HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20170801
AGENDA
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
REGULAR MEETING
August 01, 2017
4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
A. March 31,2017 Draft Meeting Minutes
B. July 18, 2017 Draft Meeting Minutes.
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 718 S Galena St & 800 S Mill St - Special Review & Exemption, 8040 Greenline
Review
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 11, Series 2017
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2017
1
Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for March
21, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Ryan Walterscheid, Keith
Goode, Rally Dupps and Skippy Mesirow.
Brian McNellis, Spencer McKnight and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Nadolny.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ms. Tygre wanted to note the Galena shuttle no longer goes in the loop by the elevator to the parking
garage. She feels it is confusing for folks who arrive to the plaza using the parking garage elevator may
find it confusing to find the Galena shuttle.
Ms. Tygre also wanted to note as she heads west on Durant Ave, she sees bicycles and worries there is
no place for them to go when they reach Hunter St and run into the bulb out.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Ms. Phelan reviewed the upcoming schedule noting the upcoming elections.
May 2 – Regular Election – Meeting cancelled
May 16 – Regular meeting scheduled
May 23 – Possibly a special meeting if needed
June 6 – Runoff Election – Meeting cancelled
June 20 – Regular meeting scheduled
June 27 – Possibly a special meeting if needed
July 4 – Fourth of July – Meeting cancelled
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
MINUTES
Ms. Tygre stated she would provide a couple of small corrections directly to Ms. Klob.
Mr. Goode motioned to approve all the draft minutes (listed below) including Ms. Tygre’s corrections.
Mr. Walterscheid seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed.
a. January 17th
b. January 24th
c. January 31st
d. February 2nd
e. February 21st
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
P1
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2017
2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
433 W Bleeker St – Residential Design Standard Variation Review
Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and then turned the floor over to staff.
Ms. Bryan stated she reviewed the notices of affidavit and found them to be adequate.
Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner, reviewed the location of the project, noting it is a vacant 6,000 sf lot in the
medium density (R-6) zone district. She added there are four fairly large trees on the site including three
Spruce trees on the front of the lot and a Douglass fir toward the rear of the lot which are not eligible to
be removed per the city forester. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story single family home
and requesting a variation of the residential design standard (RDS) dealing with the articulation of the
building mass. She stated this is a nonflexible standard requiring approval by the commission.
Ms. Nadolny then reviewed the intent of the standard including what is required based on the standard.
She stated the code provides three options to meet the standard (pp 43-44 of the agenda packet). She
stated the applicant is proposing a design that does not really meet any of the options, but most closely
echoes the third option. She then provided a view of the proposed design from the second story (p 44 of
agenda packet), adding the building is two-story in height for over 61 ft and steps down to one-story at
the rear of the building for just over 12 ft. An additional second-story setback is proposed on the eastern
side of the property for 11 ft.
She continued stating the applicant proposed design is in response to trees on the site. No development
is permitted within the survey drip lines of the trees.
She explained in order to grant a variation from the RDS, the request must be found to meet one of the
two criteria listed on p 43 of the agenda packet. Ms. Nadolny then discussed the first criteria to
determine if the project meets the overall intent as identified in the first standard. She stated the R-6
zone district requires a 15 ft combined side yard setback, noting the western side of the proposed
building meets the minimum of this which is five ft from the property line. The neighboring property on
the same side; constructed in 2008 under different standards, also sits with a 5 ft side-yard setback. The
proposed building has very little articulation on this side. There is none at the rear of the building. She
noted there is also little articulation on the north façade where the building steps down. Staff does not
feel the proposed design meets the standard for articulation.
Ms. Nadolny then discussed the second criteria which deals with site specific constraints. Staff
acknowledges the trees on site pose an inconvenience for the development and drives certain elements
of the design. The setbacks on the eastern side of the property are a little over 16 ft where a 10 ft
setback is required. Staff cannot find the case the trees impose a design that is the only way it could be
developed. The property can still be developed and meet the RDS by reducing the two-story element at
the 45 ft point and increasing the side yard setbacks per the code. She displayed a picture of the
western façade on p. 46 of the agenda which shows a red dashed line indicating where second story
needs to be stepped down. It may mean a smaller home is developed, but could achieve a more
pedestrian scale of development.
In closing, Staff is recommending denial of the request for variation.
P2
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2017
3
Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of staff.
Mr. Dupps asked if approved, are the elevations shown indicative of the placement of doors and
windows. Ms. Nadolny stated the elevations are used to indicate massing rather than details.
Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Ryan Doremus, Thunderbowl Architects, introduced himself and Mr. Matt Smith, Thunderbowl
Architects and Gavin.
He stated they spoke with city forester when they started on project to establish the requirements
because this is the most restrictive part of this site. The site is centrally located flat lot with alley.
He provided a slide indicating the non-developable areas on the site based on setback requirements or
the drip lines for the trees.
Mr. Doremus then read the intent of the code and stated they were unable to meet the specific
standard, so their intent is to meet the overall design intent for the lot. He added they are restricted by
the trees. When they looked into meeting this standard, it turned into not meeting other standards.
They have attempted to design a building which represents Aspen’s style as well as a building that did
not have all the mass in the front with smaller mass in the back. He noted the outline of the buildings on
neighboring properties to provide a comparison. One of the buildings was built in 2008 and the other
one was built closer to 2000. He noted the massing on both extends through the lot. They plan to step
their mass down at the garage. He provided an image of the proposed design noting where it would step
down and pointed the area requiring the variance because it is past the 45 ft limit.
He then pointed out an area in the front which was colored green and noted it is the exact same size
that would match the same area they are requesting they could in theory fit the space if not restricted
by the trees. He feels the context of the site drove the design.
He provided a prospective of the proposed structure looking down on it (p. 60 from the agenda), noting
it is stepped in and the walkway is covered on the front. He then pointed out the areas eligible to be
developed and those that are not. He pointed out an area that is a deck. They feel they tried to fit the
context of the neighborhood. He spoke with Amy Simon, Senior Planner, regarding the context of the
home.
Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of the applicant.
Mr. Walterscheid asked staff if Mr. Carlson provided formal commentary regarding the trees. Ms.
Nadolny stated she had asked if he wanted to provide anything formal and he replied no. He did say the
drip lines looked appropriate and was mostly worried about the measurements. Mr. Doremus added
they had met with Mr. Carlson onsite as well to work through what should be included in the
construction mitigation plan (CMP).
Ms. Nadolny asked to clarify the hashed line on the elevation as shown on p. 46 designates the 45 ft
measurement, but they must also step in five ft.
Mr. Mesirow then asked for public comment. There was none so he closed this portion of the hearing.
P3
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2017
4
Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion.
Mr. Walterscheid recognizes the site constraints.
Mr. Goode agreed with Mr. Walterscheid, but recalled a previous hearing where the applicant had to
come back multiple times with a modified design in order to obtain an approval. He believes the code is
in place for a reason and wanted to hear what the others had to say.
Ms. Tygre stated she had visited the site to look at the trees. She does not see it as an unusual situation
noting it may be an inconvenience, but feels they could work within the code. She does not feel the
current proposal meets the massing intent. She believes they could revise the plan and meet the code.
Ms. McNicholas Kury sees the project have a blank slate to work with and concurs with Ms. Tygre.
Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant if they would be interested in a continuation. Mr. Doremus replied
they have spent countless hours on the project and will need a variation of some kind because of the
trees. The trees in the front of the lot impact how the structure faces the street. He stated more than
half of the front is blocked by trees. He feels the mass and scale meets the intent. They have a one-story
step down. He feels they are only missing one dimensional requirement.
Mr. Mesirow asked about the allowable floor area ratio (FAR). Ms. Nadolny feels it is a FAR issue. She
does not believe it is an either or situation. She noted code states the FAR is not a guarantee, but allows
for the most under the best circumstances. In order to meet the code, the floor area would have to be
reduced from what was currently proposed.
Mr. Mesirow agrees with Ms. Tygre and Ms. McNicholas Kury.
Mr. Dupps asked if there was a higher position than the city forester to remove the trees. Ms. Phelan
stated if they submitted the application, they could appeal it to Council. Ms. Phelan believed they should
check with the Parks department.
Mr. Mesirow explained the options to the applicant and asked if they want the board to move forward
or continue the hearing. Mr. Doremus would like to hear what the board expects in terms of a revision
instead of going back to the drawing board. He believes it comes down to the mass and scale of one side
of the building, but not necessarily the step-down.
Ms. McNicholas Kury believes the code provides three clear options and would need to see why none of
these could be met.
Mr. Dupps stated he cannot make recommendations regarding revising the design, but feels they need
to meet the RDS code and recognizes the trees are an issue.
Mr. Mesirow stated the 61 ft mass is a deal breaker for him.
Ms. Tygre hesitates on how to tell them on how to design and agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury.
P4
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 21, 2017
5
Mr. Walterscheid suggested if they do not want to change the design, perhaps they could demonstrate
why it won’t work any other way.
Mr. Doremus asked for a continuance. Ms. Phelan suggested April 4th with the packet due next week or
April 18th.
Ms. Tygre motioned to continue the hearing until April 18th and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury.
All in favor, the motion was approved.
Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
It was motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded. All in favor, the motion was approved and
the meeting was adjourned.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P5
IV.A.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2017
1
Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for July 18,
2017 at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Spencer McKnight, Keith Goode, Kelly McNicholas Kury,
Jesse Morris, Ryan Walterscheid, and Skippy Mesirow.
Rally Dupps was not present for the meeting.
Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for an update on the pedestrian mall. Ms. Phelan responded it is currently
scheduled for the board to review the conceptual design at the September 19th meeting.
Mr. Mesirow thanked the commissioners for attending the meeting and believes the applicants are
better served when more members attend.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
MINUTES
There were no minutes.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
303 W Hopkins Ave – Residential Design Standard Variation Review
Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and then turned the floor over to staff.
Ms. Bryan stated she is waiting for the publication affidavit, but it is fine to proceed on the assumption it
will be forthcoming.
Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, informed the board of two letters received earlier in the day that support
the application. One from 315 W Hopkins Ave and another from Mr. Hazen. She has copies of both
letters (Exhibit B of the agenda packet).
She then summarized the application for a variation of the articulation of building mass, maximum
sidewall depth standard. The standard requires a principal building shall be no greater than 50 ft in
depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. It is intended to
P6
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2017
2
provide inflection and solar relief to neighboring properties as ensures the building more closely relates
to Aspen’s historic building patterns.
She provided a rendering of the proposed volume of the existing single family residence. The applicant is
requesting a second-story addition of the home on the façade facing the alley. Currently, a deck resides
where the addition is proposed. The proposed addition would make the maximum sidewall depth about
60 ft in length which is 10 ft over what is allowed by the code.
She said one of the criteria states the building is to responds to the neighborhood context. Both the
subject property and neighboring property step down towards the rear of the building. Staff does not
feel the addition would respond to the context in this regard.
She noted the allowable floor area is about 3,400 sf and presently the floor area is about 3,900 sf which
is non-conforming. They are proposing to move floor area to the second-story by enclosing window
wells in the subgrade area to change how the floor area is calculated. Staff believes taking the area
below for the proposed mass does not meet with the intent of the standard.
In closing, Staff is not supporting this request because they believe it does not meet the intent of the
standard.
Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of staff.
Mr. Mesirow asked if the length of the existing one-story would be considered a non-conformity. Ms.
Seminick stated a portion of it would because it extends beyond 50 ft. The standard seeks articulation of
the wall plane.
Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant.
Mr. Patrick Rawley, Stan Clauson Associates, introduced himself and Ms. Dana Ellis, Rowland and
Broughton, as representing the applicant.
He provided pictures of the front of the house and described the project:
· 118 sf addition to a second-story bedroom by partially enclosing a deck over the garage
· Garage currently has a roof form
· Addition faces the alley
· Applicant lived there since 1996
· Home constructed in 1994 prior to any RDS being enacted
· Home is a pre-existing nonconformity
· Home is second empire architectural style which makes compliance with RDS standards
impossible
He showed a picture of a home at 315 W Hopkins Ave, noting the owner has submitted a letter of
support for this addition.
He provided pictures of the home from the front, back and side pointing out where the addition would
be located.
He then provided a modeling of the volume of the proposed addition stated the roof form mirrors the
eastern portion of the home to create more unity in the architecture of the home and articulate the
mass of the building.
P7
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2017
3
Ms. Dana Ellis stated they wanted to deal within the existing roof forms along the alley for this project,
noting this is the only turned-down mansard form on this side of the alley.
She added they already had a building permit when it was discovered this was a variation of the RDS.
They approached the project as a way to clean up the back façade and believe it to be a successful
treatment of a small expansion.
She provided views of the existing floor plan, indicating areas of articulation toward the setback. She
added the existing first floor of the structure does not work with the RDS in regards to insetting towards
the alley. As staff previously discussed, this is not typical of historic structures in town where you have a
cabin with an addition. She stated the form of the home is very much from the 1990’s era. She stated
the second-floor shifts in with the mansard roof forms. The proposed design evens out the side walls.
She then provided a view of the elevation from the neighboring property. She feels there it has some
articulation even though it does not meet the 50 ft length requirement. They do not feel the addition
changes the overall form and may simplify it by continuing the gable form.
Next, she provided a floor plan showing the proposed addition. The addition will go out 11 ft towards
the alley. They looked at utilizing different gables, but decided the existing gable was the most
contextually prominent feature. She feels the bulk and mass is focused on the front façade and perceive
the addition as a minor impact. They do feel it fits the architecture intent of the RDS and there is no
addition that would not add on to the over 50 ft sidewall depth because of the existing garage.
Ms. Ellis displayed a model of the proposed design from a bird’s eye view.
Mr. Rawley then reviewed the overall goal of the RDS and stated the proposed change does not change
the intent of the RDS. He reviewed the two criteria and noted it only needs to meet one of them.
1) Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard. He
provided the following regarding this criterion:
a. Impossible without tearing down the house to address the depth and articulation
requirements
b. The house was built in 1994 prior to any RDS
c. The greenest house is one that is already built – why go through unnecessary
construction with impacts?
d. The current house reflects the era of design that is part of Aspen’s history
2) Variances are warranted if it is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-
specific constraints. He provided the following regarding this criterion:
a. Main constraint is the date the house was built which does not relate well to the current
RDS
b. Applicant has available floor area for the addition so it is patently unfair to deny the use
of the available floor area
Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of the applicant.
Mr. Mesirow asked if 100 sf is the actual size of the addition. Mr. Rawley replied it is 118 sf.
Mr. Mesirow asked which criterion they believe the project meets. Mr. Rawley replied it is the second
one related to fairness.
P8
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2017
4
Mr. Morris asked if they are also trying to adhere to the first to which Mr. Rawley stated they are trying
to adhere to the first criterion based on what exists on the site already.
Mr. Mesirow asked if they applicant believes there is an inherent right for an addition. Mr. Rawley
replied if floor area is available, it is unfair to say to a resident they cannot use the available floor area
considering they are not violating any other dimensional limitation. There is a pre-existing
nonconformity for the floor area and by using the code they are taking elements from the basement and
repositioning that floor area. Ms. Ellis believes the existing nonconformity is the site constraint.
Mr. Mesirow then asked for public comment. He noted the letter received from Mr. Randy Martin, the
next door neighbor who supports the project. Ms. Seminick read the letter received from Mr. Brian
Hazen, realtor for the applicant, supports their application. Both letters were submitted as Exhibit B on
the agenda packet. There was none so he closed this portion of the hearing.
Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion.
Mr. McKnight is concerned if the board approves this, others will request the same.
Mr. Morris believes the board is in place to evaluate these situations. He thanked staff for making their
recommendation but feels generally supportive. He does not see a huge impact to the neighborhood
and the applicant has worked through the design as completely as possible. He feels it is a reasonable
request.
Mr. McKnight is leaning toward supporting it as well. He is not sure the applicant has provided a strong
case, but feels it is minimal. He guaranteed the neighboring property will be in next. He believes the
second criterion may apply, but the home was purchased after the RDS was in place. He does feel it is
their house to modify as long as it does not impact the neighbors.
Mr. Goode stated he is in favor of it because it is a unique circumstance and is small in nature. He also
believes others will be asking for a similar variance.
Ms. McNicholas Kury asked staff about the language for the purpose of the particular standard. Ms.
Phelan read the highlights of the intent of the standard.
At 5:15 pm, Mr. John Rowland, Rowland and Broughton, joined the applicant team at the meeting.
Mr. Mesirow noted the design clearly does not meet the standard. He appreciates the letter from the
neighbor, but the board needs to serve the neighborhood and not just the one neighbor. From a fairness
perspective, it is site-specific, not time-specific. He does not see an inherent right to increase the size of
the house.
Ms. Tygre noted it is a minor application before the discussion, but after hearing the applicant’s
presentation, she is more convinced to say no and feels staff is correct. She believes technically they are
not increasing a nonconformity based on how FAR is measured. She feels they are taking invisible FAR
and making it visible. She said she is tired of hearing every applicant say the RDS does not apply to their
circumstance.
Mr. Morris believes it is inappropriate to read into intent and suggested in not be considered. Ms.
McNicholas Kury stated the language allows the board to consider the purpose of the standard which
would come under the fairness criterion. Mr. Morris then said to strike what he previously stated.
P9
IV.B.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2017
5
Mr. Morris believes it to be a small change and does not have a problem with it. He feels it is a
subjective decision outside the RDS. Mr. Mesirow asked him to describe how he defines fairness. Mr.
Morris stated if it was a new build, it would need to adhere to the RDS.
Mr. Walterscheid stated he was in favor of the request noting the basement sf is allocated based on
how much of the wall is visible and noted clearly does not meet the regulations. He stated there have
been three or four similar proposals before the board and he is having an issue with the current RDS.
The previous version applied more to a historic home with a detached garage with a linking connection.
He feels it was written better in the previous version. He believes you would not get 50 ft in any
direction before you have a five ft offset. He personally does not believe that was what was intended in
the discussions by the committees reviewing the RDS.
Mr. Walterscheid stated due to fairness, he does not have a problem with the request. In regards to
accessibility or ADA, he does not believe the board has purview to discuss it as it could get into potential
areas of discrimination.
Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Walterscheid if he wanted to discuss the content of the RDS more outside of the
hearing. Mr. Walterscheid responded he would like time to re-discuss the RDS. He has an issue with the
one standard that keeps coming up and from his perspective, he is not sure it reflects the previous RDS
goals and sees it as being more restrictive.
Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to approve Resolution 10, Series 2017 and was seconded by Mr. Morris.
Mr. Mesirow then asked for a roll call. Roll Call: Ms. McNicholas Kury, no; Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. Tygre,
no; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes, and Mr. Mesirow, no for a total of four
yes and three no (4-3). The motion was approved.
Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
It was motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded. All in favor, the motion was approved and
the meeting was adjourned.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
P10
IV.B.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
MEETING DATE: August 1, 2017
RE: Durant and Fifth Avenue Condominiums; Pool Area Replacement
Special Review, Replacement of Non-Conforming Structures
ESA Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review
APPLICANT:
Durant Condominiums
Homeowners Association and
Fifth Avenue Condominiums
Homeowners Association
REPRESENTATIVE:
Randall Henrie, Z-Group
Architects.
LOCATION:
Street Address:
718 S. Galena St. (Durant)
800 S. Mill St. (Fifth Avenue)
Parcel Identification Number:
2737-182-768-00 (Durant)
2737-182-748-00 (Fifth Avenue)
See Exhibit A for full legal
description
CURRENT ZONING & USE
These two condominium complexes
are both located in the Lodge Zone
District. They share an existing, non-
conforming pool area.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicants are requesting to
replace the existing pool area to
address several necessary repairs to
the pool and deck, and bring features
into compliance with current
building codes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve
a Special Review, and an Exemption to 8040 Greenline Review for
the replacement of an existing, legal non-conforming pool area and
related features.
SUMMARY:
A pool area that spans the property line between the Durant and Fifth
Avenue Condominiums is in disrepair. Safety, functionality, and
aesthetic improvements require total replacement of the pool area
features. The existing pool area is legally non-conforming in several
aspects of the current Land Use Code including: setbacks, location,
and dimensional requirements. The replacement of the pool area will
not expand any of the non-conforming qualities.
Figure 1. Location of project and footprint of existing residence.
The blue arrow identifies the pool area that spans the lot line separating
the Fifth Avenue and Durant Condominiums.
Source: City of Aspen GIS.
S. Galena St.
Durant
Fifth Avenue
Pool Area
P11
VI.A.
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following review:
• Special Review, Replacement of Non-Conforming Structures (26.430.040.B) to replace a non-
conforming pool area. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority.
• ESA Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review (26.435.030.B) to evaluate whether the proposed pool
replacement is subject to a full 8040 Greenline Review. The location of the proposed project in the
8040 Greenline review area requires this review. This review is Administrative, but since it is
connected to a Special Review, Planning and Zoning is the final review authority.
• ESA Exemption, Mountain View Plane Review (26.435.050.D). Under the language provided by
Ordinance 34, Series of 2016, there is now a provision that allows certain types of development to
occur without review in the background of an established view plane. While this does not require
Administrative or Planning and Zoning Commission review, it is discussed here as the application
was submitted during the transition to the new Code language. The scope of proposed work is
exempt pursuant to 26.435.050.D.
Please refer to Exhibit B, Review Criteria and Staff Findings for discussion.
BACKGROUND:
The Land Use Code (LUC) generally allows legally established, non-conforming features to be maintained
as long as changes are limited to general repair and preventative maintenance. When features are proposed
for demolition (as defined by the Code), The LUC requires that the non-conforming aspects of a project are
corrected. Special Review for replacement of non-conforming structures can allow demolition and
replacement of non-conformities (and allow non-conforming aspects of a feature to remain) as long as
review criteria are met.
Figure 2. Existing conditions and proposed remodel of shared pool area at the Durant and Fifth
Avenue Condominiums. The pool area is not expanding in size, but would now be compliant with
applicable building codes. (Source: Z Group Architects)
S. Galena Street
P12
VI.A.
According to the Application, these conditions cannot be resolved through general repair and maintenance.
A full replacement of the pool area is the only mechanism to effectively correct the existing conditions.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Land Use Code pursues fairness in responding to legal, non-conforming structures and uses. However,
in general, when a non-conforming feature is in need of replacement or pursues demolition, most
circumstances require that the structure or use come into compliance with current code. In other
circumstances, the LUC allows replacements while permitting non-conformities to continue. Staff finds that
Figure 3. Photo, existing conditions of hot tub surround.
Due to poor soils and leaking, the hot tub and pool shells are
separating from the surrounding deck.
Figure 4. Photo, spalling on hot tub surface. Due to
cracking and shifting of the pool and hot tub shells,
simply resurfacing these features to correct this condition
is not practical, and would not provide a long term
solution.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT:
The Durant and Fifth Avenue Condominiums
share a pool area that spans the property line
separating the two properties. Established
legally, the pool area is non-conforming in
several ways:
1) The allowable floor area for both
condominiums complexes is exceeded. The
pool area surround counts as deck and
contributes to the non-conforming floor area.
2) The pool area spans a property line.
3) The pool area is located in a front yard.
4) A portion of the retaining wall exceeds the
30” height limitation for features in a setback.
5) The fence surrounding the pool area
exceeds the 42” limit allowed in a front yard.
6) An existing mechanical shed is non-
conforming in terms of size, height and
location. (this is proposed to be removed).
Built decades ago, the pool area and related
features are in need of repair and or
replacement. The pool and hot tub are cracked
in several locations and are leaking. The poor
soils in this area have contributed to the pool
and hot tub shells separating and sinking away
from the decks. The surface of both the pool
and hot tub are spalling (flaking). Fences and
timber retaining walls are beginning to rot. In
short, the state of disrepair is causing safety
concerns and the facilities appear worn and in
disrepair. Additionally several aspects of the
facilities are not compliant with current
building codes, including accessibility
requirements.
P13
VI.A.
this proposed project meets the criteria of Special Review to allow replacement. The location has site
specific constraints including slopes, poor soils and the significant presence of the primary structures that
define the two condominium complexes – preventing relocation. The proposed improvements will
dramatically improve the appearance and safety conditions of the pool area, including bringing the pool
fencing and accessibility features into compliance with current building codes. The proposed project will
not increase any of the existing non-conforming conditions. A proposed condition of approval requires that
any design changes prior to building permit do not expand any non-conformity, unless required for
compliance with applicable building codes.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Beyond Community Development review, the Application was sent to the Parks and Engineering
Department. Parks will require a tree permit for the removal of two trees adjacent to the pool area and the
City Forester will continue to evaluate any potential impacts to other adjacent trees during demolition and
efforts to stabilize soils during the reconstruction of the pool area. These requirements are a proposed
condition of approval. Engineering was primarily focused on the requirements of the 8040 Greenline
standards. Engineering Staff have no concerns.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the replacement of the pool area at the Durant and Fifth Avenue Condominiums,
subject to two conditions.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. ____, Series of 2017, approving Special
Review and an Exemption to 8040 Greenline Review to replace the pool area for the Durant and Fifth
Avenue Condominiums.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Legal Description
Exhibit B – Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Application
Exhibit D – Public Notice Affidavits
P14
VI.A.
RESOLUTION NO. XX
(SERIES OF 2017)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A NON-COMFORMING STRUCTURE AND
AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW EXEMPTION FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF A
POOL AREA AT THE DURANT AND FIFTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS,
LOCATED AT 718 S. GALENA STREET AND 800 S. MILL STREET; ASPEN,
COLORADO. (SEE EXHIBIT A FOR FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
Parcel No. 273718276800 (DURANT)
273718274800 (FIFTH AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Randall Henrie of Z Group Architects., on behalf of Durant and Fifth Avenue Condominiums
Homeowners Associations requesting Special Review for a non-conforming structure and an
8040 Greenline Review Exemption for the replace of an existing pool area at 718 S. Galena St.
and 800 S. Mill Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application
for compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Engineering Department and Parks Department reviewed
the application; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of Special Review and 8040
Greenline Review Exemption; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as
identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public
hearing on August 1, 2017; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meet either applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution XX, Series of
2017, by a X to X (X - X) vote, granting approval of Special Review for a non-conforming
structure and 8040 Greenline Review Exemption, as identified herein.
P15
VI.A.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
Section 1: Special Review and 8040 Greenline Review Exemption
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the replacement of an existing pool area
through Special Review for a non-conforming structure and an Exemption to 8040 Greenline
Review as described in the Application and depicted in the attached Exhibit B. The approval is
subject to the following conditions:
1) Any design changes to the replacement project between the time of this approval and
the submission of the building permit shall not increase any non-conforming aspects of
the existing development, unless required for conformance with applicable building
codes.
2) The Applicant will apply for a tree permit for the removal of two trees adjacent
to the pool area and will continue to consult with the City Forester to assess potential
impacts to other adjacent trees during demolition and construction.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
P16
VI.A.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on August 1, 2017.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
____________________________ ______________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Full Legal Description of Properties
Exhibit B: Drawings of Existing and Proposed Pool Area
P17
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Durant and Fifth Avenue
Condominiums
Durant Legal Description:
Condominium Common Areas, THE DURANT, according to the Condominium Map recorded
January 6, 1969 in Plat Book 3 at Page 376 and First Supplement recorded December 18, 1969 in
Plat Book 4 at Page 36 and First Amendment to the First Supplement recorded January 19, 2000
as Reception No. 439665 and as defined and described by the Condominium Declaration for The
Durant recorded January 13, 1969 in Book 238 at Page 968 and First Supplement recorded
December 18, 1969 in Book 245 at Page 102 and First Amendment to the First Supplement
recorded January 19, 2000 as Reception No. 439665.
Fifth Avenue Legal Description:
The General Common Elements, Buildings A, B, C and D, Fifth Avenue (A Condominium),
according to the Condominium Map recorded January 10, 1965 in Plat Book 3, Page 59 and First
Supplement recorded January 19, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 122 and according to the Second
Supplement to Map of Fifth Avenue Recorded December 5, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 257 and
as defined and described in Condominium Declaration for Fifth Avenue Recorded December 1,
1965 in Book 217 at Page 172 and First Supplement Recorded February 7, 1967 in Book 225 at
Page 379 and Second Supplement Recorded December 1, 1967 in Book 230 at Page 518.
P18
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Existing and Proposed
P19
VI.A.
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Durant and Fifth Avenue
Condominiums
Durant Legal Description:
Condominium Common Areas, THE DURANT, according to the Condominium Map recorded
January 6, 1969 in Plat Book 3 at Page 376 and First Supplement recorded December 18, 1969 in
Plat Book 4 at Page 36 and First Amendment to the First Supplement recorded January 19, 2000
as Reception No. 439665 and as defined and described by the Condominium Declaration for The
Durant recorded January 13, 1969 in Book 238 at Page 968 and First Supplement recorded
December 18, 1969 in Book 245 at Page 102 and First Amendment to the First Supplement
recorded January 19, 2000 as Reception No. 439665.
