainage Alteration Description The applicant proposes to configure all roof drains, eve gutters and downspouts to lead to the West Hopkins side of the site. The storm water roof runoff will be piped from downspouts to the new drywell located under the front walkway at the north property line. The walkway is to remain similar to the historic walkway with flagstone as the walkway. The drywell has been sized to accommodate the required water quality control volume for the site. Runoff volumes in excess of the water quality capture volume will backup the pipe system to the drywell and backup through inlets located near West Hopkins Avenue. From there the overflow will sheet flow over the West Hopkins curb and flow directly to an inlet located directly in front of this property on West Hopkins (See photo in Section V.) V. DOWNSTREAM STORM WATER CONVEYANCE A. Urban downstream storm water conveyance description The existing downstream storm water conveyance system is short for this property. Storm water flows that inundate the proposed drywell will overflow to West Hopkins via two inlets located along the front property line and will then sheet flow to the West Hopkins curb and gutter and then flow to the inlet located directly in front of the property. (See image below of current condition) RECEIVED Page9 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT • .. ' bk,i ;0, - tvAt t ,,,.tr .' .,,,.. • " A .i-s.. 4.t.4,. ..., .. .... ..1.1% , , . , , . i ¢ rwe WO , 1114 014 i. .7:. I . ....• r s I:r 40011, • 44g... / ' _� 4 40011111111: ,,,,,. . .. I• k‘r. - ...4 Go::4 Ear Front of Historic Residence (West I Iopkins and Storm inlet in Foreground) Once in the city storm water system the storm water flows will make the way to the intercepted and treated at the City's storm water quality treatment north of Puppy Smith Road, by the Roaring Fork River. RECEIVED Page 10 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 4• • / Y .„ l'7 / 0 ,,o, - , 4.1.1 - _ . /*,' , to - ,----- -- _ . s 1 1 ( it /l%r i. 0' •`1,.4,1,40 ,..., __, , �;,� • F0ot a/t. . ° , .�7 `/ r ... .a c _•., 4 S3! 1 .: s ..4s44,, 0.....5/#, ,. : , , A . f ;,� I)iL is 0/10".. /:..z.j g' k 6 ,./4 . Nr.r... 4- 41(,1!,..,i/41. Ar 7',411 ff,-* 4 ,1. ,%,A,z) AL:fr - ..N. --1.Z' ef4it . , ,, ,,,.;/ ter4kav 4....,. a , . .1 .4._„, )4",,,, -4P. , 7, , , , , 407 - .i �'/ �� O / /�-'?!V i /�r� 'M.4 1_' \r- �F ��� ,e� City of Aspen Stormwater System Conveyance. VI. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Erosion and sedimentation control Best Management Practices(BMP)are to be installed at the site prior to commencement of grading, in accordance with City of Aspen construction standards. Temporary BMPs are to include installation of vehicle tracking control,sediment control fence,and straw bales which will be detailed in the construction management plan. VII. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The proposed drainage improvements shall be maintained by the owner or assigns, pursuant to the City of Aspen URMP. Storm water runoff from the site is to be conveyed to the proposed drywell via sheet flow runoff, roof drains, and down spout piping. Collected runoff is directed to the drywell and will percolate into the ground around the drywell or overtop and sheet flow to the street. The drywell water quality chamber will need to be maintained. The owner or assigns shall perform regularly scheduled periodic inspections and maintenance of the proposed facilities. RECEIVED Page 11 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT This will include: WQCV drywell must be inspected and maintained yearly to remove sediment and debris that has washed into it. Minimum inspection and maintenance requirements include the following: a. Closely manage sediment loads on drainage facilities to prevent high sediment concentrations from clogging the drainage systems. b. Runoff from areas with pollutants that have the potential to contaminate groundwater will be captured in the WQCV chamber and then released to the infiltration chamber. c. The WQCV drywell will need to be inspected and maintained quarterly and following all rainfall events greater than 0.25 inches to monitor water level and accumulation of sediments in chamber to make sure that the perforated rings and the upper WQCV chamber are clear of debris and filtered material so that the volume of storage is maintained. The Mirafi fabric covered perforated pipe also needs to be cleaned quarterly and after every major storm event to insure that the water quality treatment is still operating as designed. VIII. PRINCIPLES 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 by the project architect early in the design process, as recommended. 2.Use the entire site when planning for storm water quality treatment Efforts were made to maximize the storm water quality over the site,as recommended. 3. Avoid unnecessary impervious area Efforts were made to avoid unnecessary impervious areas, as recommended. 4. Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions Efforts were made to reduce runoff rates and volumes, as recommended. 5. Integrate storm water quality management and flood control Storm water quality management and flood control are to be integrated within the proposed drainage facilities,as recommended. 6. Develop storm water quality facilities that enhance the site and environment Enhanced site and environment storm water management is to be provided via the proposed drainage facilities, as recommended. RECEIVED Page 12 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 7. Use a treatment train approach The treatment train approach has been utilized by treating precipitation in grass swales, then at the drywell, before percolating into the Type B soils below, as recommended. 8. Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained The storm water quality facilities have been designed to be both sustainable and safely maintained, as recommended. 9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind The storm water quality facilities have been designed with public safety in mind, as requested. IX. CONCLUSION A. Compliance with Standards This major drainage report has been prepared in accordance with City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan. X. REFERENCES United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service: Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, and Garfield, Counties, May 1992. City of Aspen Colorado: Urban Runoff Management Plan, Revised 2014. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 08097C0354E, Effective: August 15,2019 RECEIVED Page 13 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXHIBITS RECEWED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT GRAPHIC SCALE . o s o w a w 9 _ ICI ESTNp ( IN FEET) PK,Ai-AV -Ai 1 inch= 10 ft COLORADx V CALL U DIG YOU DIG r n alt don o H m Ey ,a °oo5Q5 / LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY `'� �t`\ •,", '/ � -- -- -- -- -- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR Z ,l� - EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR 0 �11i r f� A �8160} PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR U1 1. i �� ��1/� - (8158) PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR DJ //_ OFFSITE DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY - •\ EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY `. / \ PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY •\ \I /i W 72•44'S9"W EX-1 PR-1 DRAINAGE BASIN ID / • 458.57 •, #./ ACRES ACID DRAINAGE BASIN SIZE(ACRES) // C10=10 YEAR RUNOFF COEFFICIENT -.. COA GPs 6 C10=#. 