Fifth Avenue Legal Description:
The General Common Elements, Buildings A, B, C and D, Fifth Avenue (A Condominium),
according to the Condominium Map recorded January 10, 1965 in Plat Book 3, Page 59 and First
Supplement recorded January 19, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 122 and according to the Second
Supplement to Map of Fifth Avenue Recorded December 5, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 257 and
as defined and described in Condominium Declaration for Fifth Avenue Recorded December 1,
1965 in Book 217 at Page 172 and First Supplement Recorded February 7, 1967 in Book 225 at
Page 379 and Second Supplement Recorded December 1, 1967 in Book 230 at Page 518.
P20
VI.A.
Exhibit B
Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Special Review
26.430.040. Review standards for special review.
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set
forth below.
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development
are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions
are met.
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping
and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is
compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
Staff Findings: The pool area is non-conforming is several ways. However, the pool area and associated
features are common to this type of use, are designed in a way that limits any potential negative impact,
and the proposed repairs bring several aspects of the pool area into compliance with current building
codes. The safety, functionality, and aesthetics of the space will be greatly improved by this project. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse
impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not
limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the
neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane.
Staff Findings: The existing pool area has been part of the neighborhood context in this area for decades
with no negative impacts. The deterioration of these features however has led to safety concerns. Replacing
these features will be of benefit to the residents, neighbors and visitors of these developments. Staff finds
this criterion to be met.
B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does
not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located is proposed
to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met:
1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040.A above;
Staff Findings: Staff finds these criterion to be met.
2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district;
Staff Findings: While the pool area is currently non-conforming for a variety of reasons, it was legally
established. The lot configurations of the established residential developments primarily result from the
sloped nature of the lots. Relocation of the pool area would be impractical if not impossible. Additionally,
poor soil conditions and the severity of the repairs that are needed do not allow for more superficial
treatment to correct the conditions of the pool area.
P21
VI.A.
3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and
Staff Findings: The pool area replacement will be located in a nearly identical footprint. It will not be
expanding in size, nor will it move closer to the street. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause
unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property.
Staff Findings: As discussed previously, the combination of site constraints and existing development would
make a code conforming relocation of the pool area impractical, if not impossible. While a pool area is
not a necessary component of a development project, the established use of this pool area should be allowed
to continue. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
8040 Greenline Exemption
26.435.030. 8040 Greenline review.
A. Applicability. The provisions of 8040 Greenline review shall apply to all development located at
or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) in the City and all development within one
hundred fifty (150) feet below, as measured horizontally, the 8040 Greenline, unless exempted pursuant to
Subsection 26.435.030.B.. Development on land located in the R-15B Zone District is not subject to the
8040 Greenline review.
B. Exemption. The Community Development Director may exempt the expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction of an existing 8040 Greenline development if the following standards are met:
1. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the existing structure
or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the structure which are exempt from floor
area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%); and
Staff Findings: The footprint of the existing pool area is remaining. Additionally, an existing mechanical
shed is being removed from the existing conditions. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required
pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said Section; and
Staff Findings: A tree permit will be required for the removal of two small trees. The Applicant is aware of
this requirement and this will be a proposed condition of approval.
3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result
in increased erosion and sedimentation.
Staff Findings: The Engineering Department has evaluated the project and does not have any concerns in
this area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. All exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches the totals specified in Subsection
26.435.030.B.1, an 8040 Greenline review must be obtained pursuant to Subsection 26.435.030.C.
Staff Findings: To staff’s knowledge, neither The Durant or Fifth Avenue Condominiums have utilized any
of this cumulative limit for 8040 Greenline Exemption for other projects. As stated above, this project does
not increase the size of the pool area. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P22
VI.A.
Mountain View Plane Exemption
26.435.050.D. Exemptions. The following development activities on properties located in the mid- and
background of a view plane are exempt from the provisions of this Section and may proceed directly to
zoning compliance check and building permit review, where the applicant shall demonstrate the
improvement meets the following review criteria.
1. Structures:
a. Any addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change or decreases
a building’s height at any point or visible mass from the view plane reference point;
or
Staff Findings: Both of these parcels (Durant and Fifth Avenue) are within the background of the Wheeler,
Cooper Avenue, Courthouse and Main Street view planes. As the project does not increase the height of the
existing features or visible mass, this project is considered exempt.
Note: The application for this project was submitted during the transition period between the old and new
viewplanes code (Ordinance 34, Series of 2016). While the project meets criteria for approval under both
codes, the new code provides more clarity as to what development activities are allowed in the background
of a viewplane.
P23
VI.A.
P24
VI.A.
P25
VI.A.
P26
VI.A.
P27
VI.A.
P28
VI.A.
P29
VI.A.
P30
VI.A.
P31
VI.A.
P32
VI.A.
P33
VI.A.
P34
VI.A.
P35
VI.A.
P36
VI.A.
P37
VI.A.
P38
VI.A.
P39
VI.A.
P40
VI.A.
P41
VI.A.
P42
VI.A.
P43
VI.A.
P44
VI.A.
P45
VI.A.
P46
VI.A.
P47
VI.A.
P48
VI.A.
P49
VI.A.
P50
VI.A.
the DURANT and FIFTH AVENUE
CONDOMININUMS HOA’S
Pool & Hot Tub Area, Land Use Application
Special Review
8040 Greenline
Mountain View Plane
May 10, 2017
Z-GROUP ARCHITECTS, P.C.
411 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
P51
VI.A.
City C970
Durant & Fifth Avenue Condominiums
Pool & Hot Tub Repair Project
Table of Contents
A. Land Use Application(s)
B. Agreement(s) to Pay Application Fees
C. Written Description
D. Pre-application Conference Summary
E. Legal Description(s)/Proof(s) of Ownership
F. HOA Compliance Policy(s)
G. Applicant(s) Representative Authority
H. Submittal Requirements (Attachment 4)
I. Vicinity Map(s)
J. Site Improvement Survey(s)
K. Dimensional Requirement(s)
L. 8040 Greenline
M. Mountain View Plane
N. Construction Management Plan
O. Pool Area & Durant Drainage Report
P. Drawings and Graphics
Index / Cover Sheet / Construction Method
Existing Conditions Images
Civil/Drainage, see Table of Contents Item O.
Existing & Proposed Site Plans
Elevations/Sections/Details
Civil, Site Improvements
P52
VI.A.
P53
VI.A.
P54
VI.A.
P55
VI.A.
P56
VI.A.
P57
VI.A.
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
May 10, 2017
RE: Fifth Avenue Condominiums
800 South Mill St.
Aspen CO 81611
Durant Condominiums
718 South Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
Subject: Written Description for;
Land Use Application, Pool & Hot Tub Repair Project,
Special Review, Non-Conforming Structures,
8040 Greenline Exemption,
Mountain View Plane Review
The Fifth Avenue Condominiums and the Durant Condominiums are co-Applicants in
regards to this Land Use Application. The primary construction goal of this project is
replacement of the existing pool, hot tub, surrounding concrete decking, and surrounding fence
associated retaining walls. These existing amenities have been in continuous use and are
jointly shared by the Fifth Avenue and Durant Condominium complexes. This proposed Project
is the final major step in the extensive exterior renovations that have recently occurred on each
Property.
The Applicant(s) are seeking Special Review Approval for replacement and continuation
of existing non-conforming features, and associated 8040 Greenline Exemption, and Mountain
View Plane Review (please reference Tab ‘L’ and Tab ‘M’ respectively).
Existing Condition Issues
Due to poor soils, age, continuous leaks, and weathering in an extreme
environment, the pool & hot tub components need repair & replacement. The existing
deteriorating conditions create unsafe conditions with multiple trip hazards, fences
mounted on timber retaining walls that are in danger of falling, and potential spa & pool
water quality issues due to cracked & spalling finishes which create more potential for
bacteria growth. Additionally, continuous leaking introduces treated water into the
environment. Please Reference Drawing Sheets A-002 and A-003. The deteriorating
appearance of inferior materials is also not in keeping with the high-quality vacation
destination that Aspen is known for.
P58
VI.A.
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
Proposed Repair/Replacement
Due to poor soil conditions, the existing concrete pool shell cannot be repaired in
place, but is proposed for complete replacement & soil stabilization as necessary. To
better utilize the space, proposed is to locate the hot tub within the pool footprint.
These proposed replacement items necessarily dictate the removal and replacement of
the existing (damaged) decks. Finally, it is proposed to replace the deteriorating wood
fence & timber retaining walls with more durable materials. Please reference Drawings
Graphics under Tab ‘P’.
Non-Conforming Aspects
The Pool, Hot Tub, and surrounding features are non-conforming in regards to
Setbacks, location, and dimensional requirements. Specifically, these existing features
are located in a Front Yard, these features span a Property Line, are within Setbacks,
and existing Floor Areas for each parcel are greater than allowed.
On the Durant side of the Pool area, retaining walls & decks are at grade and
therefore in compliance. On the Fifth Avenue side a small section of retaining wall &
associated deck is in minor violation of a 30” height restriction.
A mechanical shed is non-conforming due to size, height, and location, and also
facilitates the potential for climbing over the fence (an International Building Code
violation).
The pool surrounding fence is also non-conforming per the Municipal Code in
regards to height, this requirement however is a conflict between the Municipal Code
requirement of a maximum 42” in this locatio, and the International Building Code
Life/Safety requirement.
The intent for this proposed Project is that no component shall be enlarged or extended
beyond the existing non-conforming condition. There is no change of Use or Occupancy.
If Approved, some of the features will remain non-conforming;
Front Yard, Setbacks, & Shared Property Line: The proposal is to retain these
features in the present location. Other than the existing shared location, there is
no other available area on either parcel of sufficient size and configuration for
these amenities.
Floor Areas: No floor area is being increased. This is an exterior project only and
square footage areas for the impacted areas (pool deck areas & associated
pedestrian paths) will not increase, but will be reduced by minor amounts. In
addition, the 48 square foot mechanical shed will be eliminated. These
reductions are not sufficient to bring the entirety of each parcel into compliance.
Fence Height The proposed replacement fence height is proposed to meet the
2015 IBC, Section 3109, requirement of 48”.
P59
VI.A.
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
If Approved, some of the features will be conforming;
Mechanical Shed: This shed will be eliminated and those functions will be
relocated to an existing equipment room in Building ‘D’ of the Durant complex.
30” Height for Retaining Wall, Deck & Similar Features: On the Durant side,
these features will remain at the present elevation at finish grade. On the Fifth
Avenue side these features will be lower than finish grade, but not exceed the
30” height restriction. For example, the Pool Deck within the Setback on the Fifth
Avenue parcel will vary between 18” and 30” below the adjacent parking lot
existing finished grade.
Review Standards
The Applicant believes this Project falls well within the Municipal Code, Section
26.430.040(B), Review Standards for Special Review. There is no negative impact to the
established mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping or
setbacks of the existing developments. Rather, the proposed Project is an upgrade of the
existing use and is designed to complement and be compatible with the recent upgrades that
have occurred on both the Durant and Fifth Avenue properties.
There is no impact to shading, traffic patterns, parking, or blocking of a designated view
plane. The proposed project does not increase in dimension, but decreases to a reasonable
degree the existing features, while at the same time allowing for better seating & lounging
areas, increased planting areas, and focuses views from the pool on Aspen Mountain.
Additionally, the upgrades will facilitate more efficient operation and maintenance capabilities,
and resolve safety issues.
The unique sharing of these existing amenities between neighbors is a significant benefit
to both properties, allows resources to be shared, and will allow these complexes to continue as
high-quality vacation destinations. Other than the existing shared location, there is no other
available area on either parcel of sufficient size and configuration for these amenities.
Conclusion
The Applicants believes this Pool & Hot Tub, and associated features, are critical
amenities for the Vacation Rental function of each complex, and for Aspen, and as such should
be allowed to continue with the proposed repairs & replacement. It is hoped that this Land Use
Application with corresponding Special Use Review, Mountain View Plane Review, and 8040
Greenline Exemption, should suffice for Approval, and the Project can proceed to the Permit
Coordination and Permitting process.
Thank you for your consideration.
Randy Henrie
Architect
P60
VI.A.
ASLU
800 S. Mill
Special Review
PIDs – 273718276800 & 273718274800
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Jim Pomeroy, 429-2745 DATE: 2/27/17
PROJECT: Fifth Avenue Condominiums and Durant Condominiums
REPRESENTATIVE: Randy Henrie, Z-Group Architects
DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is interested in receiving approval to demolish and rebuild portions of a structure that are
nonconforming with regard to setbacks and dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property
is located. The nonconforming structure is a pool, a hot tub, a surrounding deck and supporting mechanical
room(s). Neither of the two condominiums that share the pool are Planned Developments. The
nonconforming characteristics of the structures are a pool/deck area spanning a lot line, a pool and hot tub in
the front yard, retaining walls and decks in the front setback taller than 30” above grade, and possibly decks
and mechanical rooms greater than the allowed Floor Area for the parcels.
According to the applicant’s representative, in order to properly rebuild the nonconforming structures, the
entire structure will need to be demolished and then rebuilt. According to the nonconformities section of the
Land Use Code, section 26.312, when demolition is triggered, only a replacement structure that conforms with
all aspects of the Land Use Code may be replaced unless Special Review is granted for replacement of the
existing nonconformities by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The application submittal should clearly
identify all current nonconformities and those that are being requested to be maintained.
Besides nonconformities, the replacement structure will require an 8040 Green line exemption review, and a
Mountain View Plane Review. Both of these reviews will require referrals from Parks and Engineering. These
two reviews are typically done administratively, however staff requests that these approvals should be
wrapped into the Special Review hearing. Because the feature in question spans two parcels, the two
different condominiums should be co-applicants. Therefore, there will need to be some duplicate information
furnished for each condominium, which will be indicated on the list below with a (2).
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.312.030 Non-conforming structures
26.430.040(B) Special Review – Replacement of nonconforming structures
26.435 Development in Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) – 8040 Greenline and
Mountain View planes
26.710.190 Lodge Zone District
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
P61
VI.A.
P62
VI.A.
P63
VI.A.
P64
VI.A.
P65
VI.A.
P66
VI.A.
P67
VI.A.
P68
VI.A.
P69
VI.A.
P70
VI.A.
P71
VI.A.
P72
VI.A.
P73
VI.A.
P74
VI.A.
April 12, 2017
Via Delivery by Randy Henrie
Jim Pomeroy
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Denver Office
David A. Firmin
Direct 303.991.2028
dfirmin@hindmansanchez.com
Re: Pool & Hot Tub Repair Project at:
800 South Mill Street (Fifth Avenue Condominiums)
for Land Use Application regarding:
Special Review, Nonconforming Structures
Our File No. 6754.0019
Aspen Building Department:
This Certification of Ownership is being provided pursuant to the Pre-Application Conference Summary
dated February 27, 2017 for the Pool & Hot Tub Repair Project at 800 South Mill Street (Fifth Avenue
Condominiums).
Attorney: The undersigned attorney, David A. Firmin, is currently licensed to practice in the State of
Colorado and is in good standing, having a registration number of 29988.
Street Address: The street address of the Property is 800 S. Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Description: The General Common Elements, Buildings A, B, C and D, Fifth Avenue (A
Condominium), according to the Condominium Map recorded January 10, 1965 in Plat Book 3, Page 59
and First Supplement recorded January 19, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 122 and according to the Second
Supplement to Map of Fifth Avenue Recorded December 5, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 257 and as defined
and described in Condominium Declaration for Fifth Avenue Recorded December 1, 1965 in Book 217 at
Page 172 and First Supplement Recorded February 7, 1967 in Book 225 at Page 379 and Second
Supplement Recorded December 1, 1967 in Book 230 at Page 518.
Owner: The Owner of the above-described property is Fifth Avenue Condominium Association, a Colorado
Nonprofit Corporation, as set forth in the Property Information Binder Number ABS 62006885 issued by
Land Title Guarantee Company, which is attached hereto. (Attachment No. 1)
Mortgagees: There are currently no mortgages encumbering the Property. However, of record is a
Financing Statement” with ANB, the Securing Party, recorded July 16, 2015 at Reception No. 621570 in the
real property records of Pitkin County. This financing statement, however, does not encumber the Property
but rather the right to receive common expense assessments.
Judgments: As of March 30, 2017, there are no judgment liens of record.
P75
VI.A.
Page 2
City of Aspen
Fifth Avenue Condominiums
April 12, 2017
Liens: As of March 30, 2017, there are no liens of record.
Easements: The following easements encumber the property:
Right of Way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in
United States Patent Recorded May 2, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 177 and recorded May 2, 1949 in Book 175
at Page 208 and recorded may 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 202.
Easements contained in those certain Restrictive Covenants recorded December 1, 1965 in Book
217 at Page 172 as amended in that instrument recorded February 7, 1967 in Book 225 at Page 379 and as
amended in that instrument recorded December 1, 1967 in Book 230 at Page 518. These are undefined
easements for utilities which utilities are required to be buried.
Grant of Easement between Fifth Avenue Condominiums and Comcast as evidenced by that
easement dated November 1, 2009 and recorded August 24, 2010 at Reception No. 572967.
Easements depicted on the Improvement and Topographical Survey Plat of Fifth Avenue
Condominiums recorded at Book 105 at Page 38. (The Survey Plat is attached hereto as Attachment 2).
Grant of Easement between Fifth Avenue Condominiums and Holy Cross Energy evidenced by that
easement dated August 4, 2016 and recorded on August 12, 2016 at Reception No. 631393 and rerecorded
October 11, 2016 at Reception No. 632916.
Contracts and Agreements: As of March 30, 2017, other than a Contract for Water Service recorded on
September 15, 1966 at Book 222, Page 54 providing for the delivery of water to the Project, there are no
agreements or contracts affecting the land of record. However, new contracts will be entered into upon
approval of the project.
Evidence of Authority: The Association is the association identified at Paragraph 2, (h) of the Declaration
of Condominium for Fifth Avenue (a Condominium). Pursuant to the Articles of Incorporation of Fifth
Avenue Condominiums and the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act codified at
C.R.S. § 38-33.3-101 et seq., specifically C.R.S. § 38-33.3-302, the Association is charged with the
management, maintenance, and repair of the common elements within the community, including the
buildings and all surrounding land encumbered by the Declaration. As such, the owner is fully empowered
to enter into and apply for the work defined in the 800 S. Mill Street application.
Please feel free to contact this office with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
David A. Firmin
HindmanSanchez P.C.
DAF/lvm
Enc.
c: Board of Directors, Fifth Avenue Condominium Association
06356918.DOCX
P76
VI.A.
Property Information Binder
1. Definition of Terms
The following terms when used in this Binder mean:
a) "Land": The land described, specifically or by reference, in this Binder and improvements affixed thereto which by law
constitute real property;
b) "Public Records"; those records which impart constructive notice of matters relating to said land;
c) "Date": the effective date;
d) "the Assured": the party or parties named as the Assured in this Binder, or in a supplemental writing executed by the
Company;
e) "the Company" means Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota stock company.
2. Exclusions from Coverage of this Binder
The company assumes no liability including cost of defense by reason of the following:
a) Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or
assessments on real property or by the Public Records; taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special
assessments not yet certified to the Treasurers office.
b) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights,
claims or title to water.
c) Title to any property beyond the lines of the Land, or title to streets, roads, avenues, lanes, ways or waterways on which
such land abuts, or the right to maintain therein vaults, tunnels, ramps, or any other structure or improvement; or any
rights or easements therein unless such property, rights or easements are expressly and specifically set forth in said
description.
d) Mechanic's lien(s), judgment(s) or other lien(s).
e) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered or agreed to by the Assured;
b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records as of the Date, but known to the Assured as of
the Date; or (c) attaching or creating subsequent to the Date.
3. Prosecution of Actions
a) The Company shall have the right at its own costs to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or do any other act
which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish or confirm the matters herein assured; and the Company
may take any appropriate action under the terms of this Binder, whether or not it shall be liable thereunder and shall not
thereby concede liability or waive any provision hereof.
b) In all cases where the Company does not institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, the Assured shall permit the
Company to use, at its option, the name of the Assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the Assured
shall give the Company all reasonable aid in prosecuting such action or proceeding, and the Company shall reimburse the
Assured for any expense so incurred.
4. Notice of Loss - Limitation of Action
A statement in writing of any loss or damage for which it is claimed the Company is liable under this Binder shall be
furnished to the Company within sixty days after such loss or damage shall have been determined, and no right of action
shall accrue to the Assured under this Binder until thirty days after such statement shall have been furnished, and no
recovery shall be had by the Assured under this Binder unless action shall be commenced thereon with two years after
expiration of the thirty day period. Failure to furnish the statement of loss or damage or to commence the action within the
time herinbefore specified, shall be conclusive bar against maintenance by the Assured of any action under this Binder.
5. Option to Pay, Settle or Compromise Claims
The Company shall have the option to pay, settle or compromise for or in the name of the Assured any claim which could
result in loss to the Assured within the coverage of this Binder, or to pay the full amount of this Binder. Such payment or
tender of payment of the full amount of the Binder shall terminate all liability of the Company hereunder.
Copyright 2006-2013 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good
standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Property Information Binder
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1.Definition of Terms
The following terms when used in this Binder mean:
a) "Land": The land described, specifically or by reference, in this Binder and improvements affixed thereto which by law
constitute real property;
b) "Public Records"; those records which impart constructive notice of matters relating to said land;
c) "Date": the effective date;
d) "the Assured": the party or parties named as the Assured in this Binder, or in a supplemental writing executed by the
Company;
e) "the Company" means Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota stock company.
2.Exclusions from Coverage of this Binder
The company assumes no liability including cost of defense by reason of the following:
a) Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or
assessments on real property or by the Public Records; taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special
assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office.
b) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights,
claims or title to water.
c) Title to any property beyond the lines of the Land, or title to streets, roads, avenues, lanes, ways or waterways on which
such land abuts, or the right to maintain therein vaults, tunnels, ramps, or any other structure or improvement; or any
rights or easements therein unless such property, rights or easements are expressly and specifically set forth in said
description.
d) Mechanic's lien(s), judgment(s) or other lien(s).
e) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered or agreed to by the Assured;
b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records as of the Date, but known to the Assured as of
the Date; or (c) attaching or creating subsequent to the Date.
3.Prosecution of Actions
a) The Company shall have the right at its own costs to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or do any other act
which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish or confirm the matters herein assured; and the Company
may take any appropriate action under the terms of this Binder, whether or not it shall be liable thereunder and shall not
thereby concede liability or waive any provision hereof.
b) In all cases where the Company does not institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, the Assured shall permit the
Company to use, at its option, the name of the Assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the Assured
shall give the Company all reasonable aid in prosecuting such action or proceeding, and the Company shall reimburse the
Assured for any expense so incurred.
4.Notice of Loss - Limitation of Action
A statement in writing of any loss or damage for which it is claimed the Company is liable under this Binder shall be
furnished to the Company within sixty days after such loss or damage shall have been determined, and no right of action
shall accrue to the Assured under this Binder until thirty days after such statement shall have been furnished, and no
recovery shall be had by the Assured under this Binder unless action shall be commenced thereon with two years after
expiration of the thirty day period. Failure to furnish the statement of loss or damage or to commence the action within the
time herinbefore specified, shall be conclusive bar against maintenance by the Assured of any action under this Binder.
5.Option to Pay, Settle or Compromise Claims
The Company shall have the option to pay, settle or compromise for or in the name of the Assured any claim which could
result in loss to the Assured within the coverage of this Binder, or to pay the full amount of this Binder. Such payment or
tender of payment of the full amount of the Binder shall terminate all liability of the Company hereunder.
Copyright 2006-2013 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good
standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
P77
VI.A.
6. Limitation of Liability - Payment of Loss
a) The liability of the Company under this Binder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured
because
of reliance upon the assurances herein set forth, but in no event shall the liability exceed the amount of the liability
stated on the face page hereof.
b) The Company will pay all costs imposed upon the Assured in litigation carried on by the Company for the Assured, and
all costs and attorneys' fees in litigation carried on by the Assured with the written authorization of the Company.
c) No claim for loss or damages shall arise or be maintainable under this Binder (1) if the Company after having received
notice of any alleged defect, lien or encumbrance not shown as an Exception or excluded herein removes such defect, lien
or encumbrance within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice, or (2) for liability voluntarily assumed by the Assured
in settling any claim or suit without written consent of the Company.
d) All payments under this Binder, except for attorneys fees as provided for in paragraph 6(b) thereof, shall reduce the
amount of the liability hereunder pro tanto, and no payment shall be made without producing this Binder or an acceptable
copy thereof for endorsement of the payment unless the Binder be lost or destroyed, in which case proof of the loss or
destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company.
e) When liability has been definitely fixed in accordance with the conditions of this Binder, the loss or damage shall be
payable within thirty days thereafter.
7. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement
Whenever the Company shall have settled a claim under this Binder, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company
unaffected by any act of the Assured, and it shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the
Assured would have had against any person or property in respect to the claim had this Binder not been issued. If the
payment does not cover the loss of the Assured, the Company shall be subrogated to the rights and remedies in the
proportion which the payment bears to the amount of said loss. The Assured, if requested by the Company, shall transfer to
the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect the right of subrogation,
and shall permit the Company to use the name of the Assured in any transaction or litigation involving the rights or remedies.
8. Binder Entire Contract
Any action or actions or rights of action that the Assured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the
subject matter hereof must be based on the provisions of this Binder. No provision or condition of this Binder can be waived
or changed except by a writing endorsed or attached hereto signed by the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an
Assistant Secretary or other validating officer of the Company.
9. Notices. Where Sent
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall be
addressed to it at 400 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, (612) 371-1111.
10. Arbitration
Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title
Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
ANTI-FRAUD STATEMENT: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), it is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete or misleading facts or information to
an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of
insurance and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading
facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a
settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado division of insurance within the department of regulatory
agencies.
This anti-fraud statement is affixed and made a part of this policy.
Issued through the Office of:
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
3033 E 1ST AVE #600
DENVER, CO 80206
303-850-4165
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
a Stock Company
400 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
612) 371-1111
Mark Bilbrey, President
John E. Freyer, Jr., President
ctib.cover.odt
Rande Yeager, Secretary
6.Limitation of Liability - Payment of Loss
a) The liability of the Company under this Binder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured
because
of reliance upon the assurances herein set forth, but in no event shall the liability exceed the amount of the liability
stated on the face page hereof.
b) The Company will pay all costs imposed upon the Assured in litigation carried on by the Company for the Assured, and
all costs and attorneys' fees in litigation carried on by the Assured with the written authorization of the Company.
c) No claim for loss or damages shall arise or be maintainable under this Binder (1) if the Company after having received
notice of any alleged defect, lien or encumbrance not shown as an Exception or excluded herein removes such defect, lien
or encumbrance within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice, or (2) for liability voluntarily assumed by the Assured
in settling any claim or suit without written consent of the Company.
d) All payments under this Binder, except for attorney's fees as provided for in paragraph 6(b) thereof, shall reduce the
amount of the liability hereunder pro tanto, and no payment shall be made without producing this Binder or an acceptable
copy thereof for endorsement of the payment unless the Binder be lost or destroyed, in which case proof of the loss or
destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company.
e) When liability has been definitely fixed in accordance with the conditions of this Binder, the loss or damage shall be
payable within thirty days thereafter.
7.Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement
Whenever the Company shall have settled a claim under this Binder, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company
unaffected by any act of the Assured, and it shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the
Assured would have had against any person or property in respect to the claim had this Binder not been issued. If the
payment does not cover the loss of the Assured, the Company shall be subrogated to the rights and remedies in the
proportion which the payment bears to the amount of said loss. The Assured, if requested by the Company, shall transfer to
the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect the right of subrogation,
and shall permit the Company to use the name of the Assured in any transaction or litigation involving the rights or remedies.
8.Binder Entire Contract
Any action or actions or rights of action that the Assured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the
subject matter hereof must be based on the provisions of this Binder. No provision or condition of this Binder can be waived
or changed except by a writing endorsed or attached hereto signed by the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an
Assistant Secretary or other validating officer of the Company.
9.Notices. Where Sent
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall be
addressed to it at 400 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, (612) 371-1111.
10.Arbitration
Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title
Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
ANTI-FRAUD STATEMENT: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), it is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete or misleading facts or information to
an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of
insurance and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading
facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a
settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado division of insurance within the department of regulatory
agencies.
This anti-fraud statement is affixed and made a part of this policy.
Mark Bilbrey, President
Rande Yeager, Secretary
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
a Stock Company
400 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
612) 371-1111
Issued through the Office of:
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
3033 E 1ST AVE #600
DENVER, CO 80206
303-850-4165
ctib.cover.odt
John E. Freyer, Jr., President
P78
VI.A.
Land Title Guarantee Company Representing Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
PROPERTY INFORMATION BINDER
Order Number: ABN 62008283
Policy Number: PIB62008283.2247941
Liability: $50,000.00
Fee: $500.00
Subject to the exclusions from coverage, the limits of liability and other provisions of the Conditions
and Stipulations hereto annexed and made a part of this Binder,
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
a Corporation, herein called the Company,
GUARANTEES
HINDMAN SANCHEZ P.C.
Herein called the Assured, against loss, not exceeding the liability amount stated above, which the
assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurance which the Company hereby
gives that, according to the public records as of March 31, 2017 at 5:00 P.M.
1. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
FIFTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, A COLORADO NON-PROFIT CORPORATION,
ON BEHALF OF THE INDIVIDUAL VESTED OWNERS OF EACH CONDOMINIUM UNIT,
BUILDINGS A, B, C AND D, FIFTH AVENUE (A CONDOMINIUM), ACCORDING TO THE
CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED JANUARY 10, 1965 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 59 AND
FIRST SUPPLEMENT RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 122 AND
ACCORDING TO THE SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MAP OF FIFTH AVENUE RECORDED
DECEMBER 5, 1967 IN IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 257 AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN
CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR FIFTH AVENUE RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1965 IN
BOOK 217 AT PAGE 172 AND FIRST SUPPLEMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 1967 IN BOOK
225 AT PAGE 379 AND SECOND SUPPLEMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1967 IN BOOK 230
AT PAGE 518. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
2. The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Binder
is:
A FEE SIMPLE
3. The land referred to in this Binder is situated in the State of Colorado, County of
Pitkin, described as follows:
THE GENERAL COMMON ELEMENTS, BUILDINGS A, B, C AND D, FIFTH AVENUE (A
CONDOMINIUM), ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED JANUARY 10, 1965
IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 59 AND FIRST SUPPLEMENT RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1967 IN
PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 122 AND ACCORDING TO THE SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MAP OF
FIFTH AVENUE RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1967 IN IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 257 AND AS
DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR FIFTH AVENUE
Land Title Guarantee Company Representing Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
PROPERTY INFORMATION BINDER
Order Number: ABN 62008283
Policy Number: PIB62008283.2247941
Liability: $50,000.00
Fee: $500.00
Subject to the exclusions from coverage, the limits of liability and other provisions of the Conditions
and Stipulations hereto annexed and made a part of this Binder,
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
a Corporation, herein called the Company,
GUARANTEES
HINDMAN SANCHEZ P.C.
Herein called the Assured, against loss, not exceeding the liability amount stated above, which the
assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurance which the Company hereby
gives that, according to the public records as of March 31, 2017 at 5:00 P.M.
1. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
FIFTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, A COLORADO NON-PROFIT CORPORATION,
ON BEHALF OF THE INDIVIDUAL VESTED OWNERS OF EACH CONDOMINIUM UNIT,
BUILDINGS A, B, C AND D, FIFTH AVENUE (A CONDOMINIUM), ACCORDING TO THE
CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED JANUARY 10, 1965 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 59 AND
FIRST SUPPLEMENT RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 122 AND
ACCORDING TO THE SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MAP OF FIFTH AVENUE RECORDED
DECEMBER 5, 1967 IN IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 257 AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN
CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR FIFTH AVENUE RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1965 IN
BOOK 217 AT PAGE 172 AND FIRST SUPPLEMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 1967 IN BOOK
225 AT PAGE 379 AND SECOND SUPPLEMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1967 IN BOOK 230
AT PAGE 518. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
2. The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Binder
is:
A FEE SIMPLE
3. The land referred to in this Binder is situated in the State of Colorado, County of
Pitkin, described as follows:
THE GENERAL COMMON ELEMENTS, BUILDINGS A, B, C AND D, FIFTH AVENUE (A
CONDOMINIUM), ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED JANUARY 10, 1965
IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 59 AND FIRST SUPPLEMENT RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1967 IN
PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 122 AND ACCORDING TO THE SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MAP OF
FIFTH AVENUE RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1967 IN IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 257 AND AS
DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR FIFTH AVENUE
P79
VI.A.
Land Title Guarantee Company Representing Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
PROPERTY INFORMATION BINDER
Order Number: ABN 62008283
Policy Number: PIB62008283.2247941
RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1965 IN BOOK 217 AT PAGE 172 AND FIRST SUPPLEMENT
RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 1967 IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 379 AND SECOND SUPPLEMENT
RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1967 IN BOOK 230 AT PAGE 518.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
4. The following documents affect the land:
1) RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS
RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MAY 02, 1949, IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 177,
RECORDED MAY 2, 1949 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 208, AND RECORDED AUGUST 26, 1949 IN BOOK
175 AT PAGE 299
2) RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED IN MAY 2, 1949 BOOK 175
AT PAGE 177 AND RECORDED MAY 2, 1949 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 208 AND RECORDED MAY 20,
1949 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 202.
3) RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 13, 1964, IN BOOK 206 AT PAGE 436
AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 29, 1965, IN BOOK 211 AT PAGE 344.
4) RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR,
RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE
UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
HANDICAPPED PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 01, 1965, IN
BOOK 217 AT PAGE 172 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 07, 1967, IN
BOOK 225 AT PAGE 379 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 01, 1967, IN
BOOK 230 AT PAGE 518.
5) TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT FOR WATER SERVICE RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 15, 1966 IN BOOK 222 AT PAGE 547.
6) EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH ON THE
CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED JANUARY 10, 1965 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 59 AND FIRST
SUPPLEMENT TO CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE
122 AND SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1967 IN PLAT
BOOK 3 AT PAGE 257.
7) TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 24, 2010 AT
RECEPTION NO. 572967.
8) EASEMENTS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES ON
Land Title Guarantee Company Representing Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
PROPERTY INFORMATION BINDER
Order Number: ABN 62008283
Policy Number: PIB62008283.2247941
RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1965 IN BOOK 217 AT PAGE 172 AND FIRST SUPPLEMENT
RECORDED FEBRUARY 7, 1967 IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 379 AND SECOND SUPPLEMENT
RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1967 IN BOOK 230 AT PAGE 518.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
4. The following documents affect the land:
1) RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS
RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MAY 02, 1949, IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 177,
RECORDED MAY 2, 1949 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 208, AND RECORDED AUGUST 26, 1949 IN BOOK
175 AT PAGE 299
2) RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED IN MAY 2, 1949 BOOK 175
AT PAGE 177 AND RECORDED MAY 2, 1949 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 208 AND RECORDED MAY 20,
1949 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 202.
3) RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 13, 1964, IN BOOK 206 AT PAGE 436
AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 29, 1965, IN BOOK 211 AT PAGE 344.
4) RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR,
RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE
UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
HANDICAPPED PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 01, 1965, IN
BOOK 217 AT PAGE 172 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 07, 1967, IN
BOOK 225 AT PAGE 379 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 01, 1967, IN
BOOK 230 AT PAGE 518.
5) TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT FOR WATER SERVICE RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 15, 1966 IN BOOK 222 AT PAGE 547.
6) EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH ON THE
CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED JANUARY 10, 1965 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 59 AND FIRST
SUPPLEMENT TO CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 1967 IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE
122 AND SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED DECEMBER 5, 1967 IN PLAT
BOOK 3 AT PAGE 257.
7) TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT RECORDED AUGUST 24, 2010 AT
RECEPTION NO. 572967.
8) EASEMENTS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES ON
P80
VI.A.
Land Title Guarantee Company Representing Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
PROPERTY INFORMATION BINDER
Order Number: ABN 62008283
Policy Number: PIB62008283.2247941
THE PLAT OF IMPROVEMENT & TOPGRAPHICAL SURVEY RECORDED DECEMBER 06, 2013
UNDER RECEPTION NO. 606454.
9) FINANCING STATEMENT WITH ANB BANK, THE SECURED PARTY, RECORDED JULY 16, 2015,
UNDER RECEPTION NO. 621570.
10) DISBURSER'S NOTICE WAS RECORDED JULY 13, 2015, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 621461.
11) TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, BURDENS, OBLIGATIONS AND EASEMENTS AS SET
FORTH AND GRANTED IN GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED APRIL 25, 2014 UNDER RECEPTION
NO. 609768.
12) TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, BURDENS, OBLIGATIONS AND EASEMENTS AS SET
FORTH AND GRANTED IN ZONING REVIEW RECORDED MARCH 19, 2015 UNDER RECEPTION NO.
618295.
13) TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF NOTICE OF APPROVAL RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015 AT RECEPTION NO. 623039.
14) TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, BURDENS, OBLIGATIONS AND EASEMENTS AS SET
FORTH AND GRANTED IN HOLY CROSS ENERGY UNDERGROUND RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT
RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2016 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 631393 AND RE-RECORDED OCTOBER 11,
2016 AT RECEPTION NO. 632916.
15) TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF TRENCH, VAULT AND CONDUIT AGREEMENT
RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2016 AT RECEPTION NO. 631394.
16) ALL LIENS, DEED OF TRUST, MORTGAGES AND OTHER ENCUMBRANCES AGAINST THE
INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS.
NOTE: THIS BINDER DOES NOT REFLECT THE STATUS OF TITLE TO WATER RIGHTS OR
REPRESENTATION OF SAID RIGHTS, RECORDED OR NOT.
NOTE: THIS BINDER IS NOT A REPORT OR REPRESENTATION AS TO MINERAL INTERESTS, AND
SHOULD NOT BE USED, OR RELIED UPON, IN CONNECTION WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
THAT ARE SET FORTH IN CRS 24-65.5-103.
NOTE: ADDITIONAL UPDATES TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE BINDER MAY BE REQUESTED BY
THE PROPOSED INSURED. ONE UPDATE IS INCLUDED WITH THIS BINDER AT NO ADDITIONAL
COST. ANY ADDITIONAL UPDATES WILL BE ISSUED AT THE COST OF $125 PER UPDATE. FOR
EACH UPDATE PROVIDED, A REVISED BINDER WILL BE ISSUED SHOWING A NEW EFFECTIVE
DATE AND ANY MATTERS RECORDED SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PREVIOUS BINDER.
Land Title Guarantee Company Representing Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
PROPERTY INFORMATION BINDER
Order Number: ABN 62008283
Policy Number: PIB62008283.2247941
THE PLAT OF IMPROVEMENT & TOPGRAPHICAL SURVEY RECORDED DECEMBER 06, 2013
UNDER RECEPTION NO. 606454.
9) FINANCING STATEMENT WITH ANB BANK, THE SECURED PARTY, RECORDED JULY 16, 2015,
UNDER RECEPTION NO. 621570.
10) DISBURSER'S NOTICE WAS RECORDED JULY 13, 2015, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 621461.
11) TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, BURDENS, OBLIGATIONS AND EASEMENTS AS SET
FORTH AND GRANTED IN GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED APRIL 25, 2014 UNDER RECEPTION
NO. 609768.
12) TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, BURDENS, OBLIGATIONS AND EASEMENTS AS SET
FORTH AND GRANTED IN ZONING REVIEW RECORDED MARCH 19, 2015 UNDER RECEPTION NO.
618295.
13) TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF NOTICE OF APPROVAL RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015 AT RECEPTION NO. 623039.
14) TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, BURDENS, OBLIGATIONS AND EASEMENTS AS SET
FORTH AND GRANTED IN HOLY CROSS ENERGY UNDERGROUND RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT
RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2016 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 631393 AND RE-RECORDED OCTOBER 11,
2016 AT RECEPTION NO. 632916.
15) TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF TRENCH, VAULT AND CONDUIT AGREEMENT
RECORDED AUGUST 12, 2016 AT RECEPTION NO. 631394.
16) ALL LIENS, DEED OF TRUST, MORTGAGES AND OTHER ENCUMBRANCES AGAINST THE
INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS.
NOTE: THIS BINDER DOES NOT REFLECT THE STATUS OF TITLE TO WATER RIGHTS OR
REPRESENTATION OF SAID RIGHTS, RECORDED OR NOT.
NOTE: THIS BINDER IS NOT A REPORT OR REPRESENTATION AS TO MINERAL INTERESTS, AND
SHOULD NOT BE USED, OR RELIED UPON, IN CONNECTION WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
THAT ARE SET FORTH IN CRS 24-65.5-103.
NOTE: ADDITIONAL UPDATES TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE BINDER MAY BE REQUESTED BY
THE PROPOSED INSURED. ONE UPDATE IS INCLUDED WITH THIS BINDER AT NO ADDITIONAL
COST. ANY ADDITIONAL UPDATES WILL BE ISSUED AT THE COST OF $125 PER UPDATE. FOR
EACH UPDATE PROVIDED, A REVISED BINDER WILL BE ISSUED SHOWING A NEW EFFECTIVE
DATE AND ANY MATTERS RECORDED SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PREVIOUS BINDER.
P81
VI.A.
P82
VI.A.
View your transaction progress 24/7 via SureClose.
Ask us about your login today!
Date:November 22, 2013
File Number:01330-32063- Amended No. C2
Buyer:T B D
Seller:Michael W. Freedman and Nanci Freedman
Property:800 South Mill Street, Condominium Unit 1, Aspen, CO 81611
Please direct all Title inquiries to:
Linda Williams
Phone:(970) 766-0234
Email Address:lwilliam3@stewart.com
SELLER:
Michael W. Freedman and Nanci Freedman
Delivery Method: Emailed
BUYER:
T B D
Delivery Method: Emailed
We Appreciate Your Business and Look Forward to Serving You in the Future.
P83
VI.A.
ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
ALTA Commitment Form
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued by
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas Corporation (“Company”), for a valuable consideration, commits to issue
its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as
owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums
and charges and compliance with the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions
of this Commitment.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies
committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company.
All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the Effective Date or when the
policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not
the fault of the Company.
The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request.
This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly
authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A.
Countersigned by:
Stewart Title
97 Main Street, Suite W201
Edwards, CO 81632
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
File No. 01330-32063
004-UN ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
P84
VI.A.
CONDITIONS
1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved
from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if
the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other
matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall
not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in
reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions
shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies
committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and the Exclusions from Coverage
of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by
reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of
the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against
the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered
by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
5.The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is
2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the
parties.You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at< http://www.alta.org/>.
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall be
addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252.
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
File No. 01330-32063
004-UN ALTA Commitment (6/17/06)
P85
VI.A.
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
File No.: 01330-32063- Amended No. C2
1. Effective Date: September 24, 2013 at 8:00 A.M.
2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount of Insurance
a) A.L.T.A. Owner's Policy 2006 (Standard)
Proposed Insured:
T B D
b) A.L.T.A. Loan Policy
Proposed Insured:
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
Fee Simple
4. Title to the said estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in:
Michael W. Freedman and Nanci Freedman
5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
Condominium Unit 1A, Building A, FIFTH AVENUE (A CONDOMINIUM),
according to the Condominium Map thereof, recorded January 10, 1966 in Plat Book 3 at Page 59 as Reception No.
123046, and as further defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for Fifth Avenue (a Condominium)
recorded December 1, 1965 in Book 217 at Page 172 as Reception No. 122634 and First Supplement thereto
recorded February 7, 1967 in Book 225 at Page 379 as Reception No. 126585, and Second Supplement thereto,
recorded December 1, 1967 in Book 230 at Page 518 as Reception No. 129229.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
Purported Address:
800 South Mill Street
Condominium Unit 1
Aspen, CO 81611
STATEMENT OF CHARGES
These charges are due and payable
before a policy can be issued
TITLE COMMITMENT FEE $100.00
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
File No. 01330-32063
CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch A STO
Page 1 of 1 STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
P86
VI.A.
File No.: 01330-32063- Amended No. C2
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
1.
2.
Payment to or for the account of the grantor(s) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or
interest to be insured.
Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for
record.
3.
4.
NONE AT THIS TIME
NOTE: This product is for informational purposes only. It is not a title insurance product and does not provide any
form of coverage. This product is not a guarantee or assurance, and does not warrant, or otherwise insure, any
condition, fact or circumstance. This product does not obligate this Company to issue any policies of title
insurance for any subsequent transaction based on the information provided or involving the property described
herein. This Company's sole liability for any error(s) relating to this product is limited to the amount that was paid
for this product.
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE B
PART I
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
File No. 01330-32063
CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B I
Page 1 of 1 STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
P87
VI.A.
File No.: 01330-32063- Amended No. C2
Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same
are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records.
Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that
would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public
records.
Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law
and not shown by the public records.
Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the
public records or attaching subsequent to the Effective Date but prior to the date the proposed Insured
acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; (c) Minerals of whatsoever kind, subsurface and surface substances, in, on, under and
that may be produced from the Land, together with all rights, privileges, and immunities relating thereto,
whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the Public Records or listed in
Schedule B.
Water rights, claims or title to water.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales.
The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other
district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area.
Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to
penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted and right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the
authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page
177 as Reception No. 96351.
Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to
penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted and right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the
authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page
208 as Reception No. 96375.
Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to
penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted and right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the
authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page
202 as Reception No. 96368.
Covenants, recorded April 13, 1964 in Book 206 at Page 436 as Reception No. 117481, and Protective Covenants
recorded January 29, 1965 in Book 211 at Page 344 as Reception No. 119843.
Contract for Water Service recorded September 15, 1966 in Book 222 at Page 547 as Reception No. 125349.
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE B
PART II
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
File No. 01330-32063
CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B II STO
Page 1 of 2 STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
P88
VI.A.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Condominium Declaration for Fifth Avenue (a Condominium) recorded December 1, 1965 in Book 217 at Page
172 as Reception No. 122634 and First Supplement thereto recorded February 7, 1967 in Book 225 at Page 379
as Reception No. 126585, and Second Supplement thereto recorded December 1, 1967 in Book 230 at Page 518
as Reception No. 129229.
All matters as shown on the Condominium Map of Fifth Avenue (a Condominium) recorded January 10, 1965 in
Plat Book 3 at Page 59 as Reception No. 123046, and First Supplement to Condominium Map of Fifth Avenue (a
Condominium) recorded February 8, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at Page 122 as Reception No. 126597, and Second
Supplement to Condominium Map of Fifth Avenue (a Condominium) recorded December 5, 1967 in Plat Book 3 at
Page 257 as Reception No. 129380.
Grant of Easement to Comcast of Colorado/Florida Inc. recorded August 24, 2010 as Reception No. 572967
A Deed of Trust executed by Nanci Freedman and Michael W. Freedman, to the Public Trustee, to secure an
indebtedness of $359,500.00 in favor of Weststar Bank recorded April 29, 2005 as Reception No. 509552.
Any and all leases and tenancies
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE B
PART II
Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.
All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
File No. 01330-32063
CO STG ALTA Commitment Sch B II STO
Page 2 of 2 STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
P89
VI.A.
DISCLOSURES
File No.: 01330-32063
Pursuant to C.R.S. 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that:
A.
B.
C.
THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY MAY BE LOCATED IN A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT;
A CERTIFICATE OF TAXES DUE LISTING EACH TAXING JURISDICTION SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE
COUNTY TREASURER OR THE COUNTY TREASURER’S AUTHORIZED AGENT;
INFORMATION REGARDING SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH DISTRICTS MAY BE
OBTAINED FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, OR
THE COUNTY ASSESSOR
Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Subparagraph (7) (E) requires that “Every title entity shall be
responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the
closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed.”
Provided that Stewart Title conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal
documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner’s Title Policy and the Lender’s Title
Policy when issued.
Note: Affirmative Mechanic’s Lien Protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception No. 4 of
Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner’s Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following
conditions:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single-family residence, which includes a
condominium or townhouse unit.
No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purposes of construction on the land
described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled Mechanic’s and
Materialmen’s Liens.
The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.
If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased, within
six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will
include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and/or the
contractor; payment of the appropriate premium; fully executed Indemnity agreements satisfactory to the
company; and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information
by the Company.
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or
agreed to pay.
To comply with the provisions of C.R.S. 10-11-123, the Company makes the following disclosure:
a.
b.
That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the
surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other
minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner’s
permission.
NOTE: THIS DISCLOSURE APPLIES ONLY IF SCHEDULE B, SECTION 2 OF THE TITLE COMMITMENT HEREIN
INCLUDES AN EXCEPTION FOR SEVERED MINERALS.
NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED WILL BE DEEMED TO OBLIGATE THE COMPANY TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE
COVERAGES REFERRED TO HEREIN, UNLESS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY SATISFIED.
File No.: 01330- 32063
CO Commitment Disclosure
P90
VI.A.
STG Privacy Notice 1 (Rev 01/26/09) Stewart Title Companies
WHAT DO THE STEWART TITLE COMPANIES DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?
Federal and applicable state law and regulations give consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal and applicable
state law regulations also require us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice
carefully to understand how we use your personal information. This privacy notice is distributed on behalf of the Stewart Title
Guaranty Company and its affiliates (the Stewart Title Companies), pursuant to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA).
The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service that you have sought through us. This
information can include social security numbers and driver's license number.
All financial companies, such as the Stewart Title Companies, need to share customers' personal information to run their everyday
business—to process transactions and maintain customer accounts. In the section below, we list the reasons that we can share
customers' personal information; the reasons that we choose to share; and whether you can limit this sharing.
Reasons we can share your personal information Do we share?Can you limit this sharing?
For our everyday business purposes— to process your transactions and
maintain your account. This may include running the business and managing
customer accounts, such as processing transactions, mailing, and auditing services,
and responding to court orders and legal investigations.
Yes No
For our marketing purposes— to offer our products and services to you.Yes No
For joint marketing with other financial companies No We don't share
For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your
transactions and experiences. Affiliates are companies related by common
ownership or control. They can be financial and non-financial companies. Our
affiliates may include companies with a Stewart name; financial companies,
such as Stewart Title Company
Yes No
For our affiliates' everyday business purposes— information about your
creditworthiness.No We don't share
For our affiliates to market to you Yes No
For non-affiliates to market to you. Non-affiliates are companies not related by
common ownership or control. They can be financial and non-financial companies.No We don't share
We may disclose your personal information to our affiliates or to non-affiliates as permitted by law. If you request a transaction with a
non-affiliate, such as a third party insurance company, we will disclose your personal information to that non-affiliate. [We do not
control their subsequent use of information, and suggest you refer to their privacy notices.]
Sharing practices
How often do the Stewart Title Companies
notify me about their practices?
We must notify you about our sharing practices when you request a transaction.
How do the Stewart Title Companies
protect my personal information?
To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use
security measures that comply with federal and state law. These measures
include computer, file, and building safeguards.
How do the Stewart Title Companies
collect my personal information?
We collect your personal information, for example, when you
ü
ü
request insurance-related services
provide such information to us
We also collect your personal information from others, such as the real estate
agent or lender involved in your transaction, credit reporting agencies, affiliates
or other companies.
What sharing can I limit?Although federal and state law give you the right to limit sharing (e.g., opt out) in
certain instances, we do not share your personal information in those instances.
Contact Us If you have any questions about this privacy notice, please contact us at: Stewart Title Guaranty
Company, 1980 Post Oak Blvd., Privacy Officer, Houston, Texas 77056
File No.: 01330- 32063 Page 1 of 1P91
VI.A.
P92
VI.A.
P93
VI.A.
P94
VI.A.
Fifth Avenue Condominium Association
800 Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611
2016/2017 Board Members:
Nanci Freedman
Michael Crabb
Robert Mayer
March 13,2017
Jim Pomeroy
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 S.Galena St.
Aspen,CO 81611
via delivery by Randy Henrie
Re:Pool Hot Tub Repair Project at;
718 South Galena Street Durant Condominiums),and,
800 South Mill Street Fifth Avenue Condominiums,
for Land Use Application regarding;
Special Review,Nonconforming Structures
8040 Greenline Review
Mountain View Plane Review
In response to a requirement regarding this Land Use Application,you are authorized to recognize the
following applicant to act on behalf of the Fifth Avenue Condominium Association:
Randy Henrie,or his designated substitute
Z Group Architects,P.C.
411 East Main Street,205
Aspen,CO 81611
970 355 773
If you have any questions about this authorization or other issues which relate to this Application,please
contact me or Randy.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Crabb
Vice President Fifth Avenue Condominium Association
954 439 2775
P95
VI.A.
P96
VI.A.
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March, 2016 City of Apen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5050
ATTACHMENT 4 – MATRIX OF LAND USE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
CONTINUED)
PUD AMENDMENT 1-7 ADMIN., OR P & Z, AND/OR CC
BASED ON AMENDMENT
TYPE)
2 FOR Admin., 10
for P & Z, 20 FOR P
Z AND CC
SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA
SPA)
1-7, 35 CONCEPTUAL – P & Z, AND CC
FINAL – P & Z, AND CC
2 FOR Admin., 20
for P & Z AND CC
AMENDENDMENT TO SPA 1-7 ADMIN. OR CC (BASED ON
DURATION TIME)
2 for Admin., 20 for
P & Z and CC
TEMPORARY USE 1-7 ADMIN OR P & Z (BASED ON
DURATION TIME)
2 for Admin., 10 for
City Council
ACCESSORY DEWELLING
UNIT
1-7, 9 ADMIN OR P & Z (BASED ON IF
THE PROPOSAL MEETS REVIEW
STANDARDS)
2 for
Administrative
Review
REZONING 1-7 P & Z AND CC 20
DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENTS VARIANCE
1-7, 34 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 9
Consult with a Planner about submittal requirements.
A pre-application conference with a Planner should be conducted prior to submitting any land use
application. Please call 920-5090 to schedule a pre-application conference.
P97
VI.A.
P98
VI.A.
P99
VI.A.
P100
VI.A.
P101
VI.A.
City C970
Durant & Fifth Avenue Condominiums
Pool & Hot Tub Repair Project
Surveys
Please note that these Surveys are also included in “0_Drawings and Graphics”
P102
VI.A.
P103VI.A.
P104VI.A.
P105VI.A.
P106VI.A.
P107
VI.A.
P108
VI.A.
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
May 10, 2017
RE: Fifth Avenue Condominiums
800 South Mill St.
Aspen CO 81611
Durant Condominiums
718 South Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
Subject: Land Use Application, Pool & Hot Tub Repair Project,
8040 Greenline Exemption
The primary construction goal of this project is repair or replacement of the existing pool, hot
tub, surrounding concrete decking, and surrounding fence & associated retaining walls. These
existing amenities are jointly shared by the Fifth Avenue and Durant Condominium complexes.
Due to poor soils, age, and weathering in an extreme environment, these components need
repair and/or replacement. Please Reference Drawing Sheets A-002 and A-003.
Due to poor soil conditions, the pool shell cannot be repaired in place, but is planned for
complete replacement. To better utilize the space, proposed is to locate the hot tub within the
pool footprint. These repair items necessarily dictate the removal and replacement of the
existing (damaged) decks. Finally, it is proposed to replace the deteriorating wood fence &
timber retaining walls with a more durable material. The intent is that no component shall be
enlarged beyond the existing Non-Conforming condition. There is no change of Use or
Occupancy.
This Project falls into the Municipal Code requirements of the 8040 Greenline. However, the
applicant believes that this Project qualifies for the 8040 Greenline Exemption per Municipal
Code 26.435.030, B. Exemption, Items 1-4;
1. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area
of the existing structure or increase the total amount of square footage of
areas of the structure which are exempt from floor area calculations by more
than twenty-five percent (25%); and
No floor area is being increased. This is an exterior project only and square
footage areas (pool deck areas & associated pedestrian paths) will not
increase, but will be reduced by minor amounts. In addition, an existing
non-conforming Mechanical shed, 48 square feet in size, will be removed.
Those mechanical functions will be relocated to an existing equipment
P109
VI.A.
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
room within the existing Durant ‘D’ Building.
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit
would be required pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the applicant receives a
permit pursuant to said Section; and
Site visits were conducted on April 24, 2017 and May 1, 2017with Ben
Carlsen, City Forester. It was determined during these site visits that two
trees could and should be removed, with two trees added elsewhere on the
Property. A permit will be required, but no mitigation.
The following is an Email from Ben Carlsen sent on May 1, 2017:
I will permit removal of the two over-planted pine trees next to the pool.
They are not sustainable in such a small planter. It would be best to
remove the trees now and plant two new trees in locations on the
property that will be able to live into maturity. Please submit a tree
removal permit.”
Thank you,
Ben Carlsen
Aspen City Forester
970-429-2034
3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic
hazard and will not result in increased erosion and sedimentation.
This is an existing Development, and a repair or replacement of existing
construction components. There is no increased sedimentation or erosion,
and all impacted areas of the Project were previously addressed by Sopris
Engineering, LLC., in their Drainage Report, and, Civil Engineering for the
Durant Site Improvement Project. Please Reference Tab ‘O’ of this Land
Use Application.
4. All exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches the totals
specified in Subsection 26.435.030.B.1, an 8040 Greenline review must be
obtained pursuant to Subsection 26.435.030.C.
This Project does not increase the square footage areas of the existing
Developments.