1Q100=p./;y CFS C10=0.N Q100.,N CFS 0100=100 YEAR RUNOFF FLOW(CFS) Q10=.p/CFS Q10�/. CFS Q10=10 YEAR RUNOFF FLOW(CFS) ///I\'\ / I- W 1 �/ --f4.- DRAINAGE FLOW PATTERN ADESIGN POINT 0 % I' I (fl / Z EX-1 • DESIGN POINTS / 0.14 ACRES CIOQ100=0.17 CFS / . Q DESIGN POINT I, RECEIVES SHEET FLOW FROM BASIN EX-1 AND EXOS-1. 0 o • -.15 Q10=0.05 CFS 02 Z N p v I / 0Y 0 w LY 0 Z NOTES m m w C' N a / •/ ,Nj, 1.)A SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPORT WAS COMPLETED FOR 211 3 w fi r. WEST HOPKINS AVENUE,ASPEN,COLORADO BY KUMAR&ASSOCIATES, 1* .A i INC.,DATED MARCH 4,2021,JOB NUMBER 21-7-156. •/ / £ 2.)THE ENTIRE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE X ON THE FIRM MAP U \) _ #08097C0354E,EFFECTIVE DATE AUGUST 15,2019. Z •/ / = ,, 3.)EXISTING SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ASPEN SURVEY W1TH DATE OF FIELD SURVEY SEPTEMBER 2020 AND REVISED APRIL 2021. ,^ N / kj COA GPS-3 Z / N Z N E.S . X 00 m / LIJ "roo f / IIJPoNO / j Z NUX U U' 'U'N U- z / / HISTORIC DRAINAGE CONDITIONS CHARTS: Li/Z 41 > NN^o U I REACH AREA IDENTIFIER EX-1 EXOS-1th g 0 m o RATIONAL COEFFICIENT. (FIGURE 3.2 OF URMP) 0.08 0.59 1-- m 0 0 \ \ FLOW LENGTH,L(TOTAL<300 FT.) (IL) 115.6 26.2 Z I'z m \.\ �7o LAND SLOPE,S (ft./ft.) 0.019 0.034 D 0 w o o To(MIN) 16.0 3.1 0 z L. \ \ � / t SURFACE DESCRIPTION I I I I U a J • FLOW LENGTH,L (ft.) 0 0 = ~ FLOW SLOPE,S (ft./ft.) 0.0000 0.0000 ur EXOS-1 FLOW VELOCITY,V(FIGURE'RO-1 UDFCD) (fps.) 1 1 _ 0.02 ACRES '�" TRAVEL TIME=U(60V) (min.) 0.0 0.0 Q100=0.09 CFS • C70=0.63 -1 I..•"• 010=0.05 CFS V- 9 `` « Tc (MIN) 16.0 3.1 J �1W ti IIIIIN A EY Si-p Tc URBAN CHECK=10+U180 10.6 10.1 p U.)W 2p'R-0.i„ Cf\ 53 Tc MINIMUM 5 MINUTES 5.0 5.0 'L�`` I /' i 7y 1 ic ` BASIN EX-1 EXOS-13.96 10 YEAR 2.22 3.96 100 YEAR 3.54 6.33 ILI Rainfall Intenstity Chart EX-1 I P1-10yr P1-100yr Td 00<W 0 0_ EX-1 2.22 0.77 16.0 0j> Z 2 EX1 3.54 1.23 16.0 p O N Q w ix .Z reZ mz2 p0 Rainfall Intenstity Chart EXOS-2 O n. U E I P1-10yr P1-100yr Td Z Q 0 IX 0 HISTORIC DRAINAGE CONDITIONS CHART: EXOS-1 3.96 0.77 5.0 or .- u) u Ur 2 Type B Soils EXOS-1 6.33 1.23 5.0 N 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 6,000.0 0.138 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.15 0.35 EXOS-1 922.6 0.021 732.1 79.4 0.59 0.63 0.68 TOTAL SITE 6,000.0 0.138 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.15 0.35 PROJECT NO. 2211011.00 EXHIBIT -Khl,.ErvED 1 09/13/20121 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT GRAPHIC SCALE 10 0 S 10 20 40 S: 9 _ 1�111 ( IN FEET) 1 inch= 10 ft V$ 11 LEGEND 03 EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY 7g,R - - -8010- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR "0'14, - -- EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR (8160) PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR C815.,) PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR OFFSITE DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY Z CITY OF ASPEN CURB INLET EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY _ lST/NG RIM7692.71 N 0 SIOWq�k PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY L # DRAINAGE BASIN ID 0_ O /�1• 4'0.10'DEEP DRYWELL WITH CONCEALED µ. ACRES #,#R CI DRAINAGE BASIN SIZE(ACRES) (n ACCESS LID(FLAGSTONE TRAY) C10=10 YEAR RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0100=#.##CFS 0100-#.##CFS W )• ti� 30-MIL PVC LINER TO EXTEND UNDERNEATH C10=#.## CIO-0.## 0100=100 YEAR RUNOFF FLOW(CFO)010=#.##CFS 010=#.##CFS GLUE LINER L SEPARATEHALF OF AND ACKFILL. (310=10 YEAR RUNOFF FLOW(CFS) 1- IX �� GLUE TO SOUTH HALF OF DRYWELL '4./ WOCV:133.1 CF W ® 0.34 CFS .�'� DRAINAGE FLOW PATTERN Q7 DESIGN POINT a_ ,- W 12"AREA INLET I,a:0.59 C SITE OVERFLOW TO HOPKINS AVENUE r Si1 W N ,./ii ' / ��A Q N `fl DESIGN POINTS 9f) \ / DESIGN POINT 1: RECEIVES SHEET FLAW FROM BASIN PR-1 AND EXOS-1. ci �� ) - ��IJ�, \ NOTES: is �`, `7, '�'� 1.)A SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPORT WAS COMPLETED FOR 211 L3 OLOA�11'4.1 I '4 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE,ASPEN,COLORADO BY KUMAR&ASSOCIATES, m Z N J`��:-p�AT, INC.,DATED MARCH 4,2021,JOB NUMBER 21-7-156. 0: ❑ iirvti--?�:, I / ) > CO ¢ N 0 )�. klgT/ 2. THE ENTIRE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE X ON THE FIRM MAP ,� W �.riot� P/2ppOgOOFC pqN , #0E097C0354E,EFFECTIVE DATE AUGUST 15,2019. O ' . gRCHg1p0'-pF BQq .'// TH DATEXISTING OF RELDURVEY INFORMATION S SURVEY S PTEMBERP20200AND REVISED APRIED BY ASPEN LE20Y 21. _5 5 a LL 8"WIDE TRENCH DRAIN BENEATH DECK 1 ����� 7g9394 1//� PR-� e �` 0.14 ACRES 6"IISCH4OPVC@20/- SLOPE(TYP.) 9) ..a,• •& C70=0• .1o010-o349CF5 I Z N 0ih 6"SCH-40 PVC Q 2.0%SLOPE(TYP.) �� `��� y� ,� 71 �S��� Z U)U U .....„ i ...:4:. 111 a •` '' HISTORIC DRAINAGE CONDITIONS CHARTS: Z w o U 4- /�h ROOF DRAINS TO DRYWELL VIA BURIED PIPING ' • Y O 0)ROp12"AREAINLET(TYPJ I-a OSED REAO-I AREA IDENTIFIER PR-1 OS-1 Z ImRES/DI a RATIONAL FLOW LENGTH,L I(TOTAL<300 FT.)CIENT.C E(ft.)3.2 OF URMP) 6`.00 26.2 O 0.59 D O ZO., #�' ', LAND SLOPE,S (ft./ft.) 0.09 0.034 V 0, �' 0 1i To(MIN) 1.1 3.2 =SURFACE DESCRIPTION I I I I 12'AREA INLET(NPJ 411' `11,0'''il % FLOW LENGTH,L (ft.) 137.9 0 8"WIDE TRENCH DRAIN FLOW SLOPE,S (ft./ft.) 0.02 0 = FLOW VELOCITY,V(FIGURE•RO1 UDFCD) (fps.) 2.83 1 cc TRAVEL TIME=U(60V) (min.) 0.8 0 ,CIL K W 1.• t. Tc (MIN) 1.9 3.2 017--rj:-'-'';-:.••ij 4....41, �U t.' Tc URBAN CHECK=10+U180 10.8 2 T t /��1 Tc MINIMUM 5 MINUTES 5.0 5.0 •LO\ `,.L EXOS-1 BASIN PR-1 Os-1 0.02 ACRES d� 2 YEAR INTENSITY 2.42 2 42 C10=0.630100=0.09 CFS pROp• ', !� 10 YEAR INTENSITY 3.96 3.96 01o=o.os cFs .OR1vEW�k!?A ••.'