As an existing Development, this proposed Pool & Hot Tub Repair Project will have no
significant affect on natural watershed, surface runoff, erosion, water quality, or air pollution.
There is no new disturbance to existing terrain or natural land features. In addition, roads,
sidewalks, utilities, and similar site features are existing.
It is hoped that this Land Use Application with corresponding Special Use Review, Mountain View
Plane Review, and this 8040 Greenline Exemption, should suffice for Approval, and the Project
P110
VI.A.
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
can proceed to the Permit Coordination and Permitting process.
Thank you for your consideration.
Randy Henrie
Architect
P111
VI.A.
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
May 10, 2017
RE: Fifth Avenue Condominiums
800 South Mill St.
Aspen CO 81611
Durant Condominiums
718 South Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
Subject: Land Use Application, Pool & Hot Tub Repair Project,
Wheeler Opera House Mountain View Plane Review
The applicant believes that this proposed project has no impact on the Wheeler Opera House
Mountain View Plane.
It is significantly lower than the existing structures in the background; the Durant and Fifth
Avenue structures are 40’ plus high, the proposed pool fence is 4’ high. Also, the proposed
project is entirely screened by the existing Hyatt Grand Aspen in the foreground. See Photos 1,
2, and 3.
Per Municipal Code 26.435.050, C;
C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be permitted within a
mountain view plane unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination
that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below.
1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided below.
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum
allowable building height otherwise provided for in this Title, development shall proceed
according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a Planned Development so as to provide
for maximum flexibility in building design with special consideration to bulk and height,
open space and pedestrian space and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width,
yard and building height requirements and view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, after considering a recommendation from the
Community Development Department, may exempt a development from being processed
as a Planned Development when the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that
the proposed development has a minimal effect on the view plane.
P112
VI.A.
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located
in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the Planning
and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed development will
further infringe upon the view plane and the likelihood that redevelopment of the
adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed
development does not further infringe upon the view plane and re-redevelopment to
reopen the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
exempt the development from the requirements of this Section.
Thank you for your consideration regarding this Mountain View Plane Review.
Photo 1. Aerial view of Wheeler Opera House View Plane. Project is screened by the Hyatt
Grand Aspen, and much lower than the Durant and Fifth Avenue Condominiums’ in the
background.
P113
VI.A.
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
Photo 2. Proposed project is significantly lower than existing buildings in the background.
P114
VI.A.
Z-Group Architects, P.C. • 411 East Main Street, Aspen, CO. 81611 • Telephone: 970-925-1832 • Fax: 970-925-1371
Photo 3. This photo is taken from the Wheeler Opera House View Plane reference line.
Proposed project is lower than, and screened by, the Hyatt Grand Aspen in the foreground, and
lower than the existing buildings in the background.
Randy Henrie
Architect
P115
VI.A.
Fifth Avenue Pool and Spa Repair
800 South Mill Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Construction Management Plan - 2017
Contact List
Architect: Randy Henrie 970-355-9773
Z Group Architects
General contractor: Rudd Construction 970-927-9119
Chris Jung, Project Manager 970-309-0123
On Site Superintendent: Randy Van Engelenburg 970-309-5958
Safety Officer: Site Superintendent
Erosion Control Officer: Site Superintendent
Community Development Department: 920-5090
Aspen Fire Department: 925-5532 non-emergency
Aspen Police: 920-5400
RFTA: 925-8484
Holy Cross Energy: 970-945-5491
Black Hills Corp (Source Gas): 1-800-563-0012
Aspen Valley Hospital: 970-925-1120
FOR ALL EMERGENCIES CALL 911
P116
VI.A.
2
Table of Contents
1.1 General
1.2 Purpose of plan
1.3 Applicability
2.1 Project introduction
2.2 Disturbance area
2.3 Location
2.4 Description
3.1 Project documentation
3.2 Permits
3.3 Public notification
3.4 Project sign
3.5 Contact designation
4.1 Project implementation
4.2 Dates of construction
4.3 Hours of construction
4.4 Sequence (Phasing) of construction
4.5 Adjoining property owners
4.6 Project fencing
4.7 Public health and welfare
4.8 Natural environment
5.1 Parking management
5.2 Parking management form
5.3 Emergency vehicle access and ordinance 35
5.4 Construction parking details
5.5 Staging areas
5.6 Construction trailer, materials storage, and waste management
6.1 Traffic control
6.2 General
6.3 Haul routes
6.4 Onsite vehicle limitations
6.5 Delivery requirements
6.6 Traffic control plan
7.1 Pedestrian Control
7.2 General
8.1 Sediment and Erosion Control
8.2 Requirements
P117
VI.A.
3
9.1 Fugitive Dust Control
9.2 Fugitive dust control plan
9.3 Requirements
10.1 Emissions
10.2 General
10.3 Emissions from diesel powered equipment
11.1 Noise Suppression
11.2 General
P118
VI.A.
4
1.1 General
1.2 The Purpose of this Construction Management Plan is to aid the
Contractor and the City of Aspen in the successful operation of the
Swimming Pool and Spa Repair for the Fifth Avenue Condos located at
800 South Mill Street, with minimal impact to the City of Aspen and its
occupants (see EXHIBIT A: MAP-VICINITY)
1.3 This Construction Management Plan (referred to as the CMP for the
remainder of this document) shall be used for all Pool and Spa Repair
work that Rudd Construction will be performing while working at the
Fifth Avenue Condominiums.
2.1 Project Location
2.2 The project area for the Pool and Spa Repair is already a developed
area so there will be no additional site disturbance.
2.3 See EX A: MAP-VICINITY
2.4 The General Scope of the work is to provide complete Pool and Spa
Repairs for the Fifth Avenue Condominiums. The work is occurring in
areas where there are no public utilities and therefore there should be no
disturbance to any public utilities.
3.1 Project Documentation
3.2 The permit for this project has been applied for but has yet to be issued.
3.3 Public Notification; per city guidelines the properties located within 300’
will be notified of the upcoming construction activities and notice shall be
posted on site.
3.4 Project Sign will be posted on site per City of Aspen Guidelines.
3.5 See Front page of this document for Contact Information and designations.
4.1 Project Implementation
4.2 The anticipated dates of Construction are from Mid-April 2017 to Mid-Fall
2017.
4.3 Construction hours during the season (June 1st thru Labor Day and
November 15th thru March 31st) shall be limited to 7am – 5pm Monday
through Friday and 9am – 5pm on Saturday. No construction is permitted
on Sundays, 4th of July day and/or weekend if it falls on a Friday or
Monday, Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends, Thanksgiving Day,
Christmas Day, New Year’s Day.
During Presidents Day and during the Christmas week (12/26-12/31): •
projects located in the Central Resort Area (CRA) are not permitted to work
on any exterior elements, however interior work will be permitted. • projects
outside the CRA will be permitted to work.
During the Food & Wine Festival in June (Friday thru Saturday: • projects
located in the Central Resort Area (CRA) are not permitted to work projects
outside the CRA will be permitted to work.
P119
VI.A.
5
Construction hours during off-season (April 1st thru May 31st and Day after
Labor Day thru November 15th) will be 8am – 7pm Monday through Friday
and from 9am – 5pm on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays.
Specific indoor activities during restricted periods may be permitted with
approval from the City of Aspen Engineering Department; specific
conditions will be applied to each project separately. During the off-season
24 hour a day interior work may be permitted within the CRA, the applicant
must present a work plan to the City of Aspen Engineering Department and
the plan must be approved prior to working outside of the normal
construction hours.
All activity that generates noise more than 80 decibels requires a noise
suppression plan and is restricted to operating between the hours of 9am and
5pm Monday through Friday.
4.4 No Phasing of this project is required.
4.5 No person shall excavate on land close enough to a property line to endanger
any adjacent public street, sidewalk, and alley, other public or private
property, or easement, without supporting and protecting the property from
any damage that might result from construction operations.
4.6 Fencing and construction barriers will be placed and maintained for the
duration of the work to protect the adjacent property users from any
hazards. The fence shall be six feet (6') in height and constructed out of
chain-link fence with mesh windscreens (visual barriers).
Due to the topography of the site it may not be practical to fence the entire
site in with a 6’ tall fence. In highly sloping areas 4’ Orange construction
fencing shall be used as the security device. These areas are generally very
steep and inaccessible by the general public. The flatter areas of construction
activity and storage areas will be fenced per City guidelines with 6’ chain
link fencing.
4.7 Fugitive dust control will be performed per the fugitive dust control plan for
any dust mitigation that may be needed, no materials that contain any
known hazards are being removed from the site
4.8 There are no trees located within the project scope of work area.
5.1 Project management
5.2 Parking Management Form. N/A as Rudd will have their personnel and
subcontractors park on site. In the event, it becomes necessary for
construction personnel to park on the street the Engineering Department
will be contacted to obtain any required permits.
5.3 Emergency vehicle access will be maintained at all times to the parking lot
entrance of the complex where the work is being performed.
5.4 The need for parking areas is minimized by carpool, vanpool and staffing
correctly for the duration of the project.
5.5 Please see attached project site plan for all staging areas and the
anticipated Jobsite layout, there are no activities that should encroach on
the City of Aspen right of ways (Exhibit C). Toilets will be anchored to
the ground by either staking or if on concrete by weighted sand bags. All
P120
VI.A.
6
deliveries and haul off of waste materials shall follow the specified official
heavy haul route map.
5.6 During demo a wood only dumpster will be maintained on site for wood
materials, a separate dumpster will be maintained for all other non-
recycle materials. It is not anticipated to have large amounts of recyclable
materials due to the scope and nature of the work. All concrete and stone
materials shall be kept separate and hauled off as needed. A bear proof
dumpster will be provided for the contractors use for food trash.
6.1 Traffic Control
6.2 In the event traffic control, should become necessary for the project
Rudd Construction will contract with a certified traffic control company.
6.3 See Attached (Exhibit D) City of Aspen for Heavy Haul Routes Map. In
general, all deliveries will be accepted in the parking lot of Fifth Avenue
Condominiums. All deliveries will use Hwy 82 onto Main Street, turning
onto South Aspen to Durant, and onto South Galena. Rudd Construction
will watch and stay within maximum vehicle weights per the CDOT
regulations
6.4 All Deliveries and load out will be occurring on the property and thus no
signage will be required. Deliveries will only be done during normal
working hours previously stated in this document. All Idle times will be
watched on delivery equipment per the City of Aspen guidelines for idling
equipment
6.5 A traffic control plan is not needed for this project
P121
VI.A.
7
7.1 Pedestrian protection
7.2 Given the site location there should be no need for a pedestrian control
plan for this project.
8.1 Sediment and Erosion Control
8.2 A silt erosion fence will be place in the landscape area north of the pool
and spa area. Wattles will be place on the south side and down the east
side of the pool. The remainder of the parking lot area is above grade to
the work area.
8.2.1 During concrete operations, a washout tub and or kiddie pools will be
provided for all washouts. If concrete pumps are used, they will washout
into the truck and haul all washout off site.
9.1 Fugitive Dust Control
9.2 Due to the type of work and equipment being utilized no dust will be
generated by the work.
9.3 The load out of materials will occur on existing paved parking areas and
no materials are expected to be stockpiled. If the need to stockpile dirt or
debris Rudd will cover the piles and install rock wattles as required for the
stockpiles. In the event, if dirt or debris needs to be removed from the
public right of way it shall be swept up and disposed of.
10.1 Emissions
10.2 Rudd Construction will maintain the minimum amount of equipment on
site to accomplish the scope of work. All the equipment is professionally
maintained to keep the emissions below the acceptable levels. Idle times
and warm up times will be monitored and kept within the standards set
forth by the city.
11.1 Noise Suppression
11.2 GENERAL
Every reasonable effort will be made to minimize the noise impact of
construction activities. Noise limits for construction activities is 80 dB
measured at the property line of the construction site. All construction
equipment shall be adequately muffled and maintained to minimize
project noise.
11.3 NOISE SUPPRESSION PLAN
11.3.1 All activities that generate noise in excess of 80 dB at the property line
will require a noise suppression plan and will be restricted to 9 am and
5pm Monday through Friday. Quiet work inside and outside that does not
require a power source including a battery, on Saturday will be allowed.
Mitigation measures will include instituting a proactive program to ensure
P122
VI.A.
8
compliance with the City of Aspen. The following measures will be
utilized to mitigate noise as required.
11.3.2 Notification of neighbors within three hundred (300) feet of the project
will occur to inform them of the kinds of equipment, projected variation of
noise levels during a typical construction days. Notification will be done
in writing and be done seven (7) days prior to the starting time of the
project. Communication with neighbors as outlined in Section 3.2 Public
Notifications for noisy work will be followed. This will help prevent
complaints from arising, and resolve concerns before there is a problem.
11.3.3 Equipment will be operated in accordance with manufacturers
specifications and with all standard manufacturers’ mufflers and noise
reducing equipment in use and in properly operating condition.
11.3.4 Notices will be posted to inform workers, including sub-contractors, about
the basic noise requirements, as well as specific noise restrictions, to the
project. This will also be communicated to subcontractors during weekly
subcontractor meetings at the jobsite.
11.3.5 Noise suppression plans will be completed for all equipment/activities
specified in Exhibit E “Table 1: NOISE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
REQUIRING NOISE SUPPRESSION PLANS”
11.3.6 Noise Blocking Methods will be utilized as noted in Exhibit E “Noise
Blocking Methods”. When possible, equipment may be relocated to
different sides of the property to reduce impacts to adjoining properties. In
addition to the noise blocking methods mentioned in Exhibit K , the
following general guidelines will be followed:
11.3.7 Noise suppression plans will not allow noisy machines such as
concrete saws or jackhammers to be operated Monday thru Friday
before 9.00 am and not after 5:00 PM.
11.3.8 Noisy equipment such as cement mixers for masonry operations will be
placed on the site to maximize the distance from neighboring houses
and/or rotate location to not impact just one neighbor.
11.3.9 All equipment will be properly maintained, with special attention
to mufflers and other noise control devices.
11.3.10 Between work periods, builders will be required by city ordinance to
shut down machines such as backhoes, bobcats, loaders and generators.
P123
VI.A.
9
11.3.11 When dropping materials from a height—for example, into or out of a
truck or when loading or unloading scaffolding, chute or side baffles
will be used to minimize noise disturbance.
11.3.12 Rudd Construction will conduct base line and periodic testing of activities
on site for compliance of 80 dB at the site boundaries. Rudd Construction
will utilize a hand-held device to monitor readings. These readings will be
tracked in a log book for reference.
P124
VI.A.
P125
VI.A.
P126
VI.A.
P127
VI.A.
EXHIBIT E”
TABLE 1: NOISE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT REQUIRING NOISE
SUPPRESSION PLANS
Equipment Category
Auger Drill Rig
Backhoe
Chain Saw
Clam Shovel
Compressor (air)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Saw
Crane (mobile or stationary)
Dozer
Drill Rig
Excavator
Front End Loader
Generator (more than 25 KVA)
Gradall
Grader
Horizontal Hydraulic Boring Jack
Impact Pile Driver (diesel or drop)
Impact Wrench
Jackhammer*
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Paver
Pneumatic Tools
Rock Drill
Scraper
Scarifier
Slurry Machine
Vibratory Pile Driver
P128
VI.A.
EXHIBIT E”
Noise Blocking Methods
Contractors shall require all subcontractors and vendors to use:
Quieter vs. Louder equipment
Residential” grade combustion engine exhaust silencers
Electrical vs. pneumatic hand power tools: All pneumatic tools operated in the City of
Aspen must be fitted with an effective silencer on their air exhaust port.
Hydraulic vs. air powered rock drills
Silenced” pile drivers vs. Diesel pile drivers
In general, noise reduction equipment and materials may include, but not be limited to:
1. Shields, shrouds, or intake and exhaust mufflers.
2. Noise-deadening material to line hoppers, conveyor transfer points, storage bins,
or chutes.
3. Noise barriers using materials consistent with the Temporary Noise Barrier
Materials Section.
4. Noise curtains
5. Plywood with concrete blankets at the height of the equipment and that it
surrounds the activity such that it directs noise up more than out from the
property.
6. Portable three sided enclosures made out of plywood to move with the activity
such as jack hammering.
7. Internal combustion engines are to be fitted with a suitable muffler in good repair.
Specific Equipment:
Generators: The local power grid shall be used wherever feasible to limit generator noise. No
generators larger than 25 KVA shall be used and, where a generator is necessary, it
shall have maximum noise muffling capability.
Backup Alarms: All equipment with backup alarms operated by the Contractor, vendors,
suppliers, and subcontractors on the construction site shall be equipped with
either audible self-adjusting ambient-sensitive backup alarms or manually-
adjustable alarms. The ambient-sensitive alarms shall automatically adjust to a
maximum of 5 dB over the surrounding background noise levels. The
manually-adjustable alarms shall be set at the lowest setting required to be
audible above the surrounding noise. Installation and use of the alarms shall be
consistent with the performance requirements of the current revisions of Society
of Automotive Engineering (SAE) J994, J1446, and OSHA regulations.
Compressors: The unit with the lowest noise rating which meets the requirements of the job
should be used where work is conducted in the City of Aspen, installed with
mufflers and/or enclosed in a noise barrier.
P129
VI.A.
EXHIBIT E”
Jackhammer: All jackhammers and pavement breakers used on the construction site shall have
exhaust systems and mufflers that have been recommended by the manufacturer
as having the lowest associated noise and shall be enclosed with shields or
acoustical barrier enclosures.
Concrete crushers or pavement saws: Pre-augur pile holes to reduce the duration of impact or
vibratory pile driving and tie to local power grid to
reduce the use of generators and shall be enclosed with
shields or acoustical barrier enclosures.
Pneumatic hand power tools: All pneumatic tools operated in the City of Aspen must be fitted
with an effective silencer on their air exhaust port.
Temporary Noise Barrier Materials:
Temporary barriers shall be constructed of 3/4-inch Medium Density Overlay (MDO) plywood
sheeting, or other material of equivalent utility and appearance having a surface weight of 2
pounds per square foot or greater. The temporary barriers shall be lined on one side with glass
fiber, mineral wool, or other similar noise curtain type noise-absorbing material at least 2-inches.
The materials used for temporary barriers shall be sufficient to last through the duration of the
construction project, and shall be maintained in good repair. Prefabricated acoustic barriers are
available from various vendors. An equivalent barrier design can be submitted in lieu of the
plywood barrier described above.
Impact Equipment:
Impact noise is noise produced from impact or devices with discernible separation in sound
pressure maxima. Examples for impact equipment include, but are not limited to; blasting, chisel
drops, mounted impact hammers (hoe ram), and impact pile drivers.
Impact equipment is the loudest and most intrusive to the neighboring property. The City of
Aspen requires that this type activity have the strictest mitigation requirements and
requires a customized noise suppression plan specific to the site. General contractors must
contact the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department for an application at 970-920-5039.
Noise Control
Replace worn, loose, or unbalanced machine parts that cause vibration.
Keep machine parts well lubricated to reduce friction.
Acoustical enclosures and barriers around generators
Sound absorbing material and vibration isolation systems on hand tools
Quiet work practices - use rubber mallets to erect and dismantle formwork.
P130
VI.A.
EXHIBIT E”
Noise Controls for Construction Equipment (Schneider et al., 1995)
Equipment Noise Controls
Pile Driver Enclosure, muffler
Stone saw cutting Noise control pad with water
Handheld impact drills Reduction of reflected sound
Circular saw blades 15ºtooth angle, new tooth configuration, slotted saw blades,
viscoelastic damping
Pneumatic tools Muffler
Pavement breaker/ Rock
drill
Muffler, enclosure of cylinder case and front head, moil damping
Portable air compressor Muffler, acoustic enclosures
Bulldozer Bulldozer Cab-liner material, enclosure, sound absorption in canopy,
sealing of all openings
Wheeled loader Absorption of sound cooling air route
Vibratory roller Flexible mounting for pump compartment
Joint Cutter Anti-vibration mounting fixtures
P131
VI.A.
Feb. 6, 2017
502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
PJ Murray
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Mill Building
201 N. Mill Street, Suite 101
Aspen, CO
RE: Durant Condominium Project-Water Quality Treatment Vault
Dear PJ,
This letter has been prepared to provide supporting stormwater mitigation documentation for the proposed pool improvements
associated with the 5th Avenue Condos Project located at 800 S. Mill Street.
Sopris Engineering, LLC prepared the civil design plans and associated drainage report for the neighboring project referred to as
the Durant Condominium Remodel Project (COA Permit No. 0002.2014.LAND). This design included the capture and treatment of
the impervious area associated with the existing pool and spa area that happens to fall on the 5th Avenue Condos and Durant
Condos property. The stormwater mitigation water quality infrastructure that was installed for this area is a sand filter underground
treatment vault which is located at the north side of the Durant Condos parking lot. I have attached the drainage report associated
with the Durant Condos Project which includes discussions of the water quality treatment vault, supporting calculations and civil
plans. The drainage basins related to the pool area are described as Offsite Basin #7 (OS-7) and Post #9 within the attached
drainage report. I have also highlighted the following pertinent information within the report for your convenience:
Pg 4. Offsite Basin #7 (OS-7) drainage basin description
Pg 6. Post #9A drainage basin description
Pg 8. Tables 1& 2: Existing and Post Development Peak Runoff Summary Tables
Pg 11. Sand Filter Vault (SF-A) discussion
Pg 12. Table 5 & 6 Water Quality Summary Tables
Based on my discussions with Chris Jung with Rudd Construction it is my understanding that the proposed pool improvements will
maintain the existing drainage patterns and that no additional impervious areas will be added. Based on this understanding the
existing stormwater treatment vault that was installed at the northern end of the Durant Condo parking lot is adequately sized and
will continue to provide water quality treatment of the impervious areas associated with the pool & spa area. I have included the
drainage report that was prepared and approved for the Durant Condominium remodel project for your reference.
Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC
Jesse K. Swann, P.E.
Project Engineer
Encl: Durant Condo Drainage Report
Cc: Chris Jung, Rudd Construction
P132
VI.A.
P133
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado February 5, 2014
Table of Contents
A. Purpose of Report .............................................................................................................................................2
B. Project Location, Background & Overview .......................................................................................................2
C. Existing Site Description ...................................................................................................................................3
D. Design Constraints ............................................................................................................................................3
E. Existing Drainage Basin Descriptions ..............................................................................................................4
F. Post Drainage Basin & Sub-basin Descriptions ...............................................................................................5
G. Hydrologic Methods and Assumptions .............................................................................................................7
H. Hydraulic Methods and Assumptions ...............................................................................................................8
I. Water Quality Treatment ................................................................................................................................ 10
J. Fee-In-Lieu of On-site Stormwater Detention ............................................................................................... 12
K. Low Impact Design ......................................................................................................................................... 12
L. Maintenance Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 14
M. Sediment and Erosion Control/BMPs ............................................................................................................ 15
N. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 15
O. References ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
P. Engineer’s Statement of Design Compliance ............................................................................................... 16
P134
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado February 5, 2014
2 | P a g e
A. Purpose of Report
Based on the location of this project and the proposed activity, the purposes of this Drainage
Report are to:
Comply with the City of Aspen’s Urban Runoff Management Plan (COA URMP) for a “Major
Design”
Estimate the Fee-In-Lieu of stormwater detention for the site which routes to the City’s
storm sewer system
Evaluate the existing offsite peak runoff rates that enter the site for runoff routing and sizing
of stormwater infrastructure.
Estimate post development peak runoff rates for sizing of stormwater infrastructure
Determine required water quality treatment volumes for site impervious areas
Promote the City of Aspen’s 9 Principles to managing stormwater runoff
Illustrate that the proposed improvements will have no adverse impact to drainage on-site
or downstream of the site
B. Project Location, Background & Overview
The subject property encompasses approximately 0.746 acres (32,513.6 s.f.) and is located at 718
S. Galena Street within the City of Aspen, Colorado. According to the City’s zone district mapping
the property lies within Lodging/Recreation L Zone District.
The site includes four existing condominium buildings with the associated parking, landscaping,
walkways, outdoor pool and spa, storage areas, and landscape walls. The project retaining walls
at the back of the site are currently being removed and replaced with soil nail walls under a
separate permit. Based on discussions with maintenance staff some flooding of below grade units
within Building C has occurred. This is believed to be due to groundwater not being intercepted by
the existing timber walls. These walls are currently being replaced with soil nail walls with drain
mats that will convey intercepted groundwater to an existing dry well down gradient of Building C.
This improvement should reduce the risks associated with groundwater inundation of the below
grade units for Building C. This is the only known occurrence of flooding on the subject property.
The proposed improvements to the site include exterior and interior cosmetic improvements to
each of the four buildings, roof maintenance and replacement of geo-membrane, replacement of
existing concrete sidewalks with snowmelt sidewalks as well as utility and landscaping
improvements. The results of the site improvements will decrease the overall impervious area of
the site by approximately 114 s.f. This will be achieved by narrowing some of the existing
walkways with the proposed snowmelt corridors as well as eliminating concrete surfaces in other
areas.
The anticipated overall exterior site disturbance associated with these improvements is estimated
at 0.28 acres (12,200 SF) which is approximately 38% of the total property’s area and includes the
wall remediation work that is currently in progress. This amount of disturbance classifies the
project as a “Major Design” project under the City of Aspen’s Urban Runoff Management plan
COA URMP). The drainage criterion for this type of classification, given the location, is to provide
water quality treatment for the site and detain to the 10- and 100-yr historic storm events or pay a
Fee-In-Lieu (FIL) of providing on-site detention. Given the numerous site constraints associated
with providing on-site detention this project will pursue the FIL option. Water quality treatment will
be provided via bio-retention cells and a sand filter vault. A meeting with the City’s Development
P135
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado February 5, 2014
3 | P a g e
Engineer was held on December 12, 2013 where conceptual design concepts were presented and
accepted. This report outlines the final design of the various stormwater mitigation measures
proposed for this project. The appendix of this report contains supporting data, calculations and
building permit drawings have been provided for illustrative support.
C. Existing Site Description
The site consists of buildings with associated parking, landscaping, walkways, outdoor pool and
spa, storage areas, and landscape walls. In general the existing site stormwater flows over
hardscape and landscape areas to Galena Street and ultimately intercepted by the City’s storm
sewer system.
Site topography has generally moderate to steep slopes that falls from southeast to northwest.
The parking areas adjacent to Galena Street slope to the northwest at 5-12% grades. The site has
steps where necessary to gain elevation across the site and to access the building. The back
sides of the building have a flat bench and then have the large soil nail retaining walls.
Numerous geotechnical soil investigation studies have been performed on the subject property.
Referencing a study prepared by HP Geotech and dated October 31, 2011 the underlying soils
consist of fill material and/or silty/clayey material. Based on these findings we have assumed a
Type C soil for our drainage calculations. Type C soils are fine textured soils that have a slow rate
of water infiltration and therefore all water quality treatment options will include an underdrain
system.
The subject property falls within System 2 as described within the Surface Drainage Master Plan
for the City of Aspen, dated November 2001 prepared by WRC Engineering, Inc. Runoff that is
directed to the Galena Street ROW is routed into the City’s storm sewer system via a curb inlets
located in the curb flowline north of the site. Per the WRC plan the storm sewer system flows north
to Durant then flows west to the large storm sewer main in Mill Street.
The property is located in Zone X on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map panel number
08097C0204C with effective date of June 4, 1987. FEMA designates Zone X as being an area
outside the 0.2% (500 year storm) annual chance floodplain.
The existing conditions survey was prepared by Tuttle Surveying Services, Inc. Various
easements are identified on the survey which appears to be cross easements allowing access and
utilities for adjacent properties.
D. Design Constraints
Designing stormwater mitigation infrastructure and best management practices for this project was
challenging due to the existing site constraints and hydrologic soil classification. These constraints
include the amount of existing impervious areas, steep topography between the parking lot and
east side of the property, existing utility infrastructure already serving the site and the inability to
provide full infiltration for water quality mitigation facilities. Unlike designing a project that consists
of vacant land or even a scrape and replace project with soils conducive to infiltration, the
proposed stormwater infrastructure had to be designed around the existing improvements and
underdrain systems were required for all water quality treatment areas which limited locations to
areas where underdrains could daylight. In addition, providing water quality treatment for the
western portion of the site which includes head in parking stalls and landscaping areas is not
P136
VI.A.
P137
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado February 5, 2014
5 | P a g e
Existing Basin #1 (EX-1) includes a small area north of Building A. Runoff from this basin as well
as OS-1 is conveyed to the neighboring property to the north. No improvements are proposed
within this onsite basin and runoff will follow existing drainage patterns.
Existing Basin #2 (EX-2) includes the remaining property to include all of the buildings, sidewalks,
parking lots and landscape areas. Runoff from this basin takes several different paths but
ultimately is intercepted by the City’s right-of-way and storm sewer system.
Section G of this report describes the hydrologic methods and assumptions that were used to
estimate the existing peak runoff rates for each of the basins described above. The results of this
analysis are summarized within Table 1 of Section G.
F. Post Drainage Basin & Sub-basin Descriptions
The overall drainage mitigation approach for this project includes water quality treatment and
routing runoff throughout the subject property in a safe manner. The project will pay fee-in-lieu of
stormwater detention and therefore detention sizing and routing was not required. In order to
properly size and design the water quality and drainage infrastructure the onsite basins were
broken into numerous basins and sub-basins. Further descriptions of these basins and sub-basins
are provided below. Building Permit Civil Drawings have also been provided as attachments for
illustrative support.
Post #1 matches existing basin EX-1. No improvements are proposed and existing drainage
patterns will be maintained.
Post #2 includes a small area between Building A and the soil nail retaining walls that are currently
under construction. This basin will consist of a snowmelted access walk, landscaping area and a
bio-retention cell (BRC-A) proposed along the east side of the walkway. This facility will be sized
to accommodate the contributing offsite flows from OS-2. An underdrain system and overflow
inlets will also be incorporated into this treatment area.
Post #3 includes a small area between Building B and the soil nail retaining walls that are currently
under construction. This basin will consist of a snowmelted access walk, landscaping area and a
bio-retention cell (BRC-B) proposed along the east side of the walkway. This facility will be sized
to accommodate the contributing offsite flows from OS-3. An underdrain system and overflow
inlets will also be incorporated into this treatment area.
Post #4 includes a small area between Building C and the soil nail retaining walls that are currently
under construction. This basin will not contain any impervious areas and therefore no water quality
treatment will be required. Inlets and storm sewer pipes will be installed to improve the drainage
within this area. This storm system will be sized to account for offsite flows associated with OS-5.
Stormwater collected within this basin will directed towards the City’s right-of-way.
Post #5 includes a small area between Building D and the soil nail retaining walls that are currently
under construction. This basin will not contain any impervious areas and therefore no water quality
treatment will be required. Inlets and storm sewer pipes will be installed to improve the drainage
within this area. This storm system will be sized to account for offsite flows associated with OS-6.
Stormwater collected within this basin will directed towards the City’s right-of-way.
P138
VI.A.
P139
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado February 5, 2014
7 | P a g e
The post development flows for the 10-yr and 100-yr storm events have been estimated and are
summarized within Table 2 located in the following section of this report.
G. Hydrologic Methods and Assumptions
The drainage criteria used for this study was based on the COA’s URMP with supplemental
information taken from Urban Drainage Flood Control District Manual (UDFCD). The
improvements associated with this project classify it as a “Major Design” which requires an analysis
for the 10 and 100-year storm events. This section describes the hydrological assumptions and
methods used to estimate the peak runoff rates associated with the 10- and 100-year storm
events. Building permit drawings have been provided as an attachment for illustrational support of
the proposed stormwater conveyance system and overall grading plan.
Peak Runoff rates for the 10- and 100-year storm events were calculated using the Rational
Hydrologic Method (Eq. 1) since the cumulative total of basin areas was less than 90 acres.
Eq. 1: Q = C* I * A
Q = Runoff Flow Rate (cfs)
C = Runoff Coefficient
I = Rainfall Intensity (in/hr)
A= Area of Basin (acres)
The runoff coefficient (C) is a variable that represents the ratio of runoff to rainfall volumes during a
storm event. The determination of C mainly depends on the soil type, watershed impervious and
storm event frequency. Based on the observed soils onsite, a NRCS soil type C was used for to
determine the runoff C coefficient for each basin. Each drainage basin was studied to determine
the percent of impervious area. Landscaping areas were assumed to be 0% impervious which has
a C of 0.25 and 0.50 for the 10- and 100-year runoff coefficients, respectively. Roofs, patios and
concrete areas were all assumed to be 100% impervious or 0.92 and 0.96 for the 10 and 100-year
runoff coefficients, respectively. Areas with impervious areas different from 0% or 100% were
entered into UD-Rational Spreadsheets to determine the corresponding 10- and 100-year runoff
coefficients. The UD-Rational Spreadsheet was developed by Urban Drainage Flood Control
District (UDFCD). These spreadsheets have been provided within Appendix A of this report.
The design rainfall duration used in the Rational Method is referred to as the time of concentration.
The time of concentration is the cumulative travel time, including overland flow and channelized
flow, for runoff to get from the furthest point upstream of a basin to a designated design point. Per
COA URMP, 5 minutes was used as the absolute minimum time of concentration. This minimum
value was adopted for the smaller basins and sub-basins. Times of concentration for the larger
offsite basins were determined using UD-Rational Spreadsheets. The resultant times of
concentration and corresponding rainfall intensities were used to estimate the peak runoff rates for
each of the basins and sub-basins. A summary of the results for the offsite and post development
conditions are summarized within Tables 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
P140
VI.A.
P141
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado February 5, 2014
9 | P a g e
Inlets have been proposed within seven post development drainage basins. Post #2, #3, #6 - #8
will utilize inlets to capture and convey stormwater above the required water quality capture
volume. The inlets within these locations will be installed with a minimum of 3-inches of head. The
design of these inlets neglected the available water quality storage. This was consider to be a
conservative approach since the provided storage will reduce the peak flows being conveyed to the
corresponding inlets. The remaining sump inlets will be used to capture and convey runoff
generated from Post #4, Post #5, OS-5 and OS-6 and will simply be installed within low lying areas
behind Buildings C and D. 3-inches of head will also be provided for these inlets and the sizing of
these structures considered the cumulative peak runoff rates which again was considered to be
conservative.
Table 3 summarizes the minimum allowable areas of each inlet based on a 50% clogging factor
and the corresponding cumulative 100-year peak runoff rates. In addition, the recommended inlet
type and associated available areas are included in this table.
Table 3: Inlet Sizing Summary
All inlets recommended within Table 3 can be supplemented with an alternative product provided
the minimum allowable areas are met along with 3-inches of minimum head. Supporting
calculations are provided within Appendix B of this report.
On-Grade Trench Drains are proposed along the northern and southern entrances to capture water
quality runoff prior to exiting the property. In both cases Equation 4 was used to approximate the
intercepting capacities.
Eq. 4: Q = C*Le* H1.5
Q = Intercepting Capacity (cfs)
C = Coefficient of Discharge (3.33)
Le = Effective Length of Weir (ft) (50% of length to account for 50% clogging
factor)
H = Available head (ft)
Since Fee-In-Lieu of onsite detention is being pursued these drains are only intended to capture
the peak runoff rates generated from the water quality storm event (6-month to 1-year). To ensure
this was being accommodated the capacities of each trench drain was compared to peak runoff
P142
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado February 5, 2014
10 | P a g e
rates associated with a 2-year storm event. UD-Rational Spreadsheets were used to estimate the
2-year peak runoff rates for the contributing basins and copies of the results are provided within
Appendix A of this report. Table 4 has also been provided to summarize the design results for the
trench drains.
Table 4: On-Grade Trench Drain Design Summary
Trench Drain #1 refers to the drain proposed at the southern entrance. This drain will daylight
within the existing landscaping area. Associated flows will spill over the existing top back of curb
and dispersed onto the lower parking lot and ultimately intercepted by Trench Drain #2 which is
proposed along the northern entrance. This trench drain will be connected directly to the proposed
sand filter treatment vault.
Storm Sewer sizing was achieved by using StormNET Software. StormNET uses the Manning’s
equation to compute the flow rate in open channels and partially full closed conduits. PVC SDR 35
pipe is proposed for all storm sewer conveyance pipes and a Manning’s roughness coefficient of
0.013 was used. Storm pipes have been sized to accommodate the 10- and 100-year storm
events. In some cases for the 100-year event some of the proposed storm drains are running at
full flow capacity. Under these scenarios Hazen-William’s equation was selected in StormNET to
analyze the system under pressure conditions. In addition, hydrodynamic link routing was
selected. This approach solves the complete St. Venant equations throughout the drainage
network and includes modeling backwater effects, flow reversal, surcharging, pressure flow and
interconnected ponds. Hydraulic grade lines and energy grade lines were also estimated using
StormNET software. StormNet Software calculates the maximum EGLs and HGLs for all
structures and storm sewer pipes. It also provides an illustrational depiction within the model’s
user interface; however it only provides output information for the maximum HGL for each structure
and conduit. The HGL, a measure of flow energy, coincides with the level of flowing water at any
point in the conduit and includes friction and form losses. The difference between the HGL and
EGL is the velocity head; therefore if the HGL is known the EGL can be calculated by adding the
velocity head to the HGL line. StormNet output for HGLs and velocities within the corresponding
conduits were used to determine the associated EGLs. The results indicate that the storm sewer
pipes are adequately sized to accommodate the 10- and 100-year storm events. Supporting data
are provided within Appendix C and the resultant HGLs and EGLs are illustrated on the storm
sewer profiles.
I. Water Quality Treatment
Water quality treatment for the proposed impervious areas will be achieved through the use of bio-
retention cells and a sand filter treatment vault. This section describes the sizing and design of
each of these proposed water quality treatment facilities.
Bio-retention Cells (BRCs) are depressed landscaping areas designed to capture and filter the
water quality capture volume. Five bioretention cells are proposed for this project and are
described below:
P143
VI.A.
P144
VI.A.
P145
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado February 5, 2014
13 | P a g e
effort in addressing the City’s 9 Principles to stormwater management. Below is a list of each of
these 9 Principles along with how they were incorporated and/or considered during the design of
the stormwater mitigation system.
Principle #1-“Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process”: Initally this
project focused primarily on the replacement of existing walks and the renovation of the
existing Buildings. Once it was determined that this work triggered stormwater mitigation
per the City’s URMP SE was brought on board to prepare drainage and grading plans. Our
involvement led to a reduction in overall impervious areas by reducing the widths of existing
walkways. In addition, bio-retention cells were integrated into the proposed landscaping
design. Lastly, a sand filter treatment vault was designed to provide water quality treatment
for the areas that were unable to be routed to a bio-retention garden.
Principle #2-“Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment”: The
stormwater mitigation approach outlined within this report integrates numerous BMPs for
managing stormwater runoff. These elements are spread throughout the site where feasible
and were limited to topography challenges primarily between each of the buildings.
Principle #3- “Avoid unnecessary impervious areas”: Reducing the amount of impervious
areas was challenging due to the fact that this project consisted of an established site with
existing buildings, sidewalks and parking areas. Despite these existing constraints access
walks were reduced in widths throughout the site and completely eliminated in areas were
walkways were not necessary. The result was an overall reduction of impervious areas of
approximately 114 s.f. as compared to existing conditions.
Principle #4- “Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions”:
With the reduction of impervious areas and implementation of water quality systems, the
post runoff rate is less than the existing conditions. In addition, proposed water quality
treatment facilities proposed throughout the site provide storage volumes that were not
provided prior to the installation of the improvements.
Principle #5- “Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control”: The proposed
sand filter treatment vault and bio-retention cells will provide some storage detention
volumes as well as stormwater treatment. The results are post development peak runoff
rates that are equal to or less than existing levels.
Principle #6- “Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community and
the environment”: The proposed bio-retention cells have been incorporated into the
landscaping plan and offer stormwater treatment as well as aesthetic benefits to the site. In
addition, water quality treatment will be provided for the entire site which benefits
downstream properties as well as the Roaring Fork River.
Principle #7- “Use a treatment train approach”: This principle was limited to existing site
constraints; however the bio-retention cells and sand filter vault provide a disconnection to
surrounding impervious areas which is considered to be an element to the treatment train
approach.
Principle #8- “Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained”: There are no risks
associated with maintaining the proposed BMPs. A full maintenance plan has been
provided within Section L of this report.
P146
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado February 5, 2014
14 | P a g e
Principle #9- “Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind”: The current drainage
design poses no risks to public safety. In fact, the proposed stormwater improvements will
only enhance the existing system.
L. Maintenance Plan
This section describes the stormwater management systems proposed for the project as well as
the associated maintenance anticipated with these improvements. All of the stormwater mitigation
improvements will be owned and maintained by the property owner and the following maintenance
program should be followed to ensure proper functioning of the proposed improvements.
Sand Filter Treatment Vault: Inspection of these structures should occur annually to remove
sediment and debris that is washed into them. Other items that should be inspected include:
Monitor water level and accumulation of sediments in chambers quarterly.
Scarify top 3 inches by raking the filter’s surface once per year or when needed to promote
infiltration
Remove the top 3 inches of sand from the sand filter. After a second removal, replace with
6 inches of new sand to return the sand depth to 18 inches. Minimum sand depth is 15-
inches. This should take place every 2 to 5 years depending on observed drain times,
namely when it takes more than 12 hours to empty the water quality capture volume.
Bio-Retention Cells: Sediment build-up may require periodic removal of sediments and plants
when clogging reduces infiltration capacity to unacceptable levels. Plant materials in areas prone
to sediment build-up should be limited to grass and groundcovers tolerant of periodic wet-dry
cycles.
Inspect detention area to determine if the sandy growth media is allowing acceptable
infiltration. This should be performed annually.
Occasional removal of weeds and unwanted vegetation will be required.
Remove debris and litter from detention area to minimize clogging of filter grow media.
The grow media will clog in time as materials accumulate on it. This layer will need to be
removed and replaced to rehabilitate infiltration rates, along with all turf and other
vegetation growing on the surface. This will be required every 5- 15 years, depending on
infiltration rates needed to drain the WQCV in 12-hours or less.
Storm sewers and Inlets: Inspections of storm sewer piping and inlets should be performed by a
person who is familiar with the operation and configuration of the system.
Inspection of all storm pipes and associated inlets should occur at least quarterly for the
first two years of operation and then at least twice a year thereafter, if a reduced inspection
schedule is warranted based on initial two years of inspection. Strong odors may be a good
indication that the facility is not draining properly.
Inspection of inlets and grates should occur at a minimum every spring melt, early and late
fall and after any significant rainfall event. Any debris on or around the grated inlets should
be removed. Vegetation around the inlet should be trimmed and or cut from the perimeter
of the grate. Remove any weeds or invasive root material around all inlets. Inspect drain
inlet riser pipe to the invert and remove any debris and securely replace grate.
P147
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums, Aspen, Colorado February 5, 2014
15 | P a g e
M. Sediment and Erosion Control/BMPs
Current practice standards provide parameters for mitigation of drainage and soil erosion activities
relative to site development. These parameters are referred to as best management practices
BMP’s). These BMP’s are primarily grouped for two stages of the development, the construction
phase and the post-development phase, with the main emphasis on soil erosion and sediment
transport controls.
During the construction phase for the proposed improvements the contractor will have to prepare
and provide a Construction Management Plan (CMP) that will address site erosions, dust control
and disturbed ground stability.
Final construction stages of work must follow a complete landscaping and ground covering task to
permanently re-vegetate and cover bear grounds that will remain open space to avoid long-term
soil erosion. This effort will reduce the risk of unnecessary degradation of the City’s drainage
system. Temporary erosion control structures installed during construction shall be left in place as
necessary and maintained until new vegetation has been re-established at a 70% level. Upon
reaching a satisfactory level of soil stabilization from the new vegetation, all erosion control
structures shall be removed.
N. Conclusions
All aspects of this design were prepared in accordance with the COA URMP. The existing and
offsite drainage basins have been delineated based on Tuttle survey topography and on Pitkin
County's GIS topography. The existing basins were studied to estimate the total site’s peak runoff
rates at designated design points. Post development drainage basins were also studied to
determine the water quality capture volume and to safely pass the stormwater through the site. A
fee-in-lieu of providing onsite detention has been estimated since onsite detention is not feasible
for this site. All proposed stormwater infrastructure has been sized based on criteria outlined
within the COA URMP and the results of the analysis indicate that no long term, adverse impacts to
drainage are anticipated with the proposed improvements. The City’s 9 principals to managing
stormwater runoff have been implemented into the design and a descriptive maintenance plan for
all proposed stormwater infrastructure has been provided. Finally, Best Management Practices
BMPs) have been identified and will be implemented during the construction of the improvements.
O. References
The following references were used for this drainage report:
City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP)-dated April 2010
Urban Drainage Flood Control District Manual Vol. 3 (UDFCD)
UDFCD Spreadsheets: UD-Rational v1.02a
HP Geotech and dated October 31, 2011
P148
VI.A.
P149
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums Remodel, Aspen, CO Major Design Drainage Study SE Project No. 12038.01
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
502 Main Street Suite A3 Carbondale Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313
APPENDIX A
Post Development UD-Rational Spreadsheets
Note: Only basins with Tc greater than 5 minutes and/or basins with % impervious areas other than 0% & 100% have
been included to provide supporting information for runoff coefficients and rainfall intensities.
P150
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = EX-2
Area = 0.732 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 75.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.62
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.58
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.58 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.18 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 1.9 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST EX-2 10 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-EX-2.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:14 PM
P151
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = OS-4
Area = 1.93 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 0.10 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.25
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.15
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4000 300 0.15 N/A 0.57 8.79
1 0.2000 650 7.00 3.13 3.46
2 0.5000 150 2.50 1.77 1.41
3
4
5
1,100 Computed Tc =13.66
Regional Tc = 16.11
User-Entered Tc = 13.66
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =2.92 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 1.41 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.70 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 1.30 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =2.92 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 1.41 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
OS-4 10 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-OS-4.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:13 PM
P152
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = OS-5
Area = 0.283 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 0.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.00 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.25
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.15
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4200 225 0.15 N/A 0.50 7.49
1
2
3
4
5
225 Computed Tc =7.49
Regional Tc = 11.25
User-Entered Tc = 7.49
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =3.64 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.26 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =3.12 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.22 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =3.64 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.26 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
OS-5 10 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-OS-5.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:08 PM
P153
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = OS-6
Area = 1.416 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 0.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.25
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.15
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.2800 300 0.15 N/A 0.51 9.89
1 0.4000 220 2.50 1.58 2.32
2
3
4
5
520 Computed Tc =12.21
Regional Tc = 12.89
User-Entered Tc = 12.21
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =3.07 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 1.09 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.99 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 1.06 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =3.07 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 1.09 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
OS-6 10-YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-OS-6.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:10 PM
P154
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = OS-7
Area = 0.118 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 25.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.36
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.28
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.2800 300 0.28 N/A 0.59 8.51
1 0.4000 220 2.50 1.58 2.32
2 0.0250 60 20.00 3.16 0.32
3
4
5
580 Computed Tc =11.15
Regional Tc = 13.22
User-Entered Tc = 11.15
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =3.19 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.14 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =2.96 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.13 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =3.19 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.14 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
OS-7 10-YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-OS-7.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:11 PM
P155
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 2
Area = 0.025 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 23.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.36
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.27
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.27 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.18 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.04 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 2 10 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-POST 2.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:10 PM
P156
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 3
Area = 0.03 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 16.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.33
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.24
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.24 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.18 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.04 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 3 10 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-POST 3.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:53 PM
P157
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 6
Area = 0.070 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 95.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.84
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.82
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.82 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.18 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.25 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 6 10 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-POST 6.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:52 PM
P158
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 8A
Area = 0.076 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 92.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.80
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.77
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.77 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.18 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.25 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 8A 10 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-POST 8A.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:56 PM
P159
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 9A
Area = 0.167 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 66.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.55
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.50
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.50 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.18 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.38 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 9A 10 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-POST 9A.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:48 PM
P160
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 9B
Area = 0.165 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 84.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.70
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.67
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.67 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.18 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.48 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 9B 10 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-POST 9B.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:07 PM
P161
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 10
Area = 0.024 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 46.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 10 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.20 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.44
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.38
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.38 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.18 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.04 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 10 10 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
10YR-POST 10.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:57 PM
P162
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = EX-2
Area = 0.732 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 75.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.71
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.58
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.58 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.89 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 3.05 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST EX-2 100 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-EX-2.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:06 PM
P163
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = OS-4
Area = 1.93 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 0.10 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.50
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.15
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4000 300 0.15 N/A 0.57 8.79
1 0.2000 650 7.00 3.13 3.46
2 0.5000 150 2.50 1.77 1.41
3
4
5
1,100 Computed Tc =13.66
Regional Tc = 16.11
User-Entered Tc = 13.66
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =4.11 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 3.96 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =3.80 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 3.66 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.11 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 3.96 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
OS-4 100 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-OS-4.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:58 PM
P164
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = OS-5
Area = 0.283 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 0.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.50
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.15
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.4200 225 0.15 N/A 0.50 7.49
1
2
3
4
5
225 Computed Tc =7.49
Regional Tc = 11.25
User-Entered Tc = 7.49
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =5.21 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.74 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.47 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.63 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.21 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.74 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
OS-5 100-YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-OS-5.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:50 PM
P165
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = OS-6
Area = 1.416 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 0.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.50
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.15
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.2800 300 0.15 N/A 0.51 9.89
1 0.4000 220 2.50 1.58 2.32
2
3
4
5
520 Computed Tc =12.21
Regional Tc = 12.89
User-Entered Tc = 12.21
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =4.32 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 3.06 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.22 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 2.99 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.32 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 3.06 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
OS-6 100-YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-OS-6.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:51 PM
P166
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = OS-7
Area = 0.118 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 25.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.56
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.28
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.2800 300 0.28 N/A 0.59 8.51
1 0.4000 220 2.50 1.58 2.32
2 0.0250 60 20.00 3.16 0.32
3
4
5
580 Computed Tc =11.15
Regional Tc = 13.22
User-Entered Tc = 11.15
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =4.49 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.30 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =4.17 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.28 cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =4.49 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.30 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
OS-7 100-YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-OS-7.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:55 PM
P167
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 2
Area = 0.03 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 23.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.56
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.27
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.27 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.89 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.08 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 2 100 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-POST 2.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:09 PM
P168
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 3
Area = 0.03 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 16.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.54
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.24
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.24 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.89 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.09 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 3 100 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-POST 3.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:56 PM
P169
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 6
Area = 0.070 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 95.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.89
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.82
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.82 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.89 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.37 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 6 100 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-POST 6.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:08 PM
P170
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 8A
Area = 0.076 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 92.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.86
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.77
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.77 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.89 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.38 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 8A 100 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-POST 8A.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:13 PM
P171
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 9A
Area = 0.167 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 66.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.66
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.50
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.50 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.89 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.65 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 9A 100 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-POST 9A.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 3:52 PM
P172
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 9B
Area = 0.165 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 84.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.78
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.67
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.67 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.89 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.75 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 9B 100 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-POST 9B.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:06 PM
P173
VI.A.
Project Title:
Catchment ID:
I.Catchment Hydrologic Data
Catchment ID = POST 10
Area = 0.024 Acres
Percent Imperviousness = 46.00 %
NRCS Soil Type = C A, B, C, or D
II.Rainfall Information I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)^C3
Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years (input return period for design storm)
C1 = 29.50 (input the value of C1)
C2= 10.00 (input the value of C2)
C3= 0.789 (input the value of C3)
P1= 1.69 inches (input one-hr precipitation--see Sheet "Design Info")
III.Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment
Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.59
Overide Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.)
5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = 0.38
Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C =(enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.)
Illustration
NRCS Land Heavy Tillage/ Short Nearly Grassed
Type Meadow Field Pasture/ Bare Swales/
Lawns Ground Waterways
Conveyance 2.5 5 7 10 15
Calculations:Reach Slope Length 5-yr NRCS Flow Flow
ID S L Runoff Convey- Velocity Time
Coeff ance V Tf
ft/ft ft C-5 fps minutes
input input output input output output
Overland 0.38 N/A 0.00 0.00
1
2
3
4
5
0 Computed Tc =0.00
Regional Tc = 10.00
User-Entered Tc = 5.00
IV.Peak Runoff Prediction
Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I =inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp =cfs
Rainfall Intensity at User-Defined Tc, I =5.89 inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = 0.08 cfs
Sum
CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD
12038-DURANT CONDOS
POST 10 100 YR
Paved Areas &
Sheet Flow)
20
Shallow Paved Swales
100YR-POST 10.xls, Tc and PeakQ 1/22/2014, 4:12 PM
P174
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums Remodel, Aspen, CO Major Design Drainage Study SE Project No. 12038.01
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
502 Main Street Suite A3 Carbondale Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313
APPENDIX B
Sump and On-Grade Inlet Design Data
P175
VI.A.
P176
VI.A.
P177
VI.A.
P178
VI.A.
P179
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums Remodel, Aspen, CO Major Design Drainage Study SE Project No. 12038.01
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
502 Main Street Suite A3 Carbondale Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313
APPENDIX C
10-Yr & 100-Yr StormNet Data
10-Yr & 100-Yr HGL/EGL Summary Tables
100-Yr Pipe and Channel Calculations (not included within StormNet Model)
ScourStop Design Guide
P180
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Project Description
12038-10-YR.SPF
Project Options
CFS
Elevation
Rational
User-Defined
Hydrodynamic
YES
YES
Analysis Options
Apr 19, 2013 00:00:00
Apr 19, 2013 03:00:00
Apr 19, 2013 00:00:00
0 days
0 01:00:00 days hh:mm:ss
0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
30 seconds
Rainfall Details
10 year(s)
Runoff (Dry Weather) Time Step ..........................................
Runoff (Wet Weather) Time Step ........................................
Reporting Time Step ............................................................
Routing Time Step ................................................................
Return Period........................................................................
Enable Overflow Ponding at Nodes ......................................
Skip Steady State Analysis Time Periods ............................
Start Analysis On ..................................................................
End Analysis On ...................................................................
Start Reporting On ................................................................
Antecedent Dry Days ............................................................
File Name .............................................................................
Flow Units .............................................................................
Elevation Type ......................................................................
Hydrology Method .................................................................
Time of Concentration (TOC) Method ..................................
Link Routing Method .............................................................