. lit 100 YEAR INTENSITY 6.33 6.33 ` RQ.,• .,' W ` Rainfall Intenstity Chart PR-1 Basin I P1-2yr P1-10yr P1-100yr Td ZD �illiftwaw Z (') a. / �W Q m as ` PR-1 2.42 0.47 5.0 ? Q, PR-1 3.96 0.77 5.0 ` PR-1 6.33 1.23 5.0 O OU Z D' Z 0 Rainfall Intenstity Chart OS-1 df W Y 0 Basin I P1-2yr P1-10yr P1-100yr a Td ZQ 0 1 - 2 OS-1 2.42 0.47 5.0 HISTORIC DRAINAGE CONDITIONS CHART: OS-1 3.96 0.77 5.0 o 3 0 OS-1 6.33 1.23 5.0 CCU T d Type B Soils N IMPERVIOUS AREA PERCENT EFFECTIVE WQCV(Watershed 2 YR RUNOFF 5 YR RUNOFF 10 YR RUNOFF 100 YR RUNOFF BASIN AREA(S.F.) AREA(ACRE) (SF) IMPERVIOUS -IMPERVIOUS(%) inches) WQCV(CF) COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT PR-1 6,000.0 0.138 4632.7 77.2% 0.160 80.0 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.68 05-1 922.6 0.021 732.1 79.3% _ _ 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.70 Onsite Only 6,000.0 0.138 4632.7 77.2% 77.2% 0.16 80.0 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.68 Time 1.5 for Drywall 120.0 PROJECT NO. 221 101 1.00 EXHIBIT -rtt-ttiVED 09/13/2(121 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONCEALED ACCESS LID(FLAGSTONE TRAY) -ELEVATION: CONCEALED ACCESS UD(FLAGSTONE TRAY) -NEENAH FAME AND SOLID R--3553 OR EQUIVALENT GRATE NYLOPLAST 12"INLINE DRAIN: 2712AG__X NYLOPLAST 12"DRAIN BASIN: 2812AG__X SLOPE , 1 i. FLAGSTONE PATH - - (1,2)INTEGRATED DUCTILE IRON (1.2)INTEORATLDDUCRLE IRON FRAMES GRATE TO MATCH BASIN OD. FRAMES GRATE TO MATCH ROSINO.D. STRUCTURAL �� ADAPTER 9IZE B �IO � w�` CALL BEFORE 2'(ONE' `I PRECAST �� Q 18'MIN WIDTH GUIDELINE A QQ IS'MIN WIDTH GUUEUNE I' YOU DIG SECTIONCRTYP BACKFlLL QQOQQ\ 6 ir m� OQQ_ d*�crrerc e6 � 18"MIN ` m i Q/ 5• a FLOW MINIMUM PIPE BURIAL } A 4'BARREL . %-" T A O'MIN THICKNESS GUIDELINE DEPTH PER PIPE N)ygRlpgLEIWERi HEIGHTS MANUFACTURER • S MIN THICKNESS GUIDELINE m } 1 �B• I12� LL- } (B) 1 AVAILABLE ACCORDING TO (MIN.MANUFACTURING IN APAPISA NI ��6'STEEL PERFORATED PIPE REO SAME AS MIN.SUMP) PEy WRAPPED IN MIRAR GEOTEXTILE MINIMUM PIPE BURIAL TRAFFIC LOADS:CONCRETE SLAB DIMENSIONS ARE FOR vARMeLE m-3E• TRAFFIC LOADS:CONCRETE SLAB DIMUNGONSMEFOR •Its - FABRIC INVERT ACCORDNGTO DEPTH PER PIPE GUIDELINE PURPOSES ONLY.ACTUAL CONCREIESAB MUST BE ACCORpNGTO GUIDELNE PURPOSES ONLY.ACRWL CONCRETE SLAB MUST BE 10'MIN a MANUFACTURER PIAM4 tr. C. B'MIN THICK PCC SLAB PLANSRAKE OFF RECOMMENDATION DESIGNED LOADING. INTO CONSIDERATION LOCAL SOIL COMMONS, _� • DESIGNED TAKINGLOADING. CONSIDERATION LOCAL SOLCONDImONS, / TRAFFIC LOADING.SOTHER APPLIC NC DESIGN FACTORS. .�� A" TRAFFIC LOADING.&OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN FACTORS. ��80'MIN PRECAST .� ._• SEEDMWING N0.Tp01-11D171 FOR NONTR4FFICINSTAUARON. SEE DRAWING N0.71101-114711 FOR NON TRAFFIC INSTALLATION. Z _ 1 DEAR PERFORARONA1F0 PCC G-" UNDISTURBED SOIL ,� a (31 VARIOUS TYPES Of INLET ADAPTERS AVAILABLE /, ��.& lxe (3)VARIABLE SUMP DEPTH O ,, �. ,ems N HOLES 4'-7Y FOR CORRUGATED HDPE(ADS N-17MAMCORDUAL WALL. 'Mg , �.� ACCORDING TO PLANS _ 8•THICK PRE-CAST ADS/RANCOR SINGLE WALL), HP,NOSEY/ER(EX:SDR 36), I. - (e.MIN.BASED ON W �I • WATERTIGHT JOINT 4'MIN _ 80'MIN PRECAST CONCRETE UD -• PVC OWV(E%:SCR aO),PVC C9pD'C905,CORRUGATED 8 RIBBED PI�Crut -.84 ■�- MANUFACTURING RED.) soup PCC RING�� SECTION WITH RUST �' . (CORRUGATED HOPE SHOWN) 4'MIN RESISTANT ACCESS -iN (CORRUGATED HDPE SHOWN) • - 12' HATCH WITH LIFTING - • , w 2 4, • • HANDLE wl•••�I ) (4)2VARIOUSC RRUGA DINLET HDPE(AD11ETADAPTERS UAILWALL,TYPES /a _ 4'-12'FOR CORRUGATED HDPE(ADS K1211VNCDRDUAL WALL, = I-2' ' YY ADS/RANCOR SINGLE WALL),N-12 HP,PVC SEWER(EX:SIR 35), �'� 1 1 UNDISTURBED SOIL yz' S% PVC DWVIEX SCH 401,PVC C9aD UY05,CORRUGATEDS RIBBED PC 1 = I 1 3 THESACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSHED STONE OR OTHER zyb M``t5 GRATE OPTIONS,LOAD RATING PART• DRAYANOY ORATE OPTIONS LOAD RATING PARTY D�WINOY THE BACKFILLMATERIAL BE STOVE OTHER PEDESTRIAN o MEETS w20 IMM OP Tooltlomt t• \-TJ 30-MIL PVC UNER GRANULAR MATERIAL MEETING THE ASDEFIErE IN OF CLABBL PEDESTRIAN Ts l4+o �cGPsoup wvER T 1 GLUED TO SIDE OF MANHOLE CLASS II,CI CLASS III SURFACE AS DEFINED IN AS MD2321. PEDESTRIAN BRONZE MEETsw:o Izaz0G1' GRANUSKER&MRTERIAL SHALLE CRUSHED STOV OR OTHER MEETS 14.20 , W MIRAFl NON-WOVEN BEDDINGACITSULLFOR SURFACE DRAINAGE INLETS 9HALLBE SODDCOVaR MEETS wzp mcGc CLASS II,OR CLASS III MATERIAL AS DEFINED IN ASRM o2321. PEDESTr0AN MON. 12MCGP6 2001410.T )- 3'MIN NATIVE BACKFlLL PLACEDa COMPACTED UNIFORMLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM p2321. PE,EWIIMNBRDNZE WA 120000P BED,COMPACTED KFILL FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE MSCDD Q GEOTEXRLE FABRIC,OR �1'OF 1.5'CRUSHED BETWEEN UNER AND 00NE 112201CaD 2001410.205 PLACED a COMPACTED UNIFORMLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTMD2321. DROP w GRATE LG.DM 12o1DI ]m,+,Dox1 p EQUAL WRAPPED AROUND WASHED SCREENED BOTTOM OF DRYWELL DROP N aRATE ulwrourr DI Tmt11.21 GRAVEL SECTOR. ROCK AT 30%VOID RATIO AROUND I-WATES/SOLO COVER VAR BE MIME MN MIASMA ASGRAOE 20500S i-GMTES'Sam COVER SHALL BEOULTIIE IRONPERA61LIA639 GRIDEA4003, PERIMETER OF WIN TIM MUMPS OMRGOPEE(TUIE THIS PRITEACLOWES SUBJECT MATTER N WHICH DRAWN BY EBC MAIERNL 3130 VERONA AVE WITH THE EXCEPTION CS THE MONII.CUTE. DNS PRINT DISCLOSES SUBJECT MATTER NVMION OMIYND EBC ■AME& 3100 VERONA AVE O 'MORASS' PROPRIETARY 000AX ME RECEIPT BINGO,WY51B 2-FRAMES SNAG BE DUCTILE IRON PER AMA A535 GPM.7050-05 or, HAS PROPRIETARY REIMS.TIE RECEIPT BOFORS SA 2-FRAMES SHAME MOTILE IRON PERM..AE98 GRADE 103005. Z PERFORATED BARRELS. 3-MANAGE CONNECTION SNSKRITRGXTNESS WALL CONFORM TO OR POSSESSION OF TMIS PRMODES NOT CONFER. pots ...to Nor m0)Md. 3-DRAIN BASIN TO BE CUSTOM MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO PUN DETAILS, oR PO55ESSgN OFMIS PRNTDOES Nm00NFER, ,,,AT. e13M TEE PIM MID012.2K1 ASTM 03212 FOR CORRUGATE,HOFE(ADSNiNWNCORWM WALL), TRANSFER.OR LICENSE THE USE OF THE DES.OR Ny10 Iasi FAZ RN)W52.2d0 RISERS ARE NEEDED FOR BASINS OVERM'OUE TO SHIPPWG RE0TRICTENS. TRANSFER.OR LICENSE TIE USE OF THE DEMON OR ,\y10 last FA%ITNI552.bB0 MIS HP,SRC SEWER. TECHNICAL INFORMATION MGM HEREIN REVISED BY HMI PROJECT N0JNAIE ✓ ew•nyloPMee.mm SEE DRAWING NO. M-110M5 TECHNICAL INFORMATION SNOVM HEREIN REVD,D NW PROECT NIaNNE .1 ,n:wnYloPMue.mm REPRODUCTION OF THIS mIHTat ANY INFaRWTNJN 4.OUINAGE CONNECTOR STU6JOmTICMNESS SMALL CONFORM TO REPRODUCTION DETAIN PRINT..D.ENSIONS ARE F IC EFERENCE aAY AcrIWLpMENSILNSN4YVIRY. TITLE TIRE 5-SMENSIONBARE IN INCHES CONTAINED HEREIN OR MANUFACTURE OF ANY ATE 011116 ASTIR 00212 FOR CORRLCATEO HOPE(ADS N-IMANWR DOR WALL), DWAIE°HERBS,OR MANUFACTURE OF MY MTE •Ntt-11 a S•SEE MOOG era A10 16P6 POEMS to,&AOC.OM Oa Bel ARTICLE HEREFROM,FOR THE GSOLOSURE MOTHERS 1.N � E ANGLE ADAPTERS SEE ND.hIn-11pa2 ARTCL HEREFROM FOR THE pSYOSURE M OTHERS flwaUM BASH WICK SPEC NSTAIATOx DETAIL TYPICALCROSS SECTION INFORMATION 601UMNGMO.I1Tr63M FORN-12HP Bel womiATION. ISFORSIDaNEXCEPT SY SPECIFlCWRRTEH 00500 MUSE SPEC INSTALLATION DETAIL MG RP. AXXIVC OU0. aGRBI00EN, DEP BYSPECIFlC,,,....2,-., REAL r m Z N 6-ADAPTERS CM E MOWED ON MN AN.DI TO MO..TO DETERMME MOM PERMISSION FROM NYIORASr. ...PA.DWG SQE A 8.:. ter+ DWG NL T003110ffi REV PENAISWION FRa1Nri0RASr. mo,RxHmAn OWO SUE A SCALE 1. INEE tat ORO N0. TN1.1101N mom ¢ , 9 N.T.S. w a w L .o 5 o LL 1'OF 1.5"CRUSHED WASHED SCREEN as U ROCK AT 30%VOID RATS AROUND Z PERIMETER OF 4'PVC STORM PIPE PERFORATED BARRELS. R a a �r __ V ID•''•- e y FORM MADOWNSPLETS Z a CONCRETE SECTION ,��®'®� - •O ol ol 4'PVC STORM PIPE 1D a FROM DOWNSPOUTS ,,� �loots• R-4990 R-4990 C-m AND AREA INLETS 0,• HEAVY DUTY TRENCH W o I �� , 48"MANHOLE PRODUCTS W o 0 MIRAFl NON-WOVEN. I ,�i[- M Materials All frames and grates/lids are lumbhed standard In pay iron,meeting ASTM-A48 Class 35-B for heavy-duty use.For extra heavy-duly use or 'Z (D U V GEOTEXRLE FABRIC,OR --" - - superior durability requirements,see our ductile Iron Airport and Pon Grating Series an page 286. Suggested Fanning Instructions for R-4990 Frame and Grate/Lid sm.1w-�A-I-XN•MO _ ?N X EQUAL WRAPPED AROUND - g'p RISER ��- • ASTM C-478 GRAVEL SECTION. _ ~O �- Neenah recommends project designers avoid the use of light duly trench Installations because h Is likely that applications will be subjected to heavy Unbolted Units _ Grade Ad IUstment Rings • Steps,blockaute,coatings and boot 0 IF. z 'd+< delivery vehicle traffic at some time.Furthermore,the use of a site court be changed 10 heavy duty use patterns at some unanticipated future dale. �� . 