P181
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin Summary
SN Subbasin Area Weighted Total Total Total Peak Time of
ID Runoff Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Concentration
Coefficient Volume
ft²)(in)( in)(ac-in)(cfs)(days hh:mm:ss)
1 OS-2 2535.50 0.2500 0.35 0.09 0.01 0.06 0 00:05:00
2 OS-3 3034.00 0.2500 0.35 0.09 0.01 0.07 0 00:05:00
3 OS-5 12317.98 0.2500 0.45 0.11 0.03 0.26 0 00:07:29
4 OS-6 61700.00 0.2500 0.61 0.15 0.21 1.06 0 00:12:12
5 POST-2 1102.98 0.3600 0.35 0.13 0.00 0.04 0 00:05:00
6 POST-3 1216.02 0.3300 0.35 0.12 0.00 0.04 0 00:05:00
7 POST-4 798.02 0.2500 0.35 0.09 0.00 0.02 0 00:05:00
8 POST-5 729.41 0.2500 0.35 0.09 0.00 0.02 0 00:05:00
9 POST-6 3052.12 0.8400 0.35 0.29 0.02 0.25 0 00:05:00
10 POST-7A 2884.80 0.9200 0.35 0.32 0.02 0.26 0 00:05:00
11 POST-7B 220.20 0.2500 0.35 0.09 0.00 0.01 0 00:05:00
12 POST-8A 3323.11 0.8000 0.35 0.28 0.02 0.26 0 00:05:00
13 POST-8B 3080.21 0.9200 0.35 0.32 0.02 0.27 0 00:05:00
P182
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Link Summary
SN Element Element From To (Outlet)Length Inlet Outlet Average Diameter or Manning's Peak Design Flow Peak Flow/Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow
ID Type (Inlet)Node Invert Invert Slope Height Roughness Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Depth Depth/
Node Elevation Elevation Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
ft)(ft)(ft)(%)(in)(cfs)( cfs)(ft/sec)(ft)
1 PIPE-A1 Pipe J-BRCA J-A1 30.00 7991.33 7990.73 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.08 0.79 0.10 3.26 0.09 0.18
2 PIPE-A10 Pipe J-A9 J-A10 5.00 7975.80 7975.70 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.16 0.79 0.20 3.58 0.14 0.28
3 PIPE-A11 Pipe J-A10 J-A11 0.25 7975.70 7971.87 1532.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.22 21.96 0.01 9.68 0.11 0.21
4 PIPE-A12 Pipe J-A11 J-A12 3.00 7971.87 7971.81 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.11 0.79 0.14 2.08 0.17 0.34
5 PIPE-A13 Pipe J-A12 J-A13 4.00 7971.81 7971.73 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.11 0.79 0.14 2.46 0.14 0.29
6 PIPE-A14 Pipe J-A13 J-BRC-E 36.00 7971.73 7971.01 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.11 0.79 0.14 2.12 0.16 0.32
7 PIPE-A15 Pipe J-BRC-E J-BRC-D2 25.00 7971.01 7970.51 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.23 0.79 0.29 2.51 0.24 0.49
8 PIPE-A16 Pipe J-BRC-D2 Out-BRC-C/D 2.50 7970.51 7970.46 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.23 0.79 0.29 2.53 0.23 0.47
9 PIPE-A2 Pipe J-A1 J-A2 10.00 7990.73 7988.04 26.9000 6.000 0.0130 0.08 2.91 0.03 6.18 0.07 0.13
10 PIPE-A3 Pipe J-A2 J-A3 6.00 7988.04 7986.43 26.8300 6.000 0.0130 0.09 2.91 0.03 6.22 0.07 0.13
11 PIPE-A4 Pipe J-A3 J-A4 3.00 7986.43 7985.63 26.6700 6.000 0.0130 0.10 2.90 0.03 2.59 0.13 0.26
12 PIPE-A5 Pipe J-A4 J-A5 5.50 7985.63 7985.52 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.16 0.79 0.20 2.29 0.20 0.39
13 PIPE-A6 Pipe J-A5 J-A6 13.00 7985.52 7985.26 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.16 0.79 0.20 3.83 0.13 0.26
14 PIPE-A7 Pipe J-A6 J-A7 11.00 7985.26 7980.48 43.4500 6.000 0.0130 0.16 3.70 0.04 6.80 0.13 0.27
15 PIPE-A8 Pipe J-A7 J-A8 6.00 7980.48 7980.36 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.15 0.79 0.19 3.58 0.13 0.27
16 PIPE-A9 Pipe J-A8 J-A9 10.50 7980.36 7975.80 43.4300 6.000 0.0130 0.15 3.70 0.04 7.19 0.14 0.29
17 PIPE-B1 Pipe J-BRC-B J-A4 32.50 7986.28 7985.63 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.08 0.79 0.10 2.73 0.15 0.31
18 PIPE-B2 Pipe J-B1 J-B2 21.00 7975.65 7975.23 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.26 0.79 0.32 2.77 0.29 0.57
19 PIPE-B3 Pipe J-B2 J-B3 9.00 7975.23 7975.05 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.31 0.79 0.39 2.54 0.43 0.87
20 PIPE-B4 Pipe J-B3 Stor-BRC-D 11.00 7975.05 7974.83 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.39 0.79 0.49 3.78 0.28 0.55
21 PIPE-BRC_E1 Pipe J-BRC_E1 J-BRC_E2 15.00 7985.09 7985.01 0.5300 6.000 0.0130 0.12 0.41 0.28 1.23 0.25 0.50
22 PIPE-BRC_E2 Pipe J-BRC_E2 J-BRC_E3 18.00 7985.01 7984.92 0.5000 6.000 0.0130 0.11 0.40 0.27 0.90 0.31 0.63
23 PIPE-BRC_E3 Pipe J-BRC_E3 J-D8 18.00 7984.92 7984.83 0.5000 6.000 0.0130 0.11 0.40 0.28 1.04 0.39 0.78
24 PIPE-BRC-C Pipe J-BRC-C J-BRC-E 5.00 7972.43 7972.33 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.05 0.79 0.07 2.02 0.10 0.19
25 PIPE-C1 Pipe INLET-BLDG_C J-C1 3.00 7992.61 7992.55 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.27 0.79 0.34 2.78 0.25 0.49
26 PIPE-C2 Pipe J-C1 J-C2 43.00 7992.55 7991.69 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.27 0.79 0.34 3.39 0.21 0.42
27 PIPE-C3 Pipe J-C2 J-C3 3.10 7991.69 7991.43 8.3900 6.000 0.0130 0.27 1.62 0.16 3.87 0.19 0.38
28 PIPE-C4 Pipe J-C3 J-C4 6.00 7991.43 7990.93 8.3300 6.000 0.0130 0.27 1.62 0.16 3.89 0.19 0.38
29 PIPE-C5 Pipe J-C4 J-D4 4.00 7990.93 7990.60 8.2500 6.000 0.0130 0.27 1.61 0.17 3.87 0.19 0.38
30 PIPE-D1 Pipe Inlet-BLDG-D J-D1 21.50 7994.07 7993.64 2.0000 12.000 0.0130 1.07 5.04 0.21 2.91 0.47 0.47
31 PIPE-D10 Pipe J-D9 Out-1 16.00 7984.38 7983.98 2.5000 12.000 0.0130 1.35 5.63 0.24 4.88 0.38 0.38
32 PIPE-D2 Pipe J-D1 J-D2 3.50 7993.71 7993.64 2.0000 12.000 0.0130 1.06 5.04 0.21 4.61 0.33 0.33
33 PIPE-D3 Pipe J-D2 J-D3 3.50 7993.64 7991.74 54.2900 12.000 0.0130 1.07 26.25 0.04 8.91 0.21 0.21
34 PIPE-D4 Pipe J-D3 J-D4 2.10 7991.74 7990.60 54.2900 12.000 0.0130 1.07 26.25 0.04 8.51 0.22 0.22
35 PIPE-D5 Pipe J-D4 J-D5 3.90 7990.60 7988.48 54.3600 12.000 0.0130 1.26 26.27 0.05 8.98 0.23 0.23
36 PIPE-D6 Pipe J-D5 J-D6 48.00 7988.48 7985.60 6.0000 12.000 0.0130 1.26 8.73 0.14 5.62 0.33 0.33
37 PIPE-D7 Pipe J-D6 J-D7 7.00 7985.60 7985.18 6.0000 12.000 0.0130 1.26 8.73 0.14 4.05 0.42 0.42
38 PIPE-D8 Pipe J-D7 J-D8 14.00 7985.18 7984.83 2.5000 12.000 0.0130 1.25 5.63 0.22 3.89 0.43 0.43
39 PIPE-D9 Pipe J-D8 J-D9 18.00 7984.83 7984.38 2.5000 12.000 0.0130 1.35 5.63 0.24 4.16 0.43 0.43
40 PIPE-E1 Pipe J-BLDG_D1 J-BLDG_D2 2.65 7988.54 7988.46 3.0200 6.000 0.0130 0.27 0.97 0.28 3.12 0.23 0.45
41 PIPE-E2 Pipe J-BLDG_D2 J-BLDG_D3 34.50 7988.46 7987.43 2.9900 6.000 0.0130 0.27 0.97 0.28 3.33 0.23 0.46
42 PIPE-E3 Pipe J-BLDG_D3 J-BLDG-D4 4.00 7987.43 7987.31 3.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.27 0.97 0.28 4.18 0.26 0.52
43 SCUPPER Channel J-BLDG-D4 Stor-BRC-E 12.40 7987.31 7987.00 2.5000 6.000 0.0130 0.27 3.59 0.07 1.96 0.41 0.83
44 Reg-06 Orifice Stor-BRC-B J-BRC-B 7988.70 7986.28 9.000 0.08
45 Reg-08 Orifice Stor-BRC-E J-BRC_E1 7987.00 7985.09 11.700 0.12
46 Reg-BRCA Orifice Stor-BRC-A J-BRCA 7994.57 7991.33 8.500 0.08
47 Reg-BRC-C Orifice Stor-BRC-C J-BRC-C 7977.83 7972.43 6.600 0.05
48 Reg-BRC-D Orifice Stor-BRC-D J-BRC-E 7974.83 7971.01 8.630 0.08
P183
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin Hydrology
Subbasin : OS-2
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................2535.50
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
2535.50 -0.25
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.2535.50 0.25
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.09
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.06
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P184
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : OS-3
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................3034.00
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
3034.00 -0.25
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.3034.00 0.25
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.09
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.07
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P185
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : OS-5
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................12317.98
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
12317.98 -0.25
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.12317.98 0.25
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.45
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.11
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.26
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................3.603
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:07:29
P186
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : OS-6
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................61700.00
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
61700.00 -0.25
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.61700.00 0.25
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.61
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.15
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................1.06
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................2.983
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:12:13
P187
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-2
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................1102.98
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.3600
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
1102.98 -0.36
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.1102.98 0.36
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.13
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.04
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.3600
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P188
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-3
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................1216.02
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.3300
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
1216.02 -0.33
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.1216.02 0.33
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.12
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.04
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.3300
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P189
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-4
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................798.02
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
798.02 -0.25
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.798.02 0.25
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.09
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.02
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P190
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-5
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................729.41
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
729.41 -0.25
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.729.41 0.25
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.09
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.02
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P191
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-6
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................3052.12
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.8400
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
3052.12 -0.84
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.3052.12 0.84
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.29
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.25
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.8400
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P192
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-7A
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................2884.80
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.9200
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
2884.80 -0.92
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.2884.80 0.92
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.32
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.26
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.9200
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P193
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-7B
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................220.20
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
220.20 -0.25
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.220.20 0.25
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.09
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.01
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.2500
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P194
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-8A
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................3323.11
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.8000
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
3323.11 -0.80
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.3323.11 0.80
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.28
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.26
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.8000
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P195
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-8B
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................3080.21
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.9200
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
3080.21 -0.92
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.3080.21 0.92
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.35
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.32
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.27
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.180
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.9200
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P196
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Junction Input
SN Element Invert Ground/Rim Ground/Rim Initial Initial
ID Elevation (Max)(Max)Water Water
Elevation Offset Elevation Depth
ft)(ft)( ft)(ft)(ft)
1 J-A1 7990.73 7995.00 4.27 7990.73 0.00
2 J-A10 7975.70 7978.50 2.80 7975.70 0.00
3 J-A11 7971.87 7978.50 6.63 7971.87 0.00
4 J-A12 7971.81 7977.50 5.69 7971.81 0.00
5 J-A13 7971.73 7974.83 3.10 7971.73 0.00
6 J-A2 7988.04 7995.00 6.96 7988.04 0.00
7 J-A3 7986.43 7991.50 5.07 7986.43 0.00
8 J-A4 7985.63 7990.50 4.87 7985.63 0.00
9 J-A5 7985.52 7990.00 4.48 7985.52 0.00
10 J-A6 7985.26 7988.00 2.74 7985.26 0.00
11 J-A7 7980.48 7985.00 4.52 7980.48 0.00
12 J-A8 7980.36 7983.00 2.64 7980.36 0.00
13 J-A9 7975.80 7979.00 3.20 7975.80 0.00
14 J-B1 7975.65 7979.49 3.84 7975.65 0.00
15 J-B2 7975.23 7978.50 3.27 7975.23 0.00
16 J-B3 7975.05 7978.50 3.45 7975.05 0.00
17 J-BLDG_D1 7988.54 7991.36 2.82 7988.54 0.00
18 J-BLDG_D2 7988.46 7991.00 2.54 7988.46 0.00
19 J-BLDG_D3 7987.43 7990.40 2.97 7987.43 0.00
20 J-BLDG-D4 7987.31 7990.40 3.09 7987.31 0.00
21 J-BRC_E1 7985.09 7987.50 2.41 7985.09 0.00
22 J-BRC_E2 7985.01 7987.50 2.49 7985.01 0.00
23 J-BRC_E3 7984.92 7987.50 2.58 7984.92 0.00
24 J-BRCA 7991.33 7994.65 3.32 7991.33 0.00
25 J-BRC-B 7986.28 7988.70 2.42 7986.28 0.00
26 J-BRC-C 7972.43 7978.08 5.65 7972.43 0.00
27 J-BRC-D2 7970.51 7975.08 4.57 7970.51 0.00
28 J-BRC-E 7971.01 7975.08 4.07 7971.01 0.00
29 J-C1 7992.55 7995.61 3.06 7992.55 0.00
30 J-C2 7991.69 7995.61 3.92 7991.69 0.00
31 J-C3 7991.43 7996.00 4.57 7991.43 0.00
32 J-C4 7990.93 7996.00 5.07 7990.93 0.00
33 J-D1 7993.64 7996.00 2.36 7993.64 0.00
34 J-D2 7993.64 7996.00 2.36 7993.64 0.00
35 J-D3 7991.74 7996.00 4.26 7991.74 0.00
36 J-D4 7990.60 7996.00 5.40 7990.60 0.00
37 J-D5 7988.48 7996.00 7.52 7988.48 0.00
38 J-D6 7985.60 7990.50 4.90 7985.60 0.00
39 J-D7 7985.18 7990.50 5.32 7985.18 0.00
40 J-D8 7984.83 7989.00 4.17 7984.83 0.00
41 J-D9 7984.38 7987.00 2.62 7984.38 0.00
P197
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Junction Results
SN Element Peak Peak Max HGL Max HGL Average HGL Average HGL Time of
ID Inflow Lateral Elevation Depth Elevation Depth Max HGL
Inflow Attained Attained Attained Attained Occurrence
cfs)(cfs)(ft)( ft)(ft)(ft)(days hh:mm)
1 J-A1 0.08 0.00 7990.79 0.06 7990.74 0.01 0 00:06
2 J-A10 0.16 0.00 7975.78 0.08 7975.70 0.00 0 00:11
3 J-A11 0.22 0.00 7972.05 0.18 7971.89 0.02 0 00:16
4 J-A12 0.11 0.00 7971.97 0.16 7971.83 0.02 0 00:16
5 J-A13 0.11 0.00 7971.86 0.13 7971.75 0.02 0 00:16
6 J-A2 0.08 0.00 7988.11 0.07 7988.05 0.01 0 00:07
7 J-A3 0.09 0.00 7986.50 0.07 7986.44 0.01 0 00:07
8 J-A4 0.18 0.00 7985.83 0.20 7985.65 0.02 0 00:08
9 J-A5 0.16 0.00 7985.71 0.19 7985.54 0.02 0 00:09
10 J-A6 0.16 0.00 7985.33 0.07 7985.27 0.01 0 00:09
11 J-A7 0.16 0.00 7980.68 0.20 7980.50 0.02 0 00:10
12 J-A8 0.15 0.00 7980.43 0.07 7980.37 0.01 0 00:10
13 J-A9 0.15 0.00 7976.03 0.23 7975.83 0.03 0 00:13
14 J-B1 0.25 0.25 7975.85 0.20 7975.67 0.02 0 00:05
15 J-B2 0.26 0.00 7975.61 0.38 7975.25 0.02 0 00:05
16 J-B3 0.31 0.00 7975.61 0.56 7975.11 0.06 0 00:05
17 J-BLDG_D1 0.27 0.27 7988.81 0.27 7988.56 0.02 0 00:05
18 J-BLDG_D2 0.27 0.00 7988.64 0.18 7988.48 0.02 0 00:05
19 J-BLDG_D3 0.27 0.00 7987.71 0.28 7987.53 0.10 0 00:06
20 J-BLDG-D4 0.27 0.00 7987.64 0.33 7987.51 0.20 0 00:12
21 J-BRC_E1 0.12 0.00 7985.32 0.23 7985.12 0.03 0 00:14
22 J-BRC_E2 0.12 0.00 7985.29 0.28 7985.05 0.04 0 00:15
23 J-BRC_E3 0.11 0.00 7985.27 0.35 7984.98 0.06 0 00:15
24 J-BRCA 0.08 0.00 7991.46 0.13 7991.34 0.01 0 00:07
25 J-BRC-B 0.08 0.00 7986.39 0.11 7986.29 0.01 0 00:08
26 J-BRC-C 0.05 0.00 7972.53 0.10 7972.45 0.02 0 00:13
27 J-BRC-D2 0.23 0.00 7970.80 0.29 7970.56 0.05 0 00:14
28 J-BRC-E 0.23 0.00 7971.21 0.20 7971.05 0.04 0 00:14
29 J-C1 0.27 0.00 7992.76 0.21 7992.58 0.03 0 00:08
30 J-C2 0.27 0.00 7991.90 0.21 7991.72 0.03 0 00:08
31 J-C3 0.27 0.00 7991.60 0.17 7991.45 0.02 0 00:08
32 J-C4 0.27 0.00 7991.14 0.21 7990.96 0.03 0 00:09
33 J-D1 1.07 0.00 7994.19 0.55 7993.80 0.16 0 00:12
34 J-D2 1.06 0.00 7993.83 0.19 7993.68 0.04 0 00:12
35 J-D3 1.07 0.00 7991.97 0.23 7991.78 0.04 0 00:13
36 J-D4 1.25 0.00 7990.81 0.21 7990.64 0.04 0 00:13
37 J-D5 1.26 0.00 7988.74 0.26 7988.53 0.05 0 00:14
38 J-D6 1.26 0.00 7986.00 0.40 7985.67 0.07 0 00:14
39 J-D7 1.26 0.00 7985.62 0.44 7985.26 0.08 0 00:14
40 J-D8 1.35 0.00 7985.26 0.43 7984.91 0.08 0 00:15
41 J-D9 1.35 0.00 7984.81 0.43 7984.46 0.08 0 00:15
P198
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Channel Input
SN Element Length Inlet Inlet Outlet Outlet Total Average Shape Height Width Manning's Entrance Exit/Bend
ID Invert Invert Invert Invert Drop Slope Roughness Losses Losses
Elevation Offset Elevation Offset
ft)( ft)(ft)(ft)( ft)( ft)(%)(ft)(ft)
1 SCUPPER 12.40 7987.31 0.00 7987.00 0.00 0.31 2.5000 Rectangular 0.500 1.000 0.0130 0.5000 0.5000
P199
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Channel Results
SN Element Peak Time of Design Flow Peak Flow/Peak Flow Travel Peak Flow Peak Flow Total Time
ID Flow Peak Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Time Depth Depth/Surcharged
Occurrence Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
cfs)(days hh:mm)(cfs)(ft/sec)(min)(ft)(min)
1 SCUPPER 0.27 0 00:06 3.59 0.07 1.96 0.11 0.41 0.83 0.00
P200
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Pipe Results
SN Element Peak Time of Design Flow Peak Flow/Peak Flow Travel Peak Flow Peak Flow
ID Flow Peak Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Time Depth Depth/
Occurrence Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
cfs)(days hh:mm)(cfs)(ft/sec)(min)(ft)
1 PIPE-A1 0.08 0 00:07 0.79 0.10 3.26 0.15 0.09 0.18
2 PIPE-A10 0.16 0 00:11 0.79 0.20 3.58 0.02 0.14 0.28
3 PIPE-A11 0.22 0 00:12 21.96 0.01 9.68 0.00 0.11 0.21
4 PIPE-A12 0.11 0 00:16 0.79 0.14 2.08 0.02 0.17 0.34
5 PIPE-A13 0.11 0 00:16 0.79 0.14 2.46 0.03 0.14 0.29
6 PIPE-A14 0.11 0 00:17 0.79 0.14 2.12 0.28 0.16 0.32
7 PIPE-A15 0.23 0 00:14 0.79 0.29 2.51 0.17 0.24 0.49
8 PIPE-A16 0.23 0 00:15 0.79 0.29 2.53 0.02 0.23 0.47
9 PIPE-A2 0.08 0 00:06 2.91 0.03 6.18 0.03 0.07 0.13
10 PIPE-A3 0.09 0 00:07 2.91 0.03 6.22 0.02 0.07 0.13
11 PIPE-A4 0.10 0 00:07 2.90 0.03 2.59 0.02 0.13 0.26
12 PIPE-A5 0.16 0 00:08 0.79 0.20 2.29 0.04 0.20 0.39
13 PIPE-A6 0.16 0 00:09 0.79 0.20 3.83 0.06 0.13 0.26
14 PIPE-A7 0.16 0 00:09 3.70 0.04 6.80 0.03 0.13 0.27
15 PIPE-A8 0.15 0 00:10 0.79 0.19 3.58 0.03 0.13 0.27
16 PIPE-A9 0.15 0 00:10 3.70 0.04 7.19 0.02 0.14 0.29
17 PIPE-B1 0.08 0 00:08 0.79 0.10 2.73 0.20 0.15 0.31
18 PIPE-B2 0.26 0 00:05 0.79 0.32 2.77 0.13 0.29 0.57
19 PIPE-B3 0.31 0 00:05 0.79 0.39 2.54 0.06 0.43 0.87
20 PIPE-B4 0.39 0 00:06 0.79 0.49 3.78 0.05 0.28 0.55
21 PIPE-BRC_E1 0.12 0 00:13 0.41 0.28 1.23 0.20 0.25 0.50
22 PIPE-BRC_E2 0.11 0 00:13 0.40 0.27 0.90 0.33 0.31 0.63
23 PIPE-BRC_E3 0.11 0 00:16 0.40 0.28 1.04 0.29 0.39 0.78
24 PIPE-BRC-C 0.05 0 00:13 0.79 0.07 2.02 0.04 0.10 0.19
25 PIPE-C1 0.27 0 00:08 0.79 0.34 2.78 0.02 0.25 0.49
26 PIPE-C2 0.27 0 00:08 0.79 0.34 3.39 0.21 0.21 0.42
27 PIPE-C3 0.27 0 00:08 1.62 0.16 3.87 0.01 0.19 0.38
28 PIPE-C4 0.27 0 00:09 1.62 0.16 3.89 0.03 0.19 0.38
29 PIPE-C5 0.27 0 00:09 1.61 0.17 3.87 0.02 0.19 0.38
30 PIPE-D1 1.07 0 00:12 5.04 0.21 2.91 0.12 0.47 0.47
31 PIPE-D10 1.35 0 00:15 5.63 0.24 4.88 0.05 0.38 0.38
32 PIPE-D2 1.06 0 00:12 5.04 0.21 4.61 0.01 0.33 0.33
33 PIPE-D3 1.07 0 00:13 26.25 0.04 8.91 0.01 0.21 0.21
34 PIPE-D4 1.07 0 00:13 26.25 0.04 8.51 0.00 0.22 0.22
35 PIPE-D5 1.26 0 00:14 26.27 0.05 8.98 0.01 0.23 0.23
36 PIPE-D6 1.26 0 00:14 8.73 0.14 5.62 0.14 0.33 0.33
37 PIPE-D7 1.26 0 00:14 8.73 0.14 4.05 0.03 0.42 0.42
38 PIPE-D8 1.25 0 00:15 5.63 0.22 3.89 0.06 0.43 0.43
39 PIPE-D9 1.35 0 00:15 5.63 0.24 4.16 0.07 0.43 0.43
40 PIPE-E1 0.27 0 00:05 0.97 0.28 3.12 0.01 0.23 0.45
41 PIPE-E2 0.27 0 00:05 0.97 0.28 3.33 0.17 0.23 0.46
42 PIPE-E3 0.27 0 00:06 0.97 0.28 4.18 0.02 0.26 0.52
P201
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Storage Nodes
Storage Node : Stor-BRC-A
Input Data
7994.57
7994.90
0.33
7994.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outflow Orifices
SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice
ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient
Diameter Height Width Elevation
in)(in)(in)(ft)
1 Reg-BRCA Bottom CIRCULAR No 8.50 7994.65 0.60
Output Summary Results
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.00
7994.70
0.13
7994.65
0.0800000000000001
0 00:06
0.000
0
0
0.00
Total Time Flooded (min) ............................................
Total Retention Time (sec) ..........................................
Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................................
Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ............................
Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .................................
Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) ..............
Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ..............................
Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ......................................
Evaporation Loss .........................................................
Peak Inflow (cfs) ..........................................................
Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ..............................................
Peak Outflow (cfs) .......................................................
Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ................................
Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ..................................
Invert Elevation (ft) .......................................................
Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ...............................................
Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ....................................................
Initial Water Elevation (ft) .............................................
Initial Water Depth (ft) ..................................................
Ponded Area (ft²) .........................................................
P202
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Storage Node : Stor-BRC-B
Input Data
7988.70
7989.03
0.33
7988.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outflow Orifices
SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice
ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient
Diameter Height Width Elevation
in)(in)(in)(ft)
1 Reg-06 Side CIRCULAR No 9.00 7988.78 0.60
Output Summary Results
0.11
0.11
0.08
0.00
7988.90
0.2
7988.79
0.0899999999999999
0 00:07
0.000
0
0
0.00
Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ..............................
Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ......................................
Total Time Flooded (min) ............................................
Total Retention Time (sec) ..........................................
Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ................................
Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ..................................
Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................................
Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ............................
Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .................................
Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) ..............
Initial Water Depth (ft) ..................................................
Ponded Area (ft²) .........................................................
Evaporation Loss .........................................................
Peak Inflow (cfs) ..........................................................
Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ..............................................
Peak Outflow (cfs) .......................................................
Invert Elevation (ft) .......................................................
Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ...............................................
Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ....................................................
Initial Water Elevation (ft) .............................................
P203
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Storage Node : Stor-BRC-C
Input Data
7977.83
7978.33
0.50
7977.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outflow Orifices
SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice
ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient
Diameter Height Width Elevation
in)(in)(in)(ft)
1 Reg-BRC-C Side CIRCULAR No 6.60 7978.08 0.60
Output Summary Results
0.24
0.24
0.05
0.00
7978.19
0.36
7978.09
0.26
0 00:13
0.000
0
0
0.00
Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .................................
Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) ..............
Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ..............................
Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ......................................
Total Time Flooded (min) ............................................
Total Retention Time (sec) ..........................................
Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ..............................................
Peak Outflow (cfs) .......................................................
Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ................................
Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ..................................
Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................................
Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ............................
Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ....................................................
Initial Water Elevation (ft) .............................................
Initial Water Depth (ft) ..................................................
Ponded Area (ft²) .........................................................
Evaporation Loss .........................................................
Peak Inflow (cfs) ..........................................................
Invert Elevation (ft) .......................................................
Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ...............................................
P204
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Storage Node : Stor-BRC-D
Input Data
7974.83
7975.33
0.50
7974.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outflow Orifices
SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice
ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient
Diameter Height Width Elevation
in)(in)(in)(ft)
1 Reg-BRC-D Side CIRCULAR No 8.63 7975.08 0.60
Output Summary Results
0.39
0.01
0.08
0.00
7975.20
0.37
7975.08
0.25
0 00:12
0.000
0
0
0.00
Total Time Flooded (min) ............................................
Total Retention Time (sec) ..........................................
Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................................
Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ............................
Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .................................
Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) ..............
Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ..............................
Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ......................................
Evaporation Loss .........................................................
Peak Inflow (cfs) ..........................................................
Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ..............................................
Peak Outflow (cfs) .......................................................
Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ................................
Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ..................................
Invert Elevation (ft) .......................................................
Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ...............................................
Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ....................................................
Initial Water Elevation (ft) .............................................
Initial Water Depth (ft) ..................................................
Ponded Area (ft²) .........................................................
P205
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
10-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Storage Node : Stor-BRC-E
Input Data
7987.00
7987.80
0.80
7987.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outflow Orifices
SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice
ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient
Diameter Height Width Elevation
in)(in)(in)(ft)
1 Reg-08 Side CIRCULAR No 11.70 7987.50 0.60
Output Summary Results
0.49
0.25
0.12
0.00
7987.63
0.63
7987.50
0.5
0 00:13
0.000
0
0
0.00
Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ..............................
Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ......................................
Total Time Flooded (min) ............................................
Total Retention Time (sec) ..........................................
Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ................................
Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ..................................
Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................................
Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ............................
Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .................................
Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) ..............
Initial Water Depth (ft) ..................................................
Ponded Area (ft²) .........................................................
Evaporation Loss .........................................................
Peak Inflow (cfs) ..........................................................
Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ..............................................
Peak Outflow (cfs) .......................................................
Invert Elevation (ft) .......................................................
Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ...............................................
Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ....................................................
Initial Water Elevation (ft) .............................................
P206
VI.A.
P207VI.A.
P208
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Project Description
12038-100-YR.SPF
Project Options
CFS
Elevation
Rational
User-Defined
Hydrodynamic
YES
YES
Analysis Options
Apr 19, 2013 00:00:00
Apr 19, 2013 03:00:00
Apr 19, 2013 00:00:00
0 days
0 01:00:00 days hh:mm:ss
0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
30 seconds
Rainfall Details
100 year(s)
Runoff (Dry Weather) Time Step ..........................................
Runoff (Wet Weather) Time Step ........................................
Reporting Time Step ............................................................
Routing Time Step ................................................................
Return Period........................................................................
Enable Overflow Ponding at Nodes ......................................
Skip Steady State Analysis Time Periods ............................
Start Analysis On ..................................................................
End Analysis On ...................................................................
Start Reporting On ................................................................
Antecedent Dry Days ............................................................
File Name .............................................................................
Flow Units .............................................................................
Elevation Type ......................................................................
Hydrology Method .................................................................
Time of Concentration (TOC) Method ..................................
Link Routing Method .............................................................
P209
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin Summary
SN Subbasin Area Weighted Total Total Total Peak Time of
ID Runoff Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Concentration
Coefficient Volume
ft²)(in)( in)(ac-in)(cfs)(days hh:mm:ss)
1 OS-2 2535.50 0.5000 0.49 0.25 0.01 0.17 0 00:05:00
2 OS-3 3034.00 0.5000 0.49 0.25 0.02 0.21 0 00:05:00
3 OS-5 12317.98 0.5000 0.64 0.32 0.09 0.72 0 00:07:29
4 OS-6 61700.00 0.5000 0.85 0.43 0.60 2.98 0 00:12:12
5 POST-2 1102.98 0.5600 0.49 0.28 0.01 0.08 0 00:05:00
6 POST-3 1216.02 0.5400 0.49 0.27 0.01 0.09 0 00:05:00
7 POST-4 798.02 0.5000 0.49 0.25 0.00 0.05 0 00:05:00
8 POST-5 729.41 0.5000 0.49 0.25 0.00 0.05 0 00:05:00
9 POST-6 3052.12 0.8900 0.49 0.44 0.03 0.37 0 00:05:00
10 POST-7A 2884.80 0.9600 0.49 0.47 0.03 0.37 0 00:05:00
11 POST-7B 220.20 0.5000 0.49 0.25 0.00 0.02 0 00:05:00
12 POST-8A 3323.11 0.8600 0.49 0.42 0.03 0.39 0 00:05:00
13 POST-8B 3080.21 0.9600 0.49 0.47 0.03 0.40 0 00:05:00
P210
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Link Summary
SN Element Element From To (Outlet)Length Inlet Outlet Average Diameter or Manning's Peak Design Flow Peak Flow/Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow
ID Type (Inlet)Node Invert Invert Slope Height Roughness Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Depth Depth/
Node Elevation Elevation Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
ft)(ft)(ft)(%)(in)(cfs)( cfs)(ft/sec)(ft)
1 PIPE-A1 Pipe J-BRCA J-A1 30.00 7991.33 7990.73 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.24 0.79 0.30 4.15 0.17 0.33
2 PIPE-A10 Pipe J-A9 J-A10 5.00 7975.80 7975.70 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.48 0.79 0.61 4.50 0.28 0.57
3 PIPE-A11 Pipe J-A10 J-A11 0.25 7975.70 7971.87 1532.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.70 21.96 0.03 10.03 0.24 0.49
4 PIPE-A12 Pipe J-A11 J-A12 3.00 7971.87 7971.81 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.39 0.79 0.49 2.46 0.38 0.77
5 PIPE-A13 Pipe J-A12 J-A13 4.00 7971.81 7971.73 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.39 0.79 0.49 3.14 0.30 0.61
6 PIPE-A14 Pipe J-A13 J-BRC-E 36.00 7971.73 7971.01 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.38 0.79 0.47 2.72 0.38 0.76
7 PIPE-A15 Pipe J-BRC-E J-BRC-D2 25.00 7971.01 7970.51 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.64 0.79 0.80 3.24 0.50 1.00
8 PIPE-A16 Pipe J-BRC-D2 Out-BRC-C/D 2.50 7970.51 7970.46 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.64 0.79 0.80 3.61 0.42 0.84
9 PIPE-A2 Pipe J-A1 J-A2 10.00 7990.73 7988.04 26.9000 6.000 0.0130 0.24 2.91 0.08 7.47 0.11 0.22
10 PIPE-A3 Pipe J-A2 J-A3 6.00 7988.04 7986.43 26.8300 6.000 0.0130 0.23 2.91 0.08 7.44 0.12 0.24
11 PIPE-A4 Pipe J-A3 J-A4 3.00 7986.43 7985.63 26.6700 6.000 0.0130 0.26 2.90 0.09 2.72 0.27 0.55
12 PIPE-A5 Pipe J-A4 J-A5 5.50 7985.63 7985.52 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.47 0.79 0.60 2.71 0.42 0.84
13 PIPE-A6 Pipe J-A5 J-A6 13.00 7985.52 7985.26 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.47 0.79 0.59 4.73 0.25 0.51
14 PIPE-A7 Pipe J-A6 J-A7 11.00 7985.26 7980.48 43.4500 6.000 0.0130 0.47 3.70 0.13 7.84 0.26 0.52
15 PIPE-A8 Pipe J-A7 J-A8 6.00 7980.48 7980.36 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.46 0.79 0.59 4.49 0.26 0.52
16 PIPE-A9 Pipe J-A8 J-A9 10.50 7980.36 7975.80 43.4300 6.000 0.0130 0.46 3.70 0.13 8.44 0.30 0.61
17 PIPE-B1 Pipe J-BRC-B J-A4 32.50 7986.28 7985.63 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.25 0.79 0.31 3.15 0.32 0.64
18 PIPE-B2 Pipe J-B1 J-B2 21.00 7975.65 7975.23 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.36 0.79 0.45 2.85 0.36 0.72
19 PIPE-B3 Pipe J-B2 J-B3 9.00 7975.23 7975.05 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.41 0.79 0.52 2.64 0.49 0.98
20 PIPE-B4 Pipe J-B3 Stor-BRC-D 11.00 7975.05 7974.83 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.48 0.79 0.60 3.83 0.36 0.71
21 PIPE-BRC_E1 Pipe J-BRC_E1 J-BRC_E2 15.00 7985.09 7985.01 0.5300 6.000 0.0130 0.31 0.41 0.75 1.57 0.50 1.00
22 PIPE-BRC_E2 Pipe J-BRC_E2 J-BRC_E3 18.00 7985.01 7984.92 0.5000 6.000 0.0130 0.31 0.40 0.77 1.56 0.50 1.00
23 PIPE-BRC_E3 Pipe J-BRC_E3 J-D8 18.00 7984.92 7984.83 0.5000 6.000 0.0130 0.31 0.40 0.77 1.71 0.50 1.00
24 PIPE-BRC-C Pipe J-BRC-C J-BRC-E 5.00 7972.43 7972.33 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.13 0.79 0.17 2.54 0.16 0.31
25 PIPE-C1 Pipe INLET-BLDG_C J-C1 3.00 7992.61 7992.55 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.76 0.79 0.96 3.92 0.49 0.97
26 PIPE-C2 Pipe J-C1 J-C2 43.00 7992.55 7991.69 2.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.74 0.79 0.93 3.91 0.46 0.93
27 PIPE-C3 Pipe J-C2 J-C3 3.10 7991.69 7991.43 8.3900 6.000 0.0130 0.73 1.62 0.45 4.19 0.42 0.84
28 PIPE-C4 Pipe J-C3 J-C4 6.00 7991.43 7990.93 8.3300 6.000 0.0130 0.73 1.62 0.45 4.24 0.42 0.83
29 PIPE-C5 Pipe J-C4 J-D4 4.00 7990.93 7990.60 8.2500 6.000 0.0130 0.73 1.61 0.45 4.31 0.41 0.82
30 PIPE-D1 Pipe Inlet-BLDG-D J-D1 21.50 7994.07 7993.64 2.0000 12.000 0.0130 2.97 5.04 0.59 3.86 0.95 0.95
31 PIPE-D10 Pipe J-D9 Out-1 16.00 7984.38 7983.98 2.5000 12.000 0.0130 3.73 5.63 0.66 6.00 0.74 0.74
32 PIPE-D2 Pipe J-D1 J-D2 3.50 7993.71 7993.64 2.0000 12.000 0.0130 2.97 5.04 0.59 5.70 0.63 0.63
33 PIPE-D3 Pipe J-D2 J-D3 3.50 7993.64 7991.74 54.2900 12.000 0.0130 2.99 26.25 0.11 9.41 0.43 0.43
34 PIPE-D4 Pipe J-D3 J-D4 2.10 7991.74 7990.60 54.2900 12.000 0.0130 3.01 26.25 0.11 9.05 0.46 0.46
35 PIPE-D5 Pipe J-D4 J-D5 3.90 7990.60 7988.48 54.3600 12.000 0.0130 3.54 26.27 0.13 10.05 0.46 0.46
36 PIPE-D6 Pipe J-D5 J-D6 48.00 7988.48 7985.60 6.0000 12.000 0.0130 3.52 8.73 0.40 6.07 0.75 0.75
37 PIPE-D7 Pipe J-D6 J-D7 7.00 7985.60 7985.18 6.0000 12.000 0.0130 3.51 8.73 0.40 4.47 1.00 1.00
38 PIPE-D8 Pipe J-D7 J-D8 14.00 7985.18 7984.83 2.5000 12.000 0.0130 3.51 5.63 0.62 4.49 1.00 1.00
39 PIPE-D9 Pipe J-D8 J-D9 18.00 7984.83 7984.38 2.5000 12.000 0.0130 3.73 5.63 0.66 4.87 0.94 0.94
40 PIPE-E1 Pipe J-BLDG_D1 J-BLDG_D2 2.65 7988.54 7988.46 3.0200 6.000 0.0130 0.40 0.97 0.41 3.36 0.29 0.58
41 PIPE-E2 Pipe J-BLDG_D2 J-BLDG_D3 34.50 7988.46 7987.43 2.9900 6.000 0.0130 0.39 0.97 0.41 3.55 0.29 0.58
42 PIPE-E3 Pipe J-BLDG_D3 J-BLDG-D4 4.00 7987.43 7987.31 3.0000 6.000 0.0130 0.40 0.97 0.41 4.48 0.39 0.77
43 SCUPPER Channel J-BLDG-D4 Stor-BRC-E 12.40 7987.31 7987.00 2.5000 6.000 0.0130 0.39 3.59 0.11 2.10 0.47 0.94
44 Reg-06 Orifice Stor-BRC-B J-BRC-B 7988.70 7986.28 9.000 0.25
45 Reg-08 Orifice Stor-BRC-E J-BRC_E1 7987.00 7985.09 11.700 0.32
46 Reg-BRCA Orifice Stor-BRC-A J-BRCA 7994.57 7991.33 8.500 0.24
47 Reg-BRC-C Orifice Stor-BRC-C J-BRC-C 7977.83 7972.43 6.600 0.13
48 Reg-BRC-D Orifice Stor-BRC-D J-BRC-E 7974.83 7971.01 8.630 0.18
P211
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin Hydrology
Subbasin : OS-2
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................2535.50
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
2535.50 -0.50
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.2535.50 0.50
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.25
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.17
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P212
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : OS-3
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................3034.00
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
3034.00 -0.50
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.3034.00 0.50
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.25
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.21
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P213
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : OS-5
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................12317.98
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
12317.98 -0.50
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.12317.98 0.50
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.64
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.32
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.72
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.080
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:07:29
P214
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : OS-6
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................61700.00
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
61700.00 -0.50
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.61700.00 0.50
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.85
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.43
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................2.98
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................4.205
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:12:13
P215
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-2
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................1102.98
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5600
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
1102.98 -0.56
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.1102.98 0.56
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.28
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.08
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5600
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P216
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-3
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................1216.02
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5400
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
1216.02 -0.54
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.1216.02 0.54
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.27
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.09
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5400
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P217
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-4
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................798.02
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
798.02 -0.50
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.798.02 0.50
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.25
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.05
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P218
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-5
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................729.41
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
729.41 -0.50
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.729.41 0.50
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.25
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.05
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P219
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-6
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................3052.12
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.8900
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
3052.12 -0.89
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.3052.12 0.89
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.44
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.37
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.8900
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P220
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-7A
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................2884.80
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.9600
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
2884.80 -0.96
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.2884.80 0.96
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.47
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.37
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.9600
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P221
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-7B
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................220.20
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
220.20 -0.50
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.220.20 0.50
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.25
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.02
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.5000
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P222
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-8A
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................3323.11
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.8600
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
3323.11 -0.86
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.3323.11 0.86
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.42
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.39
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.8600
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P223
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Subbasin : POST-8B
Input Data
Area (ft²) .......................................................3080.21
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.9600
Runoff Coefficient
Area Soil Runoff
Soil/Surface Description (ft²)Group Coeff.
3080.21 -0.96
Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff.3080.21 0.96
Subbasin Runoff Results
Total Rainfall (in) ..........................................0.49
Total Runoff (in) ............................................0.47
Peak Runoff (cfs) .........................................0.40
Rainfall Intensity ...........................................5.890
Weighted Runoff Coefficient ........................0.9600
Time of Concentration (days hh:mm:ss) ......0 00:05:00
P224
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Junction Input
SN Element Invert Ground/Rim Ground/Rim Initial Initial
ID Elevation (Max)(Max)Water Water
Elevation Offset Elevation Depth
ft)(ft)( ft)(ft)(ft)
1 J-A1 7990.73 7995.00 4.27 7990.73 0.00
2 J-A10 7975.70 7978.50 2.80 7975.70 0.00
3 J-A11 7971.87 7978.50 6.63 7971.87 0.00
4 J-A12 7971.81 7977.50 5.69 7971.81 0.00
5 J-A13 7971.73 7974.83 3.10 7971.73 0.00
6 J-A2 7988.04 7995.00 6.96 7988.04 0.00
7 J-A3 7986.43 7991.50 5.07 7986.43 0.00
8 J-A4 7985.63 7990.50 4.87 7985.63 0.00
9 J-A5 7985.52 7990.00 4.48 7985.52 0.00
10 J-A6 7985.26 7988.00 2.74 7985.26 0.00
11 J-A7 7980.48 7985.00 4.52 7980.48 0.00
12 J-A8 7980.36 7983.00 2.64 7980.36 0.00
13 J-A9 7975.80 7979.00 3.20 7975.80 0.00
14 J-B1 7975.65 7979.49 3.84 7975.65 0.00
15 J-B2 7975.23 7978.50 3.27 7975.23 0.00
16 J-B3 7975.05 7978.50 3.45 7975.05 0.00
17 J-BLDG_D1 7988.54 7991.36 2.82 7988.54 0.00
18 J-BLDG_D2 7988.46 7991.00 2.54 7988.46 0.00
19 J-BLDG_D3 7987.43 7990.40 2.97 7987.43 0.00
20 J-BLDG-D4 7987.31 7990.40 3.09 7987.31 0.00
21 J-BRC_E1 7985.09 7987.50 2.41 7985.09 0.00
22 J-BRC_E2 7985.01 7987.50 2.49 7985.01 0.00
23 J-BRC_E3 7984.92 7987.50 2.58 7984.92 0.00
24 J-BRCA 7991.33 7994.65 3.32 7991.33 0.00
25 J-BRC-B 7986.28 7988.70 2.42 7986.28 0.00
26 J-BRC-C 7972.43 7978.08 5.65 7972.43 0.00
27 J-BRC-D2 7970.51 7975.08 4.57 7970.51 0.00
28 J-BRC-E 7971.01 7975.08 4.07 7971.01 0.00
29 J-C1 7992.55 7995.61 3.06 7992.55 0.00
30 J-C2 7991.69 7995.61 3.92 7991.69 0.00
31 J-C3 7991.43 7996.00 4.57 7991.43 0.00
32 J-C4 7990.93 7996.00 5.07 7990.93 0.00
33 J-D1 7993.64 7996.00 2.36 7993.64 0.00
34 J-D2 7993.64 7996.00 2.36 7993.64 0.00
35 J-D3 7991.74 7996.00 4.26 7991.74 0.00
36 J-D4 7990.60 7996.00 5.40 7990.60 0.00
37 J-D5 7988.48 7996.00 7.52 7988.48 0.00
38 J-D6 7985.60 7990.50 4.90 7985.60 0.00
39 J-D7 7985.18 7990.50 5.32 7985.18 0.00
40 J-D8 7984.83 7989.00 4.17 7984.83 0.00
41 J-D9 7984.38 7987.00 2.62 7984.38 0.00
P225
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Junction Results
SN Element Peak Peak Max HGL Max HGL Average HGL Average HGL Time of
ID Inflow Lateral Elevation Depth Elevation Depth Max HGL
Inflow Attained Attained Attained Attained Occurrence
cfs)(cfs)(ft)( ft)(ft)(ft)(days hh:mm)
1 J-A1 0.24 0.00 7990.84 0.11 7990.74 0.01 0 00:06
2 J-A10 0.48 0.00 7975.87 0.17 7975.71 0.01 0 00:08
3 J-A11 0.70 0.00 7972.28 0.41 7971.94 0.07 0 00:13
4 J-A12 0.39 0.00 7972.16 0.35 7971.87 0.06 0 00:13
5 J-A13 0.39 0.00 7971.99 0.26 7971.78 0.05 0 00:14
6 J-A2 0.24 0.00 7988.16 0.12 7988.06 0.02 0 00:07
7 J-A3 0.23 0.00 7986.56 0.13 7986.44 0.01 0 00:05
8 J-A4 0.51 0.00 7986.08 0.45 7985.69 0.06 0 00:07
9 J-A5 0.47 0.00 7985.91 0.39 7985.58 0.06 0 00:07
10 J-A6 0.47 0.00 7985.38 0.12 7985.28 0.02 0 00:07
11 J-A7 0.47 0.00 7980.88 0.40 7980.54 0.06 0 00:08
12 J-A8 0.46 0.00 7980.48 0.12 7980.38 0.02 0 00:08
13 J-A9 0.46 0.00 7976.49 0.69 7975.87 0.07 0 00:11
14 J-B1 0.37 0.37 7975.92 0.27 7975.68 0.03 0 00:05
15 J-B2 0.36 0.00 7975.71 0.48 7975.27 0.04 0 00:04
16 J-B3 0.41 0.00 7975.66 0.61 7975.14 0.09 0 00:04
17 J-BLDG_D1 0.40 0.40 7988.89 0.35 7988.58 0.04 0 00:05
18 J-BLDG_D2 0.40 0.00 7988.69 0.23 7988.49 0.03 0 00:05
19 J-BLDG_D3 0.39 0.00 7987.78 0.35 7987.55 0.12 0 00:05
20 J-BLDG-D4 0.40 0.00 7987.75 0.44 7987.53 0.22 0 00:10
21 J-BRC_E1 0.32 0.00 7985.99 0.90 7985.25 0.16 0 00:14
22 J-BRC_E2 0.31 0.00 7985.95 0.94 7985.19 0.18 0 00:14
23 J-BRC_E3 0.31 0.00 7985.90 0.98 7985.12 0.20 0 00:14
24 J-BRCA 0.24 0.00 7991.56 0.23 7991.36 0.03 0 00:05
25 J-BRC-B 0.25 0.00 7986.47 0.19 7986.31 0.03 0 00:06
26 J-BRC-C 0.13 0.00 7972.61 0.18 7972.47 0.04 0 00:11
27 J-BRC-D2 0.64 0.00 7971.22 0.71 7970.62 0.11 0 00:10
28 J-BRC-E 0.65 0.00 7971.70 0.69 7971.11 0.10 0 00:14
29 J-C1 0.76 0.00 7993.02 0.47 7992.62 0.07 0 00:08
30 J-C2 0.74 0.00 7992.15 0.46 7991.76 0.07 0 00:08
31 J-C3 0.73 0.00 7991.81 0.38 7991.49 0.06 0 00:08
32 J-C4 0.73 0.00 7991.38 0.45 7991.01 0.08 0 00:09
33 J-D1 2.97 0.00 7994.59 0.95 7993.94 0.30 0 00:12
34 J-D2 2.97 0.00 7994.03 0.39 7993.74 0.10 0 00:12
35 J-D3 2.99 0.00 7992.22 0.48 7991.86 0.12 0 00:13
36 J-D4 3.53 0.00 7991.04 0.44 7990.71 0.11 0 00:13
37 J-D5 3.54 0.00 7988.97 0.49 7988.60 0.12 0 00:14
38 J-D6 3.52 0.00 7986.74 1.14 7985.82 0.22 0 00:13
39 J-D7 3.51 0.00 7986.32 1.14 7985.42 0.24 0 00:14
40 J-D8 3.76 0.00 7985.85 1.02 7985.05 0.22 0 00:14
41 J-D9 3.73 0.00 7985.26 0.88 7984.59 0.21 0 00:14
P226
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Channel Input
SN Element Length Inlet Inlet Outlet Outlet Total Average Shape Height Width Manning's Entrance Exit/Bend
ID Invert Invert Invert Invert Drop Slope Roughness Losses Losses
Elevation Offset Elevation Offset
ft)( ft)(ft)(ft)( ft)( ft)(%)(ft)(ft)
1 SCUPPER 12.40 7987.31 0.00 7987.00 0.00 0.31 2.5000 Rectangular 0.500 1.000 0.0130 0.5000 0.5000
P227
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Channel Results
SN Element Peak Time of Design Flow Peak Flow/Peak Flow Travel Peak Flow Peak Flow Total Time
ID Flow Peak Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Time Depth Depth/Surcharged
Occurrence Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
cfs)(days hh:mm)(cfs)(ft/sec)(min)(ft)(min)
1 SCUPPER 0.39 0 00:06 3.59 0.11 2.10 0.10 0.47 0.94 0.00
P228
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Pipe Results
SN Element Peak Time of Design Flow Peak Flow/Peak Flow Travel Peak Flow Peak Flow
ID Flow Peak Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Time Depth Depth/
Occurrence Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
cfs)(days hh:mm)(cfs)(ft/sec)(min)(ft)
1 PIPE-A1 0.24 0 00:06 0.79 0.30 4.15 0.12 0.17 0.33
2 PIPE-A10 0.48 0 00:08 0.79 0.61 4.50 0.02 0.28 0.57
3 PIPE-A11 0.70 0 00:09 21.96 0.03 10.03 0.00 0.24 0.49
4 PIPE-A12 0.39 0 00:13 0.79 0.49 2.46 0.02 0.38 0.77
5 PIPE-A13 0.39 0 00:13 0.79 0.49 3.14 0.02 0.30 0.61
6 PIPE-A14 0.38 0 00:14 0.79 0.47 2.72 0.22 0.38 0.76
7 PIPE-A15 0.64 0 00:14 0.79 0.80 3.24 0.13 0.50 1.00
8 PIPE-A16 0.64 0 00:14 0.79 0.80 3.61 0.01 0.42 0.84
9 PIPE-A2 0.24 0 00:06 2.91 0.08 7.47 0.02 0.11 0.22
10 PIPE-A3 0.23 0 00:06 2.91 0.08 7.44 0.01 0.12 0.24
11 PIPE-A4 0.26 0 00:06 2.90 0.09 2.72 0.02 0.27 0.55
12 PIPE-A5 0.47 0 00:07 0.79 0.60 2.71 0.03 0.42 0.84
13 PIPE-A6 0.47 0 00:07 0.79 0.59 4.73 0.05 0.25 0.51
14 PIPE-A7 0.47 0 00:07 3.70 0.13 7.84 0.02 0.26 0.52
15 PIPE-A8 0.46 0 00:08 0.79 0.59 4.49 0.02 0.26 0.52
16 PIPE-A9 0.46 0 00:08 3.70 0.13 8.44 0.02 0.30 0.61
17 PIPE-B1 0.25 0 00:06 0.79 0.31 3.15 0.17 0.32 0.64
18 PIPE-B2 0.36 0 00:05 0.79 0.45 2.85 0.12 0.36 0.72
19 PIPE-B3 0.41 0 00:05 0.79 0.52 2.64 0.06 0.49 0.98
20 PIPE-B4 0.48 0 00:05 0.79 0.60 3.83 0.05 0.36 0.71
21 PIPE-BRC_E1 0.31 0 00:11 0.41 0.75 1.57 0.16 0.50 1.00
22 PIPE-BRC_E2 0.31 0 00:11 0.40 0.77 1.56 0.19 0.50 1.00
23 PIPE-BRC_E3 0.31 0 00:11 0.40 0.77 1.71 0.18 0.50 1.00
24 PIPE-BRC-C 0.13 0 00:11 0.79 0.17 2.54 0.03 0.16 0.31
25 PIPE-C1 0.76 0 00:07 0.79 0.96 3.92 0.01 0.49 0.97
26 PIPE-C2 0.74 0 00:08 0.79 0.93 3.91 0.18 0.46 0.93
27 PIPE-C3 0.73 0 00:08 1.62 0.45 4.19 0.01 0.42 0.84
28 PIPE-C4 0.73 0 00:08 1.62 0.45 4.24 0.02 0.42 0.83
29 PIPE-C5 0.73 0 00:09 1.61 0.45 4.31 0.02 0.41 0.82
30 PIPE-D1 2.97 0 00:12 5.04 0.59 3.86 0.09 0.95 0.95
31 PIPE-D10 3.73 0 00:14 5.63 0.66 6.00 0.04 0.74 0.74
32 PIPE-D2 2.97 0 00:12 5.04 0.59 5.70 0.01 0.63 0.63
33 PIPE-D3 2.99 0 00:13 26.25 0.11 9.41 0.01 0.43 0.43
34 PIPE-D4 3.01 0 00:13 26.25 0.11 9.05 0.00 0.46 0.46
35 PIPE-D5 3.54 0 00:14 26.27 0.13 10.05 0.01 0.46 0.46
36 PIPE-D6 3.52 0 00:14 8.73 0.40 6.07 0.13 0.75 0.75
37 PIPE-D7 3.51 0 00:14 8.73 0.40 4.47 0.03 1.00 1.00
38 PIPE-D8 3.51 0 00:14 5.63 0.62 4.49 0.05 1.00 1.00
39 PIPE-D9 3.73 0 00:14 5.63 0.66 4.87 0.06 0.94 0.94
40 PIPE-E1 0.40 0 00:05 0.97 0.41 3.36 0.01 0.29 0.58
41 PIPE-E2 0.39 0 00:05 0.97 0.41 3.55 0.16 0.29 0.58
42 PIPE-E3 0.40 0 00:06 0.97 0.41 4.48 0.01 0.39 0.77
P229
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Storage Nodes
Storage Node : Stor-BRC-A
Input Data
7994.57
7994.90
0.33
7994.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outflow Orifices
SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice
ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient
Diameter Height Width Elevation
in)(in)(in)(ft)
1 Reg-BRCA Bottom CIRCULAR No 8.50 7994.65 0.60
Output Summary Results
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.00
7994.75
0.18
7994.66
0.0900000000000003
0 00:05
0.000
0
0
0.00
Total Time Flooded (min) ............................................
Total Retention Time (sec) ..........................................
Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................................
Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ............................
Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .................................
Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) ..............
Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ..............................
Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ......................................
Evaporation Loss .........................................................
Peak Inflow (cfs) ..........................................................
Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ..............................................
Peak Outflow (cfs) .......................................................
Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ................................
Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ..................................
Invert Elevation (ft) .......................................................
Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ...............................................
Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ....................................................
Initial Water Elevation (ft) .............................................
Initial Water Depth (ft) ..................................................
Ponded Area (ft²) .........................................................
P230
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Storage Node : Stor-BRC-B
Input Data
7988.70
7989.03
0.33
7988.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outflow Orifices
SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice
ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient
Diameter Height Width Elevation
in)(in)(in)(ft)
1 Reg-06 Side CIRCULAR No 9.00 7988.78 0.60
Output Summary Results
0.29
0.29
0.25
0.00
7989.03
0.33
7988.81
0.11
0 00:06
0.000
0
0
0.00
Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ..............................
Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ......................................
Total Time Flooded (min) ............................................
Total Retention Time (sec) ..........................................
Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ................................
Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ..................................
Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................................
Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ............................
Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .................................
Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) ..............
Initial Water Depth (ft) ..................................................
Ponded Area (ft²) .........................................................
Evaporation Loss .........................................................
Peak Inflow (cfs) ..........................................................
Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ..............................................
Peak Outflow (cfs) .......................................................
Invert Elevation (ft) .......................................................
Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ...............................................
Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ....................................................
Initial Water Elevation (ft) .............................................
P231
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Storage Node : Stor-BRC-C
Input Data
7977.83
7978.33
0.50
7977.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outflow Orifices
SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice
ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient
Diameter Height Width Elevation
in)(in)(in)(ft)
1 Reg-BRC-C Side CIRCULAR No 6.60 7978.08 0.60
Output Summary Results
0.37
0.37
0.13
0.00
7978.28
0.45
7978.11
0.28
0 00:11
0.000
0
0
0.00
Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .................................
Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) ..............
Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ..............................
Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ......................................
Total Time Flooded (min) ............................................
Total Retention Time (sec) ..........................................
Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ..............................................
Peak Outflow (cfs) .......................................................
Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ................................
Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ..................................
Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................................
Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ............................
Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ....................................................
Initial Water Elevation (ft) .............................................
Initial Water Depth (ft) ..................................................
Ponded Area (ft²) .........................................................
Evaporation Loss .........................................................
Peak Inflow (cfs) ..........................................................
Invert Elevation (ft) .......................................................
Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ...............................................
P232
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Storage Node : Stor-BRC-D
Input Data
7974.83
7975.33
0.50
7974.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outflow Orifices
SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice
ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient
Diameter Height Width Elevation
in)(in)(in)(ft)
1 Reg-BRC-D Side CIRCULAR No 8.63 7975.08 0.60
Output Summary Results
0.49
0.01
0.18
0.00
7975.29
0.46
7975.11
0.28
0 00:11
0.000
0
0
0.00
Total Time Flooded (min) ............................................
Total Retention Time (sec) ..........................................
Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................................
Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ............................
Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .................................
Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) ..............
Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ..............................
Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ......................................
Evaporation Loss .........................................................
Peak Inflow (cfs) ..........................................................
Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ..............................................
Peak Outflow (cfs) .......................................................
Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ................................
Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ..................................
Invert Elevation (ft) .......................................................
Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ...............................................
Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ....................................................
Initial Water Elevation (ft) .............................................
Initial Water Depth (ft) ..................................................
Ponded Area (ft²) .........................................................
P233
VI.A.
Durant Condos
City of Aspen
Major Drainage Study
100-Yr Analysis
1/29/2014
Storage Node : Stor-BRC-E
Input Data
7987.00
7987.80
0.80
7987.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Outflow Orifices
SN Element Orifice Orifice Flap Circular Rectangular Rectangular Orifice Orifice
ID Type Shape Gate Orifice Orifice Orifice Invert Coefficient
Diameter Height Width Elevation
in)(in)(in)(ft)
1 Reg-08 Side CIRCULAR No 11.70 7987.50 0.60
Output Summary Results
0.74
0.39
0.32
0.00
7987.75
0.75
7987.52
0.52
0 00:11
0.000
0
0
0.00
Total Exfiltration Volume (1000-ft³) ..............................