9 • p8onn available Z 30-MIL PVC LINER GLUED - A typical Installation is shown in Figure 1.Details and suggestions are based on using the Neenah _ • Different opUona and configuration. Z W-tD W TO SIDE OF MANHOLE - Foundry Type X Frame. T'lg•-24"- available 1., <u.a 10 _ t Dimensions n inches (1j1" '- TYPE X I.:.1 ^I 1 2"-3"-4"-6'-18' • 8000 pal concrete Y.1 NOTE: Un-Boned - M1v � Meledela • _ Heights Available •• Reinforced with welded woe I. re CORE DRILL HOLE TO ACCEPT 4'PVC STORM 1 e Catalog No. A B C Type A Type C Type D Type E Type P Type 0 Under rl0fmal situations,use W inch plywood for forming walls.2x4s are suitable for studs,plates, request grout Inverts Alawllaa upon Hl O STRUCTURAL 3MaA A� mow I quest .. J o a PIPE.APPLY WATER TIGHT SEALS AT PIPE BACKFILL Ni A-49g0.AX 8 1 1/2 B z x x x x p " •^ bracing and spreaders. m PENETRATION. R-4990-CO 12 112 0 x z x x z X 4 \ ..,. Flat Too Flat Lid f' CO n R-a990 DX 14 1 t2 t2 x x x x z L� TOW 92 IA 24' f„ Ill rl�i f3' Z Z NOTES:NOT TO SCALE CONCRETE SECTION R-4980-IX 17 112 15 x x x x y - '•� �'1-' ' t L'2:" 4 ' In W• m R-4990-FX 20 112 18 x x x x x ';e'. . �=T3' '7 J (- 34•-I .-W W • DRYWELL LOCATED IN VEHICULAR AREAS _ SHALL BE WITHIN GRAVEL LOAD RATED. R-4.g9o-GX 23 1 12 21 z x' x _ HEAVY 150 Forming Procedures t 11 I► .I II Ao U U' Z R-4990-FIX 28 112 24 x x• x x x IABOL7W g I �= c� Cone Sections 0 • VOLUME WITHIN SPACE IS APPLICABLE Pour the floor slab of the trench according to the plans and `�11- II TO WQCV AND DETENTION UP TO 12"FROM R-4990-JX 30 2 27 z x x it 11= V I General serwma lc shown may nor apply specifications.The width of the forming,(See Figure 2)measured DRYWELL SECTION A-A R-4880-KK 33 2 30 x z x' x to all designs.Bar and rib*MG,Male from the outside edges of the forms,corresponds to the"C" II II __ ICII -8'--24•-811- •F• d • INLET AND OUTLET PIPES SHOULD ENTER R-4990-LX 36 2 33 x x• E(. -:. II -B'-24'-8'- I vertkd HeigMe .L thicknesses ferent and.sang.If vary an Dimension on Figure 1.During the entire forming procedure,verily DRYWELL AWAY FROM DRYWELL STEPS. N.T.S. R-498aMx 39 2 35 z x• x different slatsdosestyles nths wokM 'II. - 24'-70'-32• (�nW that the lams are plumb,straight,solid and level, 1L=.1 I V • PERFORATED CONCRETE AND SURROUNDING R-4980-NX 45 2 42 x x• x has design metric.,conact your Saks p 1- ii _ 1 . Height 18' 2q• w/24'Opaninga11 GRAVEL SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 10'FROM R-4990-OX 51 2 48 x x' 11 / ap n ga BUILDING FOUNDATIONS.SECTIONS WITHIN 10' 1Iy reNesenbtwN or engineedng. -II-II-II-Inom21 l�,lvl"71- 111 w 24' a In I •F•I x-Indicates availabN' The height of the form corresponds to the final grade elevation. 2 OF BUILDING FOUNDATIONS WILL BE SOLID •Deep Ribs(oonsun shop dr"wirg for dimensions). Extend the spreaders beyond the edge of the forms(see Figure 3 _ - - CONCRETE AND STRUCTURAL BACKFILL. Deep Ribs='B'dimension tirtas 2 or greeter. and 4)to provide a stop for the frame and seat form. �� •1 )------'1, • 30-MIL PVC UNER SHALL SEPARATE TYPICAL CITY OF ASPEN WQCV Riser Sections 2'� 1� 1- PERFORATED AND SOLID SECTIONS.. To attach the cast Iron frame to the forming,the use of a"seat 4'0• 10r DEEP DRYWELL DETAIL ' 48 /� form"Is recommended to assure that the creme is at the roper / 1 QPIall t O • /\f ,1 N.T.S. - 1: I atinq Type 0 troncn Trench sections are furnished in 24 elevation and We.The seat forth has the same dimensions as \` 4% _ < p. °1 V /V�- W t lord IenBms, me frame,with the height corresponding to the frame height(the \`,_�%/ Solid Riser V Drywdl Ricer T 2 '�-�•' "B'dimension),and the width the same as the seat width of the T ro"' 1 ,/,/ Vertkol Hei n is •� ° ° Vertical Height" 'y 2 i Note:In Type A and P grates the slots are perpendicular to the trench run. home.The seas width should W field measured to assure as mEAprR ` /�• 1 Verity 36 9 48" 0.•.: 4 O� (o`J 2tical Hight , �� '/ In Type C and 0 grates the slats are parallel with the trench nun proper fit.All Neenah frames have a slight radius al the coma d 110. ��` F H 1 -G•-�-10-;. the seat and vertical face so the seat form should be beveled to i /` �l 8/" - 58" accommodate the radius.Most 2x4's have this retlllls. AMMUMINE AS 0`/ �� 48-D Manhole Technical Sheet l AMMO :j• Thaw Base Sections ' Nall the seat form fo the frame using the holes M the frame. 00000000000 oeoo (Figures 384) �� 4�. e.. • ,tor '.srn.DPP, ODDDDDUDHD a000 =%: • ILI n w �- 48" Ism zl:me AS., Blew W MO 1322. IY 12-oc. M. 2 Vertical -g8 oW s se :°.- .::• IIIIIIIII►Itillll r 5 v 48'I Heights os l ^0-In P O Z I Reed Carefully Before Ordw R-1553 a �e aRVEaEwGW GRATEoPNMNGa mlDr: ^°AeJ z The various standard trench drains are available with a number d 48'ID Bose bv4 - n- 12m 147•. a, 0 Z '_ alternatives.it Is important to examine all of the variables careful __: _ -, 4B' - Sr m 132 a. I-IX W (1) and specify your requirements tufty Your order will be entered -•• y. a -s n nl. •1,2•�•Y': F correctly and promptly if R Includes Me following Information: .,:•:•, : 3z FT sr um Rz1 My 0< ::-••. - = III II IIIIIIIIIttil. �... `es.N (The resar shown In me vemcal walls m the trench Is for Illustrative purposes only.Proper •_ Y al.ziJ two and t9 '•O - te Fc lea c �e ]Y>e o sizing and placement is the responsibility of the engineering firm pmvitlirg the project design.) -_8•-_ Ina.251n.hoops I �7 0� 2L.I e• - r111111E Complete catalog number VENTED UD ORATEOMNI.. GRATE OPENINGS MOIL 1 III - -y1 O 1- 00 0o sap hurt 0 9 SIN. lugs 9de as possible.ragein PlaceheThere be a •. •. I l ate hoRw Q]U Z - :1- Type of Lid a Grate.A,C,D,ErP a 0 O I ` Frames should together sou leaving little eg '- --' Fri i fire• Frame end pieces,when ! degree • �,�IOU err lwoP: / R4 Taber through the hales in the anchor lu to provide anchorage in the concrete.Verity the _ ( b•'s 6 Bin COW Y W O D�DO I (■/./I space between the edges of the rate and frame so rates will fd - "�" a a Q 1 Len of trench sections � %I gap but no greater than 3/16(see Figure 1). a•Bane 5 V ese, v M sera r Ili Ryon-3 rT a14 O W 2 7. _._- Tf tj ( d9 A A properly. 70" v4$ 22 lir -Angles and Intersection• QO D�iFIN Hn [101110rt C I HI U) • -9�v� \ • -Load requirements 000ppp �O��O���ijo ������WUi ROLE FOR A°aeA Pour concrete end use me too etlAedtthe home asescreetl pdm. Watery 14 Mon (7'19)995.87e4 2eo05 Co.Rd 317 gg IL I Q \ 'Trenches With angles,intersections,size Changes or other special 1 avd3nRa P•O•Box� ?O 7 Z requirements require detail drawings prior t0 ordering.Contact your w r � V• VALLEY •Systems (7 ) Buena Viola,CO81211 o F �q}g� sales representative or product engineering for assistance. OSAweurRYI PG MTERSEGruwPG a Products Fax. 19 U- IBe11111\ 800-5583076 Nano15..12/sadT a0WW in YMEd sloes and types. ig PRECAST,j.sC. eSelVlCO En it.: www'valleYPrecastmin cort N 0 eeeeeeeeeee Avails :R-2559 DRIVEWAY/WALKWAY TRENCH DRAINS N.T.S. VALLEY PRECAST 4'0 MANHOLES Catalog Number A B C E R-1553 24 1-3/8 22-I/2 3l I,:', PROJECT NO. 2211011.00 All dimensions are listed in inches unless otherwise noted. EXHIBIT DRYWELL INLET FRAME & GRATE EIVED (NEENAH R-1553) 09/13/ZQ21 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Ic.. Kumar&Associates,Inc." Geotechnicai 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 RENOVATION AND BASEMENT ADDITION 211 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN,COLORADO PROJECT NO. 21-7-156 MARCH 4,2021 PREPARED FOR: MATTHEW JOBLON 3003 EAST 3RD AVENUE, SUITE 201 DENVER,COLORADO 80206 (matt@bmcinv.com) RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY - 1 - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - 1 - SITE CONDITIONS - I - FIELD EXPLORATION -2- SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS -2 - FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS -2- DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS -3 - FOUNDATIONS - 3 - FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS - 3 - FLOOR SLABS -4- UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM - 5 - PERCOLATION TEST - 5 - SURFACE DRAINAGE - 6- LIMITATIONS - 6- FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING FIGURE 2 - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING FIGURE 3 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE 1- SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE 2 - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS RECEIVED 09/13/2021 Kumar&Associates, Inc. Project No.21-7-156 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed renovation and basement addition to the existing residence located at 211 West Hopkins Avenue,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 agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Matthew Joblon dated January 26, 2021. An exploratory boring was drilled to obtain information on the subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed construction includes a single story residence over a full depth basement detached from the existing historic residence. A full depth basement addition will also be constructed below the historic residence. An attached two car garage will be constructed as part of the detached addition. Ground floors will be slab-on-grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to include cut depth up to about 12 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loading, 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 subject site is developed with a single-story historic residence. The ground surface is relatively flat with some cut and fill from the previous development. Vegetation consists of landscaped lawn grass and trees. There was approximately 16 to 18 inches of snow cover present at the time of our exploration. RECEIVED 09/13/2021 Kumar&Associates, Inc.t Project No.21-7-156 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT -2 - FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on February 9,2021. One exploratory boring was drilled at the location shown on Figure 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The boring was advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck-mounted CME-45B drill rig. The boring was logged by a representative of Kumar& Associates, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1% 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 consist of about 12 feet of medium dense, gravelly sand fill overlying dense, slightly silty to silty sand and gravel with cobbles and possible boulders down to the maximum drilled depth of 21 feet. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the boring included natural moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 Y2-inch fraction)of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on Figure 3. The laboratory testing is 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. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The natural granular soils encountered in the boring are adequate for support of spread footing foundations. Man-placed fill and debris from previous site development should be completely removed from beneath proposed foundation areas. At the planned basement level excavation depth, we expect existing fill and debris from prior site development and clay soils (if present) will be removed but we should observe the foundation excavation for bearing conditions. RECEIVED 09/13/2021 Kumar&Associates, Inc.' Project No.21-7.156 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 3 - DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend new building foundations be supported 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 minor, about 'A 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 this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) Existing fill, debris from previous site development and loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural granular soils. Disturbed granular 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 consis °►C '�I of the on-site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from thR ., ! l Y t D 09/13/2021 Kumar&Associates, Inc.*) Project No.21-7.156 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT -4 - building(if any) 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. Backfill should not contain organics,debris and rock larger than about 6 inches. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings,traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90%of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum in landscape areas. Backfill placed in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95%of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact 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. Backfill should be a relatively well graded granular material and could be compacted to at least 98% standard Proctor density to help limit 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 granular material compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site granular soils, exclusive of topsoil and debris from previous construction, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of soRE 1 E IVE n 09/13/2021 Kumar&Associates, Inc.` Project No.21-7-156 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 5 - 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 vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. 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 or drywell. 