Total Flooded Volume (ac-in) ......................................
Total Time Flooded (min) ............................................
Total Retention Time (sec) ..........................................
Peak Exfiltration Flow Rate (cfm) ................................
Max HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ..................................
Max HGL Depth Attained (ft) .......................................
Average HGL Elevation Attained (ft) ............................
Average HGL Depth Attained (ft) .................................
Time of Max HGL Occurrence (days hh:mm) ..............
Initial Water Depth (ft) ..................................................
Ponded Area (ft²) .........................................................
Evaporation Loss .........................................................
Peak Inflow (cfs) ..........................................................
Peak Lateral Inflow (cfs) ..............................................
Peak Outflow (cfs) .......................................................
Invert Elevation (ft) .......................................................
Max (Rim) Elevation (ft) ...............................................
Max (Rim) Offset (ft) ....................................................
Initial Water Elevation (ft) .............................................
P234
VI.A.
P235VI.A.
P236
VI.A.
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2009 by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Feb 4 2014
BUILDING A DOWNSPOUT CHANNEL (POST #6 100-YR)
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 0.50
Side Slopes (z:1) = 4.00, 4.00
Total Depth (ft) = 0.33
Invert Elev (ft) = 7979.00
Slope (%) = 14.00
N-Value = 0.035
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 0.37
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.13
Q (cfs) = 0.370
Area (sqft) = 0.13
Velocity (ft/s) = 2.79
Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.57
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.17
Top Width (ft) = 1.54
EGL (ft) = 0.25
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
7978.75 -0.25
7979.00 0.00
7979.25 0.25
7979.50 0.50
7979.75 0.75
7980.00 1.00
Reach (ft)
P237
VI.A.
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2009 by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Feb 4 2014
BUILDING D DOWNSPOUT CONCRETE CHANNEL (POST #8B 100-YR)
Rectangular
Bottom Width (ft) = 1.00
Total Depth (ft) = 0.50
Invert Elev (ft) = 7979.00
Slope (%) = 2.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 0.39
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.11
Q (cfs) = 0.390
Area (sqft) = 0.11
Velocity (ft/s) = 3.55
Wetted Perim (ft) = 1.22
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.17
Top Width (ft) = 1.00
EGL (ft) = 0.31
0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.25 1.5
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
7978.75 -0.25
7979.00 0.00
7979.25 0.25
7979.50 0.50
7979.75 0.75
7980.00 1.00
Reach (ft)
P238
VI.A.
ScourStop ™
DESIGN GUIDE
Circular Culvert Outlet Protection
scourstop.com
PERFORMANCE AESTHETICS
NPDES-COMPLIANT COST-EFFECTIVE
ScourStop transition mats protect against erosion and scour at culvert
outlets with a vegetated solution in areas traditionally protected with
rock or other hard armor.
ScourStop is part of a system that includes semi-rigid transition mats
installed over sod or turf reinforcement mats. Each 4’ x 4’ x 1/2” mat is
made of high-density polyethylene and secured tightly to the ground
with anchors.
why use the
SCOURSTOP SYSTEM?
If velocity is greater than 16 fps, contact manufacturer for design assistance.
ScourStop mats have been shown to at least double the effectiveness of turf
reinforcement mats.
ScourStop fully vegetated channel (2:1 slope): velocity = 31 fps,
shear stress = 16 psf.
PIPE
DIAMETER
VELOCITY < 10 FT/SEC 10<VELOCITY<16 FT/SEC
TRANSITION
MAT W x L
QUANTITY
OF MATS
TRANSITION
MAT W x L
QUANTITY
OF MATS
12”4’ x 4’1 4’ x 8’2
24”4’ x 8’2 4’ x 12’3
36” 8’ x 12’6 8’ x 20’10
48” 12’ x 16’ 12 12’ x 24’ 18
60” 12’ x 20’ 15 12’ x 32’ 24
72” 16’ x 24’ 24 16’ x 36’ 36
Circular Culvert Outlet Protection
These are minimum recommendations. More ScourStop protection may be needed depending
upon site and soil conditions, per project engineer
P239
VI.A.
Learn more about other Earth Solutions products at: LandmarkEarthSolutions.com | (888) 574-6473 (#1)
See research and installation in progress: scourstop.com | (877) 99-SCOUR (877-997-2687)
Our products are offered and sold with our express limited warranty, which may be viewed at www.LandmarkEarthSolutions.com.
ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE DISCLAIMED. Patented and Patents Pending.
2013 Landmark Earth Solutions, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Leggett & Platt, Incorporated | 12136_0113
1. ScourStop mats must be installed over a soil cover: sod, seeded turf reinforcement mat (TRM), geotextile, or a combination thereof.
2. For steep slopes (>10%) or higher velocities (>10 ft/sec), sod is the recommended soil cover.
3. Follow manufacturer’s installation guidelines to ensure proper installation.
4. Install ScourStop mats at maximum 1”-2” below flowline of culvert or culvert apron. (No waterfall impacts onto ScourStop mats.)
5. Performance of protected area assumes stable downstream conditions.
Transition mat apron protects
culvert outlet.
Width of protection:
Bottom width of channel and up
both side slopes to a depth at
least half the culvert diameter.
Protect bare/disturbed downstream
soils from erosion with appropriate
soil cover.
Use normal-depth calculator to
compute for downstream protection.
Drive anchor into firm soil, pull up on strap to set bullet.
Minimum depth 12” in compacted, cohesive soil.
Minimum depth 24” in loose, sandy, or wet soil.
Extra anchors as needed to secure mat tightly over soil cover.
Abut transition mats to end of culvert or culvert apron.
Adjacent mats abut together laterally and longitudinally.
Minimum 8 anchors per mat.
Extra anchors as needed for loose or wet soils.
Extra anchors as needed for uneven soil surface.
ScourStop ™
Installation Recommendations
AA
A
A
MAX. 1"-2" DROP
FROM CULVERT FLOWLINE
ONTO SCOURSTOPMATSCULVERTFLOWLINE
PROFILE VIEW
P240
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums Remodel, Aspen, CO Major Design Drainage Study SE Project No. 12038.01
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
502 Main Street Suite A3 Carbondale Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313
APPENDIX D
Water Quality Design Calculations
P241
VI.A.
P242
VI.A.
P243
VI.A.
P244
VI.A.
P245
VI.A.
P246
VI.A.
P247
VI.A.
Durant Condominiums Remodel, Aspen, CO Major Design Drainage Study SE Project No. 12038.01
S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants
502 Main Street Suite A3 Carbondale Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313
APPENDIX E
Variance Request Letter
P248
VI.A.
P249
VI.A.
P250
VI.A.
P251VI.A.
1 inch = ft.
IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
10
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTS12038.
01BUILDINGS A &
B DRAINAGE PLAN & PROFILESDURANTSITEIMPROVEMENTPROJECTJOB
NO.
SHEET C3 DATE: 2-5-14NO.REVISIONBY DATE502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704-
0311FAX: (970)-704-0313DESIGNED BYCITY OF ASPEN, COLORADODRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING PERMITKnow what'
s R 1. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE PVC
SDR-35 OR AS NOTED ON PLANS 2. ALL
INLETS SPECIFIED HEREIN SHALL BE NDS OR PRE-APPROVED
EQUAL:2.1. 4" INLET: ROUND NDS PART NO.
13 2.2. 9" INLET: ROUND NDS PART NO. 950 2.3.
12" INLET: SQ. NDS PART NO. 1210 2.4. 18" INLET: SQ. NDS PART NO. 1815 3.
SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
4. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SCHEDULE INSTALLATION OBSERVATIONS AS WELL AS SURVEY
OF AS-BUILT
INFORMATION PER THE CITY'S GRADING & DRAINAGE CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS.5. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
AS ILLUSTRATED HEREIN MUST BE PRE-APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.6. THE
INLET RISER PIPES ACCEPTING UNDERDRAINS MUST BE
24" DIA. WITH APPROPRIATE REDUCERS TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED INLET. ALTERNATIVE
INLETS STRUCTURES ARE ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED THE INLET GRATES MEET THE MIN.
SPECIFICATIONS
AS THE RECOMMENDED INLETS
LISTED
ABOVE.7. HEAT TAPE
SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR
ALL DAYLIGHT PIPES.
8. REFER
TO DETAIL SHTEET
C8 FOR PLANTER
WALL PENETRATION DETAIL.NOTES:
VERT. SCALE: 1" = 5'P252VI.A.
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL
CONSULTANTSDURANT SITE IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTJOBNO.SHEET DATE:
2-
5-14NO.REVISIONBY
DATE502 MAIN
STREETCARBONDALE, CO
81623(
970)
704-0311FAX: (
970)-
704-
0313DESIGNED BYCITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADODRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING PERMITKnow
what's R
1 inch =
ft.IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE 0
10 12038.01BUILDINGS C &
D DRAINAGE PLAN & PROFILESC4 LEGEND 100 YEAR HGL LINE 100 YEAR EGL LINE PROPOSED
STORM SEWER PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN EXISTING SURFACE PROFILE PROPOSED SURFACE PROFILE VERT. SCALE:
1" = 5' 1. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE PVC
SDR-35 OR AS NOTED ON PLANS 2. ALL
INLETS SPECIFIED HEREIN SHALL BE NDS OR PRE-APPROVED
EQUAL:2.1. 4" INLET: ROUND NDS PART NO.
13 2.2. 9" INLET: ROUND NDS PART NO. 950 2.3.
12" INLET: SQ. NDS PART NO. 1210 2.4. 18" INLET: SQ. NDS PART
NO. 1815 3. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL
4. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SCHEDULE INSTALLATION OBSERVATIONS
AS WELL AS SURVEY OF AS-BUILT
INFORMATION PER THE CITY'S GRADING & DRAINAGE CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS.5. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS AS ILLUSTRATED HEREIN MUST BE PRE-APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER OF RECORD.6. THE INLET RISER PIPES ACCEPTING UNDERDRAINS MUST BE
24" DIA. WITH APPROPRIATE REDUCERS TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED INLET. ALTERNATIVE
INLETS STRUCTURES ARE ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED THE INLET GRATES MEET THE MIN.
SPECIFICATIONS
AS THE RECOMMENDED INLETS
LISTED ABOVE.7. HEAT
P253VI.A.
1 inch = ft.
IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
40
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTS12038.
01OFFSITE DRAINAGE
BASIN DELINEATIONJOB NO.SHEET
C5 DATE: 2-
5-
14NO.REVISIONBY DATE502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(
970)
704-0311FAX: (970)-704-
0313DESIGNED BYDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING PERMITKnow
what's
R DURANT SITE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECTCITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADOEXISTING OFFSITE
DRAINAGE BASIN PEAK RUNOFF SUMMARY LEGEND:OFFSITE DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATION TRAVEL
PATH FOR Tc COMPUTATIONS FLOW ARROW EXISTING GIS 1' CONTOURS DESIGN POINT DRAINAGE NOTES/
ASSUMPTIONS:1. EXISTING OFFSITE CONTOUR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PITKIN COUNTY GIS
P254VI.A.
1 inch = ft.(
IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
10
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTS12038.
01EXISTING ONSITE
DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATIONJOBNO.
SHEET C6 DATE:
2-
5-
14NO.REVISIONBY DATE502
MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO
81623(970) 704-0311FAX: (
970)-704-
0313DESIGNED BYDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING
PERMITKnow what's R
DURANT SITE
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCITY OF ASPEN, COLORADOLEGEND:EXISTINGP255
VI.A.
1 inch = ft.(
IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
10
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTS12038.
01POST DEVELOPMENT
DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATIONJOBNO.SHEET
C7 DATE: 2-5-
14NO.REVISIONBY DATE502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE,
CO 81623(
970) 704-
0311FAX: (970)-
704-0313DESIGNED BYDRAWN
BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING
PERMITDURANT SITE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECTCITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADOLEGEND:POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE
BASIN OFFSITE
DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATION (SEE SHT. C5)FLOWP256 VI.A.
OPRISNGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL
CONSULTANTSJOB NO.SHEET DATE:
NO.REVISIONBY DATE502
MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704-0311FAX: (970)-704-0313C8DESIGNED BYDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALS12038.
01 2-5-14 1. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT SYSTEMS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
CITY OF
ASPEN RULES ®ULATIONS AS SPECIFIED IN CHAPTER 8 - WATER QUALITY, OF THE URBAN RUNOFF
MANAGEMENT PLAN (URMP).2. A MAINTENANCE PROGRAM SHALL BE ADOPTED BY THE
OWNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 8.5.4.1 OF
THE URMP.3. THE MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE SIMILAR AND EQUAL TO ALCOA ALUMINUM
CO. NO.
126538.4. REFER TO THE DURANT CONDOS DRAINAGE REPORT
PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING FOR ALL WQCV CALCULATIONS.5. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.6. BOX
TO PLACED
ON A MINIMUM
OF 6" CL.
ABC COMPACTED TO
95% MODIFIED PROCTOR WATER
QUALITY NOTES:PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE)SECTION
A-A NOT TO SCALE)
WQ SAND VAULT DETAIL
DURANT SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADOBUILDING PERMITDETAILSTWO-WAY CLEAN
OUT DETAIL IN
SIDEWALK AREAS PVC OR HDPE DRAIN LINES TRENCH CROSS-SECTION FOR YARD DRAIN INSTALLATION DETAIL (
SEE
PLAN)HEATED SIDEWALK SECTION DETAIL GENERAL DETAIL NOTES:1. ALL SHOP DRAWINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED AND
APPROVED BY ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2. ALL STORM PIPES
SHALL BE PVC SDR 35 OR OTHERWISE AS NOTED ON THE PLANS.3.
STORM INLETS SHALL BE NDS AND
INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'
S RECOMMENDATIONS.
4. REFER
TO PLANS FOR
SIZES OF ALL
PROPOSED INLETS AND
STORM PIPES.STORM PIPE
PLANTER WALL PENETRATION DETAIL
6" STANDARD CURB
A A B B SECTION B-B SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG PARKING STABILIZATION
DEVICE ROW INLET PROTECTION DETAIL OR PRE-APPROVED EQUIVALENT)INLET PROTECTION NOTES:1.
DETAIL OBTAINED FROM URBAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MANUAL (UDFCD). SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE
BMP DETAILS THAT VARY FROM THIS UDFCD STANDARD DETAIL. CONSULT WITH LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
AS TO WHICH
DETAIL SHOULD
BE USED
WHEN DIFFERENCES ARE NOTED.
2. SEDIMENT ACCUMULATED UPSTREAM
OF INLET PROTECTION
SHALL BE REMOVED ASP257
VI.A.
1 inch = ft.(
IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
10
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTS12038.
01WATER QUALITY
DETAILSDURANT SITE IMPROVEMENTPROJECTJOB
NO.SHEET C9
DATE: 2-5-14NO.REVISIONBY DATE502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704-0311FAX: (970)-704-0313DESIGNED BYCITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADODRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING PERMITWATER QUALITY NOTES:1.BIO-RETENTION GROW MEDIA SHALL CONSIST
OF 18-INCHES OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS
THOROUGHLYMIXED INTO A HOMOGENOUS MATERIAL:70% (BY VOLUME) OF ASTM C-33 SAND
WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:30% (BY VOLUME) OF COMPOST/PAPER MIXTURE:50%
CLASS
1 STA REGISTERED COMPOST (APPROX.
BULK
DENSITY 1,000 LB/CY)50% LOOSELY PACKED SHREDDED PAPER (
APPROX. BULK DENSITY 50 TO 100
LB/CY)OR 30% (BY VOLUME) OF PEAT OR PER PARK'S AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'S
PRE-APPROVED ALTERNATIVE 2. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC (SEE TABLE)3. IMPERMEABLE LINER (SEE TABLE FOR SPECIFICATIONS) TOBEINSTALLEDONBOTTOMANDSIDESOFBASINS.EXTEND LINER AT LEAST TO
THE TOP OF UNDERDRAIN LAYER, AND AT LEAST 9 INCHES OF COVER OVERMEMBRANE SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG
SIDE
SLOPES TO PROTECT MEMBRANE FROM UV DETERIORATION.4. WRAP ALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TOTOEOFSOIL, ATTACHED FIRMLY
TO TRENCH SIDES. (SEE TABLE FOR SPECIFICATIONS)5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EXISTING TOPSOIL AND UNDERLYING
SOILS AND REPLACE WITH GROW MEDIAAND FILTER MATERIAL AS ILLUSTRATED.6. 4" PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN
TO BE CONTECH A-2000 OR APPROVED EQUAL THROUGH THE GRAVEL MEDIA. ONCE
THE PIPE EXITS
THE TREATMENT AREA A SOLID PIPE SHOULD
BE USED.7. UNDERDRAINS THAT DAYLIGHT SHALL BE OUTFITTED WITH PVC END CAPS WITH 3
8" DIAMETER HOLE DRILLED AT THE INVERT OF THE CAP.8. OUTLET IMPACT BASINS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE OUTLETS
OF INCOMING PIPES AND ROOF DRAINS. THE IMPACT BASIN SHOULD BE A MIN. OF 24"
w
X 24"L AND CAN BE
CONSTRUCTED OUT OF THE EITHER OF THE
FOLLOWING (ANY VOIDS SHOULD BE FILLED WITH CLASS C FILTER
MATERIA):FLAGSTONESCOURSTOPEROSIONMAT
OR APPROVED EQUAL 6"
NOM. RIPRAP EMBEDDED INTO
P258VI.A.
P259VI.A.
P260VI.A.
P261VI.A.
P262VI.A.
P263VI.A.
P264VI.A.
P265VI.A.
P266VI.A.
P267VI.A.
P268
VI.A.
P269VI.A.
1 inch = ft.
IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
10
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTS12038.
01BUILDINGS A &
B DRAINAGE PLAN & PROFILESDURANTSITEIMPROVEMENTPROJECTJOB
NO.
SHEET C3 DATE: 2-5-14NO.REVISIONBY DATE502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704-
0311FAX: (970)-704-0313DESIGNED BYCITY OF ASPEN, COLORADODRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING PERMITKnow what'
s R 1. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE PVC
SDR-35 OR AS NOTED ON PLANS 2. ALL
INLETS SPECIFIED HEREIN SHALL BE NDS OR PRE-APPROVED
EQUAL:2.1. 4" INLET: ROUND NDS PART NO.
13 2.2. 9" INLET: ROUND NDS PART NO. 950 2.3.
12" INLET: SQ. NDS PART NO. 1210 2.4. 18" INLET: SQ. NDS PART NO. 1815 3.
SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
4. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SCHEDULE INSTALLATION OBSERVATIONS AS WELL AS SURVEY
OF AS-BUILT
INFORMATION PER THE CITY'S GRADING & DRAINAGE CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS.5. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
AS ILLUSTRATED HEREIN MUST BE PRE-APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.6. THE
INLET RISER PIPES ACCEPTING UNDERDRAINS MUST BE
24" DIA. WITH APPROPRIATE REDUCERS TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED INLET. ALTERNATIVE
INLETS STRUCTURES ARE ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED THE INLET GRATES MEET THE MIN.
SPECIFICATIONS
AS THE RECOMMENDED INLETS
LISTED
ABOVE.7. HEAT TAPE
SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR
ALL DAYLIGHT PIPES.
8. REFER
TO DETAIL SHTEET
C8 FOR PLANTER
WALL PENETRATION DETAIL.NOTES:
VERT. SCALE: 1" = 5'P270VI.A.
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL
CONSULTANTSDURANT SITE IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTJOBNO.SHEET DATE:
2-
5-14NO.REVISIONBY
DATE502 MAIN
STREETCARBONDALE, CO
81623(
970)
704-0311FAX: (
970)-
704-
0313DESIGNED BYCITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADODRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING PERMITKnow
what's R
1 inch =
ft.IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE 0
10 12038.01BUILDINGS C &
D DRAINAGE PLAN & PROFILESC4 LEGEND 100 YEAR HGL LINE 100 YEAR EGL LINE PROPOSED
STORM SEWER PROPOSED UNDERDRAIN EXISTING SURFACE PROFILE PROPOSED SURFACE PROFILE VERT. SCALE:
1" = 5' 1. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE PVC
SDR-35 OR AS NOTED ON PLANS 2. ALL
INLETS SPECIFIED HEREIN SHALL BE NDS OR PRE-APPROVED
EQUAL:2.1. 4" INLET: ROUND NDS PART NO.
13 2.2. 9" INLET: ROUND NDS PART NO. 950 2.3.
12" INLET: SQ. NDS PART NO. 1210 2.4. 18" INLET: SQ. NDS PART
NO. 1815 3. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL
4. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SCHEDULE INSTALLATION OBSERVATIONS
AS WELL AS SURVEY OF AS-BUILT
INFORMATION PER THE CITY'S GRADING & DRAINAGE CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENTS.5. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS AS ILLUSTRATED HEREIN MUST BE PRE-APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER OF RECORD.6. THE INLET RISER PIPES ACCEPTING UNDERDRAINS MUST BE
24" DIA. WITH APPROPRIATE REDUCERS TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED INLET. ALTERNATIVE
INLETS STRUCTURES ARE ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED THE INLET GRATES MEET THE MIN.
SPECIFICATIONS
AS THE RECOMMENDED INLETS
LISTED ABOVE.7. HEAT
P271VI.A.
1 inch = ft.
IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
40
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTS12038.
01OFFSITE DRAINAGE
BASIN DELINEATIONJOB NO.SHEET
C5 DATE: 2-
5-
14NO.REVISIONBY DATE502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(
970)
704-0311FAX: (970)-704-
0313DESIGNED BYDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING PERMITKnow
what's
R DURANT SITE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECTCITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADOEXISTING OFFSITE
DRAINAGE BASIN PEAK RUNOFF SUMMARY LEGEND:OFFSITE DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATION TRAVEL
PATH FOR Tc COMPUTATIONS FLOW ARROW EXISTING GIS 1' CONTOURS DESIGN POINT DRAINAGE NOTES/
ASSUMPTIONS:1. EXISTING OFFSITE CONTOUR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PITKIN COUNTY GIS
P272VI.A.
1 inch = ft.(
IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
10
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTS12038.
01EXISTING ONSITE
DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATIONJOBNO.
SHEET C6 DATE:
2-
5-
14NO.REVISIONBY DATE502
MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO
81623(970) 704-0311FAX: (
970)-704-
0313DESIGNED BYDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING
PERMITKnow what's R
DURANT SITE
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCITY OF ASPEN, COLORADOLEGEND:EXISTINGP273
VI.A.
1 inch = ft.(
IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
10
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTS12038.
01POST DEVELOPMENT
DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATIONJOBNO.SHEET
C7 DATE: 2-5-
14NO.REVISIONBY DATE502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE,
CO 81623(
970) 704-
0311FAX: (970)-
704-0313DESIGNED BYDRAWN
BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING
PERMITDURANT SITE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECTCITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADOLEGEND:POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE
BASIN OFFSITE
DRAINAGE BASIN DELINEATION (SEE SHT. C5)FLOWP274 VI.A.
OPRISNGINEERING, LLC.
CIVIL
CONSULTANTSJOB NO.SHEET DATE:
NO.REVISIONBY DATE502
MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704-0311FAX: (970)-704-0313C8DESIGNED BYDRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALS12038.
01 2-5-14 1. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT SYSTEMS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
CITY OF
ASPEN RULES ®ULATIONS AS SPECIFIED IN CHAPTER 8 - WATER QUALITY, OF THE URBAN RUNOFF
MANAGEMENT PLAN (URMP).2. A MAINTENANCE PROGRAM SHALL BE ADOPTED BY THE
OWNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 8.5.4.1 OF
THE URMP.3. THE MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE SIMILAR AND EQUAL TO ALCOA ALUMINUM
CO. NO.
126538.4. REFER TO THE DURANT CONDOS DRAINAGE REPORT
PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING FOR ALL WQCV CALCULATIONS.5. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.6. BOX
TO PLACED
ON A MINIMUM
OF 6" CL.
ABC COMPACTED TO
95% MODIFIED PROCTOR WATER
QUALITY NOTES:PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE)SECTION
A-A NOT TO SCALE)
WQ SAND VAULT DETAIL
DURANT SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADOBUILDING PERMITDETAILSTWO-WAY CLEAN
OUT DETAIL IN
SIDEWALK AREAS PVC OR HDPE DRAIN LINES TRENCH CROSS-SECTION FOR YARD DRAIN INSTALLATION DETAIL (
SEE
PLAN)HEATED SIDEWALK SECTION DETAIL GENERAL DETAIL NOTES:1. ALL SHOP DRAWINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED AND
APPROVED BY ENGINEER OF RECORD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2. ALL STORM PIPES
SHALL BE PVC SDR 35 OR OTHERWISE AS NOTED ON THE PLANS.3.
STORM INLETS SHALL BE NDS AND
INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'
S RECOMMENDATIONS.
4. REFER
TO PLANS FOR
SIZES OF ALL
PROPOSED INLETS AND
STORM PIPES.STORM PIPE
PLANTER WALL PENETRATION DETAIL
6" STANDARD CURB
A A B B SECTION B-B SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG PARKING STABILIZATION
DEVICE ROW INLET PROTECTION DETAIL OR PRE-APPROVED EQUIVALENT)INLET PROTECTION NOTES:1.
DETAIL OBTAINED FROM URBAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MANUAL (UDFCD). SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE
BMP DETAILS THAT VARY FROM THIS UDFCD STANDARD DETAIL. CONSULT WITH LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
AS TO WHICH
DETAIL SHOULD
BE USED
WHEN DIFFERENCES ARE NOTED.
2. SEDIMENT ACCUMULATED UPSTREAM
OF INLET PROTECTION
SHALL BE REMOVED ASP275
VI.A.
1 inch = ft.(
IN FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
10
OPRISESNGINEERING, LLC.CIVIL CONSULTANTS12038.
01WATER QUALITY
DETAILSDURANT SITE IMPROVEMENTPROJECTJOB
NO.SHEET C9
DATE: 2-5-14NO.REVISIONBY DATE502 MAIN STREETCARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704-0311FAX: (970)-704-0313DESIGNED BYCITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADODRAWN BYCHECKED BYDATEINITIALSBUILDING PERMITWATER QUALITY NOTES:1.BIO-RETENTION GROW MEDIA SHALL CONSIST
OF 18-INCHES OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS
THOROUGHLYMIXED INTO A HOMOGENOUS MATERIAL:70% (BY VOLUME) OF ASTM C-33 SAND
WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:30% (BY VOLUME) OF COMPOST/PAPER MIXTURE:50%
CLASS
1 STA REGISTERED COMPOST (APPROX.
BULK
DENSITY 1,000 LB/CY)50% LOOSELY PACKED SHREDDED PAPER (
APPROX. BULK DENSITY 50 TO 100
LB/CY)OR 30% (BY VOLUME) OF PEAT OR PER PARK'S AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'S
PRE-APPROVED ALTERNATIVE 2. GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC (SEE TABLE)3. IMPERMEABLE LINER (SEE TABLE FOR SPECIFICATIONS) TOBEINSTALLEDONBOTTOMANDSIDESOFBASINS.EXTEND LINER AT LEAST TO
THE TOP OF UNDERDRAIN LAYER, AND AT LEAST 9 INCHES OF COVER OVERMEMBRANE SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG
SIDE
SLOPES TO PROTECT MEMBRANE FROM UV DETERIORATION.4. WRAP ALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TOTOEOFSOIL, ATTACHED FIRMLY
TO TRENCH SIDES. (SEE TABLE FOR SPECIFICATIONS)5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EXISTING TOPSOIL AND UNDERLYING
SOILS AND REPLACE WITH GROW MEDIAAND FILTER MATERIAL AS ILLUSTRATED.6. 4" PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN
TO BE CONTECH A-2000 OR APPROVED EQUAL THROUGH THE GRAVEL MEDIA. ONCE
THE PIPE EXITS
THE TREATMENT AREA A SOLID PIPE SHOULD
BE USED.7. UNDERDRAINS THAT DAYLIGHT SHALL BE OUTFITTED WITH PVC END CAPS WITH 3
8" DIAMETER HOLE DRILLED AT THE INVERT OF THE CAP.8. OUTLET IMPACT BASINS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE OUTLETS
OF INCOMING PIPES AND ROOF DRAINS. THE IMPACT BASIN SHOULD BE A MIN. OF 24"
w
X 24"L AND CAN BE
CONSTRUCTED OUT OF THE EITHER OF THE
FOLLOWING (ANY VOIDS SHOULD BE FILLED WITH CLASS C FILTER
MATERIA):FLAGSTONESCOURSTOPEROSIONMAT
OR APPROVED EQUAL 6"
NOM. RIPRAP EMBEDDED INTO
P276VI.A.
P277VI.A.