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 1%2 feet deep. PERCOLATION TEST Drywells and bio-swales are often used in the Aspen area for site runoff detention and disposal. The natural granular soils encountered are typically free draining and should be suitable for surface water treatment and disposal as needed. The results of percolation testing performed in Boring 1, presented in Table 2, indicate an infiltration rate of about 6 minutes per inch(inverted units equivalent rate of 10 inches per hour). The bedrock and groundwater level are generally known to be relatively deep in this area and should not affect drywell or bio-swale designs. If a drywell is used, it should have solid casing down to at least basement level and perforation pipe below that level. RECEIVED 09/13/2021 Kumar&Associates, Inc.'e Project No.21-7.156 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 6 - SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the basement level has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95%of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90%of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 2V2 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be covered with filter fabric and capped with about 2 feet of the on-site 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 this time. 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 evoREC FIVED 09/13/2021 Kumar&Associates, Inc.n Project No.21-7.156 I.\SPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT - 7 - should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully Submitted, Kumar & Associates, Inc. oriii4dez- James H. Parsons, E.I. Reviewed by: R,P9'REp/8 •i�� Il'I' C� '� G, Sri 15222 X Steven L. Pawlak P. SLP/kac ;'•• ..... .. .. Cc: Rowland & Rowland (john@a,rowlandbroughton.com) RECEIVED 09/13/2021 Kumar&Associates,Inc. Project No.21-7-156 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT MINT 90pXt`,s �, 78.00'g0.1V 51004, COs 1 •/1/ 1PC LSI 24312 eE/c>NUAr«-7eO3.• I ram' 10r/1 rd.0717 NER 9- LOT B / LOT F Ir/°'V m 'c4i �B _ — • 1r/u y i 7073 at.. ------" v/s' B/e• we . tier 21r/IS-- BORING�I LOT C LSI 24312 PCB 4111 1 .11 LOT H 2//13/3 110. / ' 9E FAIRLY I I RESIDENCE I s.D• ,b / / 3 19401 l� , I :I/IS i / b l� 8 • I K rumcccx / a ; :Y, / I , I / I ' i WV OF ASPD1 vs/3 s NY - ---J 1l.S sEtenuc i / / 41,12•/IS o I / / 0•/10r o Irnt , //� 40 9 1•/ YPC LS,24342 10.1Y ‘...4...". i 2•` 1. / I TOP cF POST SE1e401 12 _ d / 0irn/ a Is' / e•/e' S "3/ , I. YPC s_ W 2.]12 S ,11IF O POST c 3o w-oCie s 'CD ,sa•to da c 3 _cam S........,............ 1: s r. 10 0 10 20 APPROXIMATE SCALE FEET RECEIVED 4. , 09L13/2021 21 -7-156 Kumar & Associates LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING t lg. 1 A3FCN BUILDING DEPARTMENT BORING 1 LEGEND EL. 7893' 0 �' TOPSOIL; SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ORGANICS, FIRM, MOIST, DARK BROWN. 44/12 FILL: CLAYEY GRAVEL AND SANDY CLAY, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST, DARK BROWN. 17/12 WC=15.8 5 -200=66 e:::. SAND AND GRAVEL (SM-GM); SILTY, COBBLES, DENSE, MOIST, GRAY-BROWN, ROUNDED ROCK. 56/12 WC=5.3 +4=40 DRIVE SAMPLE, 2-INCH I.D. CALIFORNIA LINER SAMPLE. -200=20 10 DRIVE SAMPLE, 1 3/8-INCH I.D. SPLIT SPOON STANDARD w_ 41/12 PENETRATION TEST. 44 12 DRIVE SAMPLE BLOW COUNT. INDICATES THAT 44 BLOWS OF — / A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES WERE REQUIRED a 43/12 TO DRIVE THE SAMPLER 12 INCHES. — ti WC=3.1 15 a +4=45 -200=8 NOTES 1. THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS DRILLED ON FEBRUARY 9, 2021 WITH A 4-INCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS FLIGHT POWER AUGER. r. 20 2. THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS MEASURED 38/12 APPROXIMATELY BY PACING FROM FEATURES SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 3. THE ELEVATION OF THE EXPLORATORY BORING WAS OBTAINED BY INTERPOLATION BETWEEN CONTOURS ON THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED. 25 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 2216); +4 = PERCENTAGE RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (ASTM D 6913); -200 = PERCENTAGE PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE (ASTM D 1140). I I 1. 21 -7-156 Kumar & Associates LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 9%�3, 2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS lr U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HRS 7 HRS 100 43 MIN ,15 MIN SOWN I914IN 4UIN 1141N #200 #100 /50#40/30 016 #10/6 #4 3/5" 3/4" 1 1 2" 3" 5"6" fro 90 I ; —1 .1- i- _ i 10 _I_ I _ .�— —t- t - - i =i= E = 1 70 - —4 1- — — 1 so - •- —I— •- 1- - = 1 =1= T — I —i— 1- - — I 40 n =i= •r — 1 50 _ .. -' —'1.— .— - —'i _ i� so -- I T— I__ I -I- I-_ 40 _ i _ • i 1 _ as !_ _I-.- - r ! 30 -- __1_ I 70 I - -1- 20 -- -- I— . I- - 60 1 I 1 L T to i I - 1— 90 J I- o 1 I I I I I I I I I ' I( I I i I I c 1. 1 _ I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I_I 1 . 100 .001 .002 .006 .009 .019 .037 .075 .150 .300 .600 1.16 -2.36 4.75 9.5 19 33.1 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 40 X SAND 40 X SILT AND CLAY 20 X LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF: Clayey Gravel and Sand (Fill) FROM: Boring 1 0 7' HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 24 HRS 7 HRS 100 45 MIN 15 MIN 601.11N 194IN _416 10•11H #200 #100 #50#40#30 516 /10/6 /4 3/6" 3/4" 1 1 2" 3' 5"6" 5". 90 _ T ..k 20 i '. ► I• ' so A. — • - r 50 _ — I I - _: F. — — I I • _ 1 _I 30 _I I _ _1..., 70 20 •— . —_ 1 ._ as L - to = __i_ J _ I vo o J t__1 I I_i I. I I I' f lilt : L�-J:_- t I l I' IOU F .001 .002 .006 .009 Alf .037 .075 .150 .300 .600 1.16 2.36 4.75 9.5 III 36.1 76.2 127 200 .425 2.0 152 ri DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT I FINE SANDMEDIUM COARSE FINE GRAVECOARSE COBBLES i f GRAVEL 45 % SAND 47 X SILT AND CLAY 8 X ILIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX These test results apply only to the SAMPLE OF: Slightly Silty Gravel and Sand FROM: Boring 1 0 15' samples which were tested. The testing report shall not be reproduced, EX except In full, without the written 4 n approval of Kumar it Associates, Inc. 13 1 Sieve analysis testinngp Is erformed in 1"3 accordance with ASTL.,i 913. 4551.1 r 742,, ASTM C136 and/or,AStti O'14.). iR 61 21 -7-156 Kumar & Associates GRADATION TEST RESULTS F' it 09/if332021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT it+A Kumar Si Associates,Inc.' Geotechnical and Materials Engineers and Environmental Scientists Z TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No.21-7-156 SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED MOISTURE DRY GRAVEL SAND PERCENT PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE BORING DEPTH CONTENT DENSITY e PASSING NO. LIQUID LIMIT INDEX STRENGTH SOIL TYPE (,��) (io) 200 SIEVE (h) (%) (Pcf (%) (%) (Psf) 1 4 15.8 66 Gravelly Sandy Clay (Fill) 7 5.3 40 40 .70 Clayey Gravel and Sand (Fill) 15 3.1 45 47 8 Slightly Silty Gravel and Sand RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Kumar&Associates,Inc. '� Geotechnical and Materials Engineer and Environmental Scientists Z- Z TABLE 2 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO.21-7-156 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE (INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER LEVEL PERCOLATION (MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL (INCHES) RATE (INCHES) (INCHES) (MIN./INCH) 50 48 2 1.5 48 47 1 3 47 46 1 3 B-1 124 3 46 45 1 3 45 44 1 3 44 431/2 1/2 6 431/2 43 1/2 6 43 421/2 1/2 6 Note: The percolation test was conducted in the completed 4-inch diameter borehole on February 9, 2021. RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPENDICES RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT HISTORIC CONDITIONS: 10 YEAR: DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF CHANNEL PIPE TRAVEL TIME i a a W Z a x u`.. Z & x u`... O 3 a� °` z g 3 3 u or L I✓ STRUCTURE NO. a to u- �- x REMARKS Contntwting Area < LL V w Z V w N 1tn w z < g a0 zQ q a0 to w J O Q H U — O tv to — O to 0 tu O N a 111 J j F a ' ► * ♦ ' ' ► P0( ) r( )r ( ) 0( ) ' ( ) '( ) ' ) '( ) ( ) ' (21) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 11 12 13 14 15 16 (17 18 79 � (20) (22) 1 EX-1 0.138 0.15 16.0 0.02 2.22 0.05 DESIGN POINT 1 2 E)Q)S-2 0.021 0.63 5.0 0.01 3.96 0.05 — - DESIGN POINT 1 100 YEAR: DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF CHANNEL PIPE TRAVEL TIME z m _ 5 ci IA: z = LL I = in- p 3 a' = a Z o. a w g 3 g g _ ^ o ^ i L oo ¢ to - to �- I REMARKS STRUCTURE NO. Contributing Area a LL iU w Z U w N rn et O a M O Z (7) v O Cn w Jo a Q -I IJJ _I- 0 - 0 t (n a > I- - a r (1) ' (2) ' (3) ' (4) r (5) ' (6) ► (7) ' (8) ' (9) '(10) (11) '(12) (13) ►(14) ' (15) r (16) ' (17) ' (18) °' (19) '(20) ' (21) ' (22) 1 EX-1 0.138 0.35 16.0 0.05 3.54 0.17 DESIGN POINT 1 2 E)OJS-1 0.021 0.68 5.0 0.01 6.33 0.09 - DESIGN POINT 1 RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT PROPOSED CONDITIONS: 2 YEAR: ) DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME 1 LL in STRUCTURE NO. z 0 - Q 3 3 _ REMARKS O Contributing Area a LLQ U w LL W N 0 Li- 6 2 a 0 r z $ rn z wo a 2 12 0 - O 4 o) - a o) y N - > 1 a rn r (1) (2) r (3) r (4) r (5) r (6) '' (7) r (8) '' (9) r (10) r(11) r(12) r(13) '(14) '' (15) r(16) (17) ' (18) r (19) r(20) r (21) '' (22) . 1 PR-1 0.138 0.54 5.00 0.07 2.42 0.18 Design Point 1 1 _ 5 OS-1 0.021 0.56 5.00 0.012 2.42 0.03 - Design Point 1 10 YEAR: DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME ~ N U. N _ z _ _ _ _ uu.. Z U N 2 U i N 3E U x 2 a < w0 g a_ 3 0 a_ 3 0 z LL STRUCTURE NO. z 0 a < _ 0 g w x REMARKS Contributing Area u, U J ~ a LL w LL LL d N u. (J D N o a z 12 0 - a 1 v0) - o (7)' w --i 0 a > r- w a rn 0 r (1) : (2) r (3) f (4) r (5) r (6) r (7) r (8) 7 (9) 1 (10) 1(11) r(12) '(13) ►(14) r (15) '(16) ►(17) r(18) r (19) r(20)r (21) ' (22) 1 PR-1 0.138 0.62 5.00 0.09 3.96 0.34 Design Point 1 r 1 - 5 OS-1 0.021 0.63 5.00 0.013 3.96 0.05 Design Point 1 100 YEAR: J DIRECT RUNOFF I TOTAL RUNOFF STREETu{ PIPE TRAVEL TIME u. U U. W _ jn a w z a a z i. E ae x z a 0 3 L.L. 3 c0i z a STRUCTURE NO. 0 - < _ 3 g REMARKS z Contributing Area a LL U w -J w rwt n- Li. U. a 2 U (7) K 0 a r z 0 y W O O a 12 U — H to - a N W ui rt N fn a.-I LIJ ...I > F- �` w a rn 0 r (I) *. (2) r (3) r (4) r (5) r (6) r (7) r (8) r (9) r (10) r(11) r(12) r(13)Tr(14) r (15) r(16) r(17) r(18) r (19) r(20) r (21) fr (22) 1 PR-1 0.138 0.68 5.00 0.09 6.33 0.59 - Design Point 1 4 - 44 5 OS-1 0.021 0.70 5.00 0.015 6.33 0.09 Design Point 1 RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT PIPE CALCULATIONS RECEWED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D0 by Autodesk,Inc. Thursday,May 6 2021 6IN PIPE 10YR Circular Highlighted Diameter (ft) = 0.50 Depth (ft) = 0.20 Q (cfs) = 0.340 Area (sqft) = 0.07 Invert Elev (ft) = 7888.10 Velocity (ft/s) = 4.63 Slope (%) = 2.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.68 N-Value = 0.010 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.30 Top Width (ft) = 0.49 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.53 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.34 Elev (ft) Section 7889.00 7888.75 - 7888.50 • 7888.25 7888.00 • • - 7887.75 - 0 1 09/13/2021 BUILRRTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D0 by Autodesk,Inc. Thursday,May 6 2021 6IN PIPE 100YR Circular Highlighted Diameter (ft) = 0.50 Depth (ft) = 0.28 Q (cfs) = 0.590 Area (sqft) = 0.11 Invert Elev (ft) = 7888.10 Velocity (ft/s) = 5.19 Slope (%) = 2.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 0.85 N-Value = 0.010 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.39 Top Width (ft) = 0.50 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.70 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.59 Elev (ft) Section 7889.00 7888.75 - 7888.50 • 7888.25 7888.00 • • 7887.75 - 0 1 09/13/2021 BUILRRTMENT TRENCH DRAIN CALCULATIONS RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D0 by Autodesk,Inc. Thursday,May 6 2021 6IN TRENCH DRAIN CHANNEL 10YR Rectangular Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 0.50 Depth (ft) = 0.32 Total Depth (ft) = 0.56 Q (cfs) = 0.340 Area (sqft) = 0.16 Invert Elev (ft) = 7893.39 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.13 Slope (%) = 0.50 Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.14 N-Value = 0.013 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.25 Top Width (ft) = 0.50 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.39 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.34 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7894.00 - - 0.61 7893.75 — - - 0.36 7893.50 - 0.11 7893.25 - - -0.14 7893.00 ` f "i '09`' 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 09/13/2021 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D0 by Autodesk,Inc. Thursday,May 6 2021 6IN TRENCH DRAIN CHANNEL 100YR Rectangular Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 0.50 Depth (ft) = 0.49 Total Depth (ft) = 0.56 Q (cfs) = 0.590 Area (sqft) = 0.24 Invert Elev (ft) = 7893.39 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.41 Slope (%) = 0.50 Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.48 N-Value = 0.013 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.36 Top Width (ft) = 0.50 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.58 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 0.59 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 7894.00 � . 0.61 7893.75 - 0.36 7893.50 . 0.11 7893.25 . . -0.14 Pr F 7893.00 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 09/13/2021 Reach (ft) ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT DRYWELL CALCULATION S RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 211 W. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado DRAINAGE STUDY DRYWELL CALCULATIONS Date: May 6,2021 HCE#:2211011.00 Drywell Calculations Calculation of Drywell and Gravel Variables Cone Section Opening Volume to Width of Depth of gravel Dia of Percent Concrete Cylinder Cone section Ht. (ft) Detain(cf) Gravel(ft) Below M.H.(ft) M.H. Voids(%) Thickness(in) (ft) 2 120.0 2.0 1 4 30 5 2.0 Volume in gravel starts at: 2 Area of M.H.(sqft) 12.6 Area of Gravel(sqft) 21.5 7.2 1/3 of drywell Area of Concrete Cylinder(sqft; 5.78 Volume of 6"PCC Slab(sqft) 6.3 Volume of Gravel Bottom 30.6 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) (cf) (cf) (cf) (cf) (cf) 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 no 2 23.5 7.0 33.5 0.0 33.5 40.5 no 3 30.6 9.2 14.6 12.6 27.2 36.4 no 4 37.8 11.3 14.6 25.1 33.5 44.8 no 5 45.0 13.5 14.6 37.7 46.1 59.5 no 6 52.1 15.6 14.6 50.3 58.6 74.3 no 7 59.3 17.8 14.6 62.8 71.2 89.0 no 8 66.4 19.9 14.6 75.4 83.8 103.7 no 9 73.6 22.1 14.6 88.0 96.3 118.4 no 10 80.7 24.2 14.6 100.5 108.9 133.1 Meets Min. 11 87.9 26.4 14.6 I 113.1 121.5 147.8 Meets Min. 12 95.0 28.5 14.6 125.7 134.0 162.5 Meets Min. 13 102.2 30.7 14.6 138.2 146.6 177.3 Meets Min. 4' DIAMETER, 10' DEEP DRYWELL Transmissivity Calc. Depth of Gravel(ft)= 8.6 K from NRCS National Engineering Handbook,figure 3-10,soil class SM-GM GOVA, AP=(VR)/(K)(43,200) `° AP=Total area of sides(sf) 238.66 1` ,,, • I 11- 4 'Q1- VR=runoff volume(cf) 120.0 H dE K=Hydraulic Conductivity(ft/s) 0.000035 -2- IV ° Area of Percolation Required(s 79.37 N E E Vt AP/3=Area Available 79.55 1517 BLAKE AVENUE Glenwood Springs,CO 81601 Tele:(970)945-8676-Fax(970)945-2555 RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT INLET CALCULATIONS RECEWED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Inlet Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D0 by Autodesk,Inc. Thursday,May 6 2021 12IN INLET 10YR CAPACITY (0.23 CLOGGING FACTOR) Drop Grate Inlet Calculations Location = Sag Compute by: Known Q Curb Length (ft) = -0- Q (cfs) = 0.34 Throat Height (in) = -0- Grate Area (sqft) = 0.27 Highlighted Grate Width (ft) = 1 .00 Q Total (cfs) = 0.34 Grate Length (ft) = 1 .00 Q Capt (cfs) = 0.34 Q Bypass (cfs) = -0- Gutter Depth at Inlet (in) = 1.11 Slope, Sw (ft/ft) = 0.020 Efficiency (%) = 100 Slope, Sx (ft/ft) = 0.020 Gutter Spread (ft) = 10.28 Local Depr (in) = -0- Gutter Vel (ft/s) = -0- Gutter Width (ft) = 1 .00 Bypass Spread (ft) = -0- Gutter Slope (%) = -0- Bypass Depth (in) = -0- Gutter n-value = -0- ``_ ��� t J r" �-- �� ♦ ♦ ♦- u< RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Inlet Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®Civil 3D0 by Autodesk,Inc. Thursday,May 6 2021 12IN INLET 100YR CAPACITY (0.23 CLOGGING FACTOR) Drop Grate Inlet Calculations Location = Sag Compute by: Known Q Curb Length (ft) = -0- Q (cfs) = 0.59 Throat Height (in) = -0- Grate Area (sqft) = 0.27 Highlighted Grate Width (ft) = 1 .00 Q Total (cfs) = 0.59 Grate Length (ft) = 1 .00 Q Capt (cfs) = 0.59 Q Bypass (cfs) = -0- Gutter Depth at Inlet (in) = 1.98 Slope, Sw (ft/ft) = 0.020 Efficiency (%) = 100 Slope, Sx (ft/ft) = 0.020 Gutter Spread (ft) = 17.54 Local Depr (in) = -0- Gutter Vel (ft/s) = -0- Gutter Width (ft) = 1 .00 Bypass Spread (ft) = -0- Gutter Slope (%) = -0- Bypass Depth (in) = -0- Gutter n-value = -0- ,-,- ,,. .\\., ice ' �� \\ • Sa 1m en ----- �i k r FIVE," 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT ASPEN CHARTS AND FIGURES RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT ASPEN CHARTS AND FIGURES RECEIVED 09/13/2021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Rainfall IDF for Aspen, Colorado 6 5 4 t -c V C1 c 3 1 0 u 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Duration in Minutes t 2-yr t 5-yr 10-yr t 25-yr —4—50-yr - Inn yr Note: Accuracy is more reliable at 5 minute increments. Figure 2.1 IDF Curves for Aspen, Colorado RECEIVED Chapter 2- Rainfall 2-4 Rev 9/2014 0 9/13/2 0 21 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan into thunderstorms. Autumn in Aspen is usually dry and warm and during September daytime temperatures can reach 70°F, but night temperatures can drop to freezing. Aspen is renowned for its warm winter sun. Winter daytime temperatures typically range from 20 to 40°F in the City and from 10 to 30°F on the mountain. Once the sun goes down, the temperature drops dramatically. Table 2.1 presents monthly statistics for temperature, precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth in the Aspen area. Table 2.1 Monthly Statistics for Temaerature and Precipitation in Aspen Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. Temperature(F) 35 39 45 52 63 , 72 78 76 69 58 43 35 55.5 Average Min. Temperature (F) 9.1 12 20 26 35 41 47 46 39 30 19 9.7 27.7 Average Total Precipitation (in.) 1.7 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.8 1.6 2.1 2 2.6 1.9 24.37 Average Total Snowfall (in.) 25 27 28 20 7.8 1 0 0 1 11 28 25 173.8 Average Snow Depth (in.) 21 28 27 12 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 14 (Source: Station 050372 at Aspen 1 SW, Colorado) 2.3 Rainfall Depth, Duration, Frequency, and Intensity The rainfall intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curve is a statistical formula to describe the relationship among the local rainfall characteristics and return periods. The IDF curve is used in the Rational Method for peak runoff predictions of basins smaller than 90 acres. Based on the NOAA Atlas Volume 3, the IDF curve for the City of Aspen can be derived according to the locality and elevation. The City of Aspen is located at approximately 39°11'32"N and 106°49'28"W, at an elevation of approximately 8,100 feet. Based on depth and duration data (Appendix B, Table 1), rainfall intensities can be calculated for various frequencies. Rainfall intensity data, which form the basis of the Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) curves in Figure 2.1 are provided in Table 2.2. 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-min 30-min 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, I= ��5, (Equation 2-1) (10+T,) Where. I = rainfall intensity (inch/hr), P, = 1-hr rainfall depth (inches), and T, = duration or time of concentration (minutes). RECEIVED Chapter 2- Rainfall 2-2 Rev 9/2014 0 9/13/2 0 21 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan 1.00 - 0.90 , / 0.00 // 0.70 - t/ u 0 60 •--100-yr e /' —-f 50-yr u f m 0 50 • t 25-yr o —K—10-yr otee---5-yr 0.40 2-yr re 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0% 10% 20% 309': 40% 50% 60% 70% 30% 90% 100% Watershed Percentage Imperviousness Figure 3.2 — Runoff Coefficients for NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group A 1.o0 090 080 • j/ �/ 0 70 s s• 060 —.-100-yr S f 50.yr V g 0 E —e-25-yr 10-yr —* 5-yr —•-2-yrre 0 20 0 10 0.00 - - 0% 10r. 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70 -. 90% 100 Watershed Percentage Imperviousness Figure 3.3 — Runoff Coefficients for NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group B RECEIVED Chapter 3 Runoff 3 6 Rev 10/20140 9/13/2 021 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan 0.30 - 0.25 N a) 0.20 a 0.15 - _ 0.10 - - G 0.05 0.00 -/°.5°11.°.......n.....a.°I...°*.a.°°°°°°.°1°......°.....11.1°°.'''°7/- 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) Figure 8.13 Aspen Water Quality Capture Volume RECEIVED Chapter 8—Water Quality 8-33 Rev 8/2009 0 9/13/2 0 21 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan v �/- Mil Roads , HSG 111 `�• B C D s ty St•.eRd .12 , n , \--- . lb, !6 Aso USpwSt911111 � oil J ,:_,.... , 1 101P --- - ". ....,,.... • .4.. / Ieta 4.... . ., --- `,/ 1: : �; `(((( C i ;-..- --• Y � . F �$ - lb. dli. NI ./ 5.-4' IQ Figure 3.1 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Map for Aspen RECEIVED Chapter 3-Runoff 3-2 Rev 2'2010 0 9/13/2 0 21 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT