Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Review Conference Center 201 S Saint Vrain Ave 1990-01-30TOWN OF ESTES PARK PLANNING DEPARTMENT ‘3 Date:11—28—89 U Annexation Plat Project Name:Estes Park Conference Center General Location:Colorado Highway 7 &First Avenue Legal Description:See attached Applicant:Town of Estes Park Telephone:586-5331 Address:P.O.Box 1200,Estes Park,CO 80517 Property Owner:Forever Living Products,Inc.Telephone: Address: Engineer:ESTES PARK SURVEYORS &ENGINEERS,INC.Telephone:5865175 Architect:THORP ASSOCIATES,P.C../C.W.Fentress Telephone:586—9528 SITE DATA Size of Site:120,000 sf Smallest Lot:Largest Lot: Water:Town of Estes Park Sewer:Estes Park Sanitation Dist. Average Slope:43 Area of Site —30%slope or greater Area Open Space:32,800 sq.ft.landscaped areas 27% Common:Private: DEVELOPMENT DATA Existing Use: Proposed Use: Total Floor Area: Commercial Accomodations Conference Center 25,000 sq.ft. Existing (Used) New (Developed): Floor Area Ratio (Bulk): Impervious Surface Coverage; Building Coverage: Other Paved Areas: New Streets: 20.8% 87,200 sf total Public:N/A Private: Lineal Feet:Right-of-Way: Right-of-Way: APPLICATION FOR Application No.:SR #89—7 flflevelopment Plan Li Subdivision aspecial Review Li Preliminary flat C Planned Unit Development Q Final Plat 21,200 sf +3,800 sf future 25,000 sf 62,200 sf Lineal Feet: Application Page Two Parking: Building Height:See architectural ____ Building Setbacks: _________________________ 17’@ existing iui±ciing --Front:25’+@ entry ACTION (For Planning Commission Staff Use Only) Planning Commission: Approval: Disapproval: Remarks: Town Board: © Approval:— Disapproval: Existing:—0—To Be Provided:120 spaces Rear:300’ elevations cot ner Side: Phasing (Development Schedule): _____________ River: ____________ Construction to begin BiIuirner 1990 ATTACHMENTS X Written Statement of Intent (21 Copies) X Mylar and 21 copies of Concept or Development Plan (3 mylars if P.U.D.,Annexation x Plat or Final Plat) Floor Plans,Architectural Elevations at 1”=1,0”(1/16”=1’O”for Concept Plan) x Storm Water Management Plan N/A Application Fee Applicant’s Signature:Date:1/30/90 Owner’s Signature:ry F/1(hake Date: NOTE:Pursuant to the Municipal code,applicants shall also be responsible to reimburse the Town for legal,engineering and planning costs incurted by staff and consultants necessary for project review. Remarks: Thorp Associates,P.C. Architects and Planners January 30,1990 Mr.Steve Stamey,Director Department of Planning Town of Estes Park PD Box 1200 Estes Park GO 80517 Re:Estes Park Conference Center Height Variance -- Dear Steve; As a part of our submittal for the Development Plan on the above referenced project,please accept this letter as our indication that cze are requesting a height variance to zoning regulation 17.20.050 of TitleS 17 of the Municipal Code,Town of Estes Park,Colorado.As you are aware,the new conference center building is of a considerable nass.We have diligently attempted to maintain the 30 foot height limitation in every respect possible.However,at the main entrance,we have incorporated a major design element to focus attention on the entrance which exceeds the 30 foot height limitation.All other portions of the building roof structure are within the 30 foot requirements.ITowever in an attempt to give the main entrance its appropriate dominance of the overall design,the peak of the hipped roof over the lobby entrance is a maximum of 52 feet above the finished floor.It is our opinion that this single proposed design element on this building will not intrude into views from other properties or reduce privacy or interfere in any way with surrounding solar energy utilization. Please include a discussion of this variance request when the development plan is considered by the Town Board.If you have any questions concerning the above information,feel free to give me a call at any time. r.4$i1T -S I’.- P.O.Box 129,131 Stanley Ave.,Estes Park,CO 80517 Local:586-9528 Metro:534-1378 \1 Ai.J TOWN OF ESTES PARK -Gary F Kiaphake Town Administrator — Estes Park,Colorado 80517 January 30,1990 Planning Commission Town of Estes Park P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park,CC 80517 Re:Conference Center Statement of Intent Dear Planning Commission: A development plan for the proposed Conference Center is being submitted to you for review,comment,and approval.An overalldescriptionofthisproposalmaybeasusefultoyouasthe development plan itself.In addition to this information,C.W. Fentress and Associates has prepared a scale model. The Town of Estes Park has leased a portion of the properties owned by Forever Living Products,Inc.Their ownership includes the Holiday Inn,what was formerly called the High Country Motel, the Texaco Gas Station that is currently being dismantled,and a mostly vacant property south and southwest of the Holiday Inn. The Town’s lease area will encompass nearly all of the vacant portions south of the Holiday Inn.The Town will construct,own and operate the Conference Center.Portions of the operation may be accomplished under contractual agreement with second parties. A primary objective of this proposal is to integrate with the ongoing functions of the Holiday Inn so as to reduce both construction costs and operation costs.This objective is met by attaching to the Holiday Inn along its south wall line and incorporating the existing kitchen facilities with an expanded area in the new structure.Also,a portion of the common area adjacent to the existing swimming pool will act as a common area for both facilities. P.0.Box 1200 Telephone (303)586-5331 0 0 Town of Estes Park Estes Park,Colorado 80517 Planning Commission Page 2 January 30,1990 An attractive main entry is proposed to face Colorado Highway 7 where pick-up and drop-off is accommodated,as well as access to public transportation.From this entry,vehicular movement is directed along the south side of the center to a parking area being developed to the west of the center. The parking area west of the center lies on two levels above the building: finish floor of building 43.0 elev. lower level parking 54.0 elev. upper level parking 55.0 to 70.0 elev. To compensate for these elevation differences,concrete retaining walls and stairways are proposed near the south and west building lines.Planting areas between the service drive and parking,and between the two parking levels,should provide an aesthetically- pleasing appearance,as it will soften the visual impact of asphalt,vehicles and retaining walls.Additional planting along the southerly side of the proposed improvements will further enhance visual quality. Other,more technical,aspects of this proposal,i.e.,drainage,utilities,grades,etc.,are being given careful attention by the Town’s consulting and in-house staffs. We are most anxious for your formal review of this proposal and hope to gain from your insights so as to make this a very successful project. Respectfully yours, TOWN OF ESTES PARK /69 Garj’-F.I4lapha) Town Administràtior GFK:ck C TOWN OF ESTES PARK Light and Power Department Richard E.Matzke,P.E. —- -Electrical Engineer -—-- -Estes Park,Colorado 80517 February 16,1990 OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO;Steve Stamey FROM;Richard E.Matzke SUBJECT:Special Review 89-7 Estes Park Conference Center A portion of It 41,Little Prosect Mountain Addition Area south and southwest of Holiday Inn The Light and Power Department requests that a ten foot utility easement be provided to accommodate the existing electric servicetotheHolidayInnandfutureservicetotheconferencecenter. We also request a ten foot utility easement along the southpropertyline. REM P.a Box 1200 Telephone (303)586-5331 —_z Stephen 1.Stamey Director!Planner TITLE: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Special Review 89-7,Estes Park Conference Center A por.of Lot 41,Little Prospect Mountain Add. (South of Holiday Inn) Town of Estes Park I.SITE DATA Engineer:Architect: Number of Lots: Size of Lots:Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: Water: Sewer: Access: Estes Park Surveyors &Engineers C.W.Fentress &Associates Thorp Associates 1 existing 120,000 sq.ft. C-O Outlying Commercial Service Station (under demolition) and vacant Town of Estes Park EPSO Highway 7 and Stanley Avenue II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Town of Estes Park is proposing to develop a 21,200 sq.ft.conference center south of,and adjacent to,the Holiday Inn.Access will be provided from Highway 7 and Stanley Avenue.A parking lot with 120 spaces will be developed to the west of the conference center.The height of the building at the main entrance exceeds 30’,which is part of the special review consideration. III.PROJECT REVIEW SPECIAL REVIEW 1.Suitability of the proposed location for this proposal, considering the following: 0 0\jtjaaI TOWN OF ESTES PARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ‘7JL%7a’F’1’’—-_t*“‘ .—SW ‘bY”as - Estes Park,Colorado 80517 February 14,1990 P.Q.Box 1200 Telephone (303)586-5331 0 0 Town of BEes Park [sles Park,Colorado 80317 February 14,1990 Page 2 a.Nearby land uses,and whether they would be supported by or damaged by having the proposed use nearby: The proposed conference center is a complimentary activity for the neighborhood and community.The conference center will generate additional economic activity for neighborhood businesses. b.Uses of the site and nearby areas which would be displaced by or pre-empted by this use: The conference center will displace an existing service station.Redevelopment of the site for conference center use is a higher and better use and is more compatible with the neighborhood. c.Adequacy of roads,water,sewerage,and drainagefacilitiesservingthelocation: New and existing facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. d.Environmental characteristics of the site and related areas,and the consequences of the development as proposed for public safety and the natural environment: There is a rock outcropping with mature landscaping at the southwest corner of the site. This area is being reserved from development. Environmental improvements also occurred with this development with the removal of the underground storage tanks. 2.suitability of the specific proposed development. A primary objective of the development is to integrate with the ongoing function of the Holiday Inn so as to reduce both construction costs and operating costs. The development is compatible with the neighborhood andsite.It will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or public facilities. 0 0 Town of [stes Park Estes Park,Colorado 80517 February 14,1990 Page 3 3.Building and site design. a.Avoid visual,noise,or other intrusion into adjacent premises or departure from the established character of the vicinity. The proposed conference center is a relatively large building.A main entrance is proposed of Highway 7.At this main entrance a major design element exceeds 30’.This is to give a major focal point and design feature for the conference center.The peak of the hipped roof will be 52’ above the finished floor. The Planning Commission and Board of Trustees may approve this increase in height.Due to its location &separation from adjoining properties, this entry feature should not interfere with privacy,solar orientation,or views from adjacent properties. (See attached letter from Thorp Associates). b.Avoid unnecessary damage to the natural environment through design adaptation to theparticularitiesofthesite,evidenced by minimization of cut and fill and vegetation removal. The parking lot design has been modified to provide minimal disturbance of the rock outcropping at the southwest corner of the site. Additionally,the parking lot has been designed to take the best advantage of the natural grade and reduce the amount of retaining wall construction that would otherwise be necessary. 4.The social,economic,or community needs which are served by the proposal. The conference center is intended to provide year-round economic opportunities with an emphasis on increasing economic activity in the shoulder and winter seasons. The conference center will provide an important economic base for the area’s lodging facilities,retail and service business,and will generate additional year-round employment. 0 0 Town of Estes Park Estes Park,Colorado 80517February14,1990 Page 4 5.Consistency with district objectives. The conference center development is consistent with the C-C Outlying Commercial objectives of a land use which provides services to visitors and travellers; build a clear identity along the approaches to the to town’s center,and develops consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Renewal Plan. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1.Parking.The conference center development will include construction of 120 parking spaces.Additionally,the Bureau of Reclamation will issue a Special Use Permit that will allow the power plant parking lot to be used for overflow parking (70spaces).Sidewalks will be provided across the Highway 36/7 islands to link the parking area with the conference center.Additionally,this parking areawillbeservedwithshuttleserviceinthefuture. The conference center parking demand is summarized as follows: Existing Number of Spaces 209 Existing Parking Demand,Holiday Inn (based on 155 rooms)175 Surplus Spaces 34 Conference Center Parking Demand 1.800 Occupancy 266 (assumes limited number of peak conferences) 2.533 Occupancy 178 (Based on 8000 sq.ft. ballroom and occupancy load,per UBC @ 15 sq.ft.per person) Total Parking Available 1.New Parking Lot 120 2.Surplus Spaces 34 3.Overflow Parking-Bureau of Reclamation Lot 70 TOTAL SPACES 224 4.Shared Parking 88 (assume 50%of rooms at Holiday Inn are used for a given conference (78 rooms) TOTAL SPACES +SHARED 312 Town of Estes Park February 14,1990 Page 5 Estes Park,Colorado 80517 Surfacing.Parking areas and drives will be surfaced with asphalt,per development plan criteria. 3.Access.A loading/unloading area is provided at the Highway 7 entrance.Access to the parking lot is provided from both Highway 7 and Stanley Avenue.The separated access points will disperse traffic.The Town of Estes Park will secure an access permit from the CDOH. 4.Fire.The conference center building will be built with a sprinkler system. 5.Utilities.The size of needs to be determinedwillbedeterminedwhentotalfixtureunitsare the conference center water tap by the project engineer.Thisfinalplansarecompletedandestablished. 6.Drainage.The drainage system has been designed todirectstormwaterrunofftothestormsewerinHighway 7.Final inlet elevations need to be set so that the emergency overflow at the northeast corner of the siteislowerthanthefuturebuildingpadelevationinthe patio area. 7.Landscaping.A landscape plan will be developed for the Highway 7 entrance area.Parking area planting locations have been established.Approximately 27%of the site will be in landscaped areas. IV.COMMENTS OF REFERRAL AGENCIES See attached correspondence. V.STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning to make abenefitsto the town and Commission and Board of Trustees are required determination that the conference center’s the town will outweigh any adverse effects forvicinity. This report did not identify any negative features which have not been addressed or mitigated. ©0 SLS :ci Sa— PRIDEIN________d States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Unite EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE Great Plains Region — —• P.O.Box 449 Loveland,Colorado 80639—0449 IN RFPLY REFERTO:MAY 081990 (f:;MAY 9 E-400 Ms.Vickie O’connor Town Clerk Town of Estes Park P0 Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 Subject:Permit for Use of Estes Powerplant Parking Lot for Overflow Parking and Bus Loading Zone -Colorado-Big Thompson Project,Colorado (Outgrant) Dear Ms.O’Connor: Enclosed is a copy of a Special Use Permit (Contract No.9-LM-60-L1156)for use of the Estes Powerplant parking lot for overflow parking and bus loading. Please note the special conditions required to be completed before use of this parking and loading area.If you have any questions,please contact Wil Banner at 667-4410. Sincerely, Steven R.Clark Project Manager Enclosure p a EXHIBIT A SPECIAL CONDITIONS CONTRACT NO.9-LM-6O-L1156 1.The perinittee agrees to the following specific conditions: a.Develop angle parking to create a consistent traffic flow pattern in order to reduce vehicle pedestrian conflict and improve safety. b.Allow public parking only with no designation for “RV Parking.” c.Develop 15 parking spaces for Reclamation employees and Government vehicles. d.Adequately stripe and sign above parking areas and proposed “Bus Zone.” 2.Should repairs be needed in parking lot surfacing,thefl Town will participate by cost sharing of repairs as determined by Reclamation to maintain the parking lot in a reasonable condition. 3.No discrimination will be allowed with regard to any fees charged for services in that this service benefits the general public and is located on Federal Lands. 4.No subcontracts with private interests are allowed to provide shuttle bus service to the Estes Powerplant Parking Lot under this permit. Purpose (specify.use requested:what,quantities,dimensions,etc.)“- This permit allows the Town of Estes Park to utilize the Estes Powerplant parking lot This will accommodateeperiodic needs bythótown during special events when on4lte parkiflg tp&ceisexceeded.’See Exhibit B. ‘-C’ —‘ Description of Premises (Specify legal descriptions of land and major features such as reservoir,canal,etc.) The parking ‘lot will also be used by the town for overflow downtown parking during the peak summer months.(Ref attached letter of November 29.1989).This permit allows for continued parking needs of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)but also provides approximately 70 additional parking spaces and a bus loading zone for the town.See Exhibit B.i.., 1 SIGNATURE TITLE ATTEST - DATE DATE Finance copy (White)Permittee copy (Green)Lands copy (Yellow)Manqing Agency Copy (Pink):gwin,Office,Copy (Cold) p—76 tbYksed 8/86)UNITED STATES -DEPA.AENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION •MISSOURI BASIN REGION intract number:9LM61h156 Exhibits attached:A, (Project I Unit) fljt;SPECIAL USE PERMIT Permittee Name and address).\i.,!Yi r’ Town of Estes Park , Community Development’Departnient P.O.Box 1200 Estes •Park.Co 80517 (Place Contract No.on all Exhibits) Term: From June 1.1990 •To June 1 1995 Month Day Year ‘1 ‘I Permit Fee $200.00 —Admi iii strpti Successive Fee $—9 Fr Special Conditions (The permittee must consult with and receive written approval from the Issuing officer for any species of plants proposed for planting.) A listof special’conditions is attached (Exhibit A).:The attached layout drawing (Exh.i!it B)depicts;‘tIe,5required parking,bus loading and sign requirements. --. 2 ‘‘—‘l I’•‘— The Permluee hereby accepts this permit subject to the terms,convenants,obligations,and reservations,npressed ot implied herein. Sign name or nimes as written in body of permit,(or cop,rinershlp,permiltee-,should sign as “member,of lirm”,for co.por,lion,the office,authorized to execute contract.etc.should sign.with title,the sufficiency of such signature being attested by the Secretary,with corporate seal,in iieu of witnessess,- ASSIGN)MANAGING AGENCY ..ASSIGN)MANAGING AGENCY PERMInJE ‘C AGENCY .,LSIGNATURE’> TITLE SIG NATUR&?J, ________________________________ AflEST-t4 I ____________________ DATE ‘TJt.,t4 &:/L2VO>/ Approved by Issuing Office,:(Name and Title)-Signature ,,.Date Steven R.Clark,Project Manager .. --/ work,8 /file:bureau.I United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Great Plains Region EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE P.O.Box 449 Loveland,Colorado 80539—0449 TAKE — PRIDEIN________ AMERICA Mr.Stephen L.Staniey Director/Planner Town of Estes Park Community Development P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 Department Subject:Request for Use of Estes Powerplant Parking Lot for Overflow Parking -Special Use Permit -Colorado-Big Thompson Project,Colorado (Special Use Permit) Dear Mr.Stamey: As requested in Permit (Contract powerplant parki block noted as pe execution.A ful please remit $200 permit. If you have any questions,please contact telephone (303)667-4410. Sincerely,t2 Steven IL Clark Project Manager Special Use on in the for final ditionally, sing this I— IN REPLY REFER TO: E-400 —a • JAN 231990 your December 18,1989 letter,we are enclosing a 9-LM-60-L1156)for use of the Bureau of Reclamati ng lot.Please have the appropriate official sign rmittee and return the entire form to this office ly executed copy will then be returned to you.Ad .00 for administrative fees associated with proces Tom Gibbens or Wil Banner at End osures 0 0 HAMMOND.CLARK AND WHITE LAW OFFICES FIRST NATIONAL BANK 6UILDINS,SUITE 4TH LYNN A.HAMMOND 260 EASr SEVENTH STREET ALFRED P.DAVIs ROGER E.CLARK LOVELAND,COLORADO 80537 OF COUNSEL GREGORY A WHIrE 303-667 023 TELEFAX 303-669-9300 February 7,1990 Mr.Steve Stamey Town Planner Town of Estes Park p.0.Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 RE:Special Review 89—7 Estes Park Conference Center Dear Steve: I have reviewed the above special review,pursuant to your memorandum of January 31,1990. I have the following comment: The Development Plan should be executed by the underlying owner of the property,Rex Naughan,the Town of Estes Park as theoriginallessorundertheGroundLeaseandtheEstesParkUrban Renewal Authority,as the assignee of the Town’s interest in the Ground Lease. V y tru yours, Gr go y A.White GAW:jc _a o __ epurci PLANNED PROGRESS DATE:February 5,1990 TO:Estes Park Planning Commission FROM:Arthur L.Anderson,Executive Direct RE:Special Review 89-7 The Conference Center development is in accordance with the Downtown Redevelopment Program’s purposes as amended on September 26,1989. EPURA will review this project at its March 1,1990 regularmeeting. EPURA encourages a favorable finding by the Planning Commission. 0 C) RFCFIW DEC 08 1989 December 8,1989 ALBNI5THATO1i Estes Park Planning Commission P0 Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 To Whom It May Concern, PROPOSED CONVENTION CENTER SITE: New access road shall be designated as “FIRE LANE”,and so marked,“NO PARI(ING ANYTIME”. Strongly recommend sprinkler system installed in new center. CRAGS MOUNTAIN VILLAGE: Original application on ground cover/overhang of roofs and spark arresters on fireplaces shall apply. Hydrants are adequate. No comment on other applications. Sinc ely, acfr Chief Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department ccJR/tjr 0 ESTES PARR SANITATION DISTRICT ESTES PARK,COLORADO 80517 OFFICE:586-2866 P.O.Box 722 PLANT:586-3516 ROOM 208,MUNICIPAL BUILDING December 14,1989 Estes Park Planning Commission P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park,CO.80517 RE:New development/Estes Park Convention Center Dear Estes Park Planning Commission, The Estes Park Sanitation District has no opposition to the proposed conference center development.However, there are some problems that need to be addressed/solved before service to the conference center is possible. Presently,the District maintains an 8 inch sewer main through this section.This 8 inch line is currently adequate,however it runs at near capacity.This line provides service to two of the Sanitation District’s largest users (Holiday Inn and the Medical Center)and any significant increase in flow will cause problems. At the point just north of the Holiday Inn entrance (see enclosed diagram)a 12 inch sewer line exists.To adequately serve the potential increase in flow from this development,the main from the conference center to this point must be increased in size to 12 inch.This is approximately 435 feet to the end of the property line and runs under approximately 175 feet of sidewalk.Three man holes would be required and one of the manholes would be placed at the point where the convention centers service line would connect to the main.This will provide optimum accessibility in case future maintenance is needed. We project that 10 —12 working days will be neces8ary to install this line as there are many logistical and technical problems that must be handled to complete this project and not interrupt flow.We are willing to Juggle our scheduled line projects for 1990,and provide the pipe and fittings,manholes,traffic control,equipment,and manpower that will be necessary to allow the center to use the Sanitation District’s facilities.However,the development will be required to pay for the manhole that will connect its service line and also for the replacement of the sidewalk/curb and gutter.These are costs not normally associated with our construction and since this line upgrade is precipitated by the convention centers existence,it is the District’s position that these costs shall be their responsibility. d Finally,these costs do relieve the development from System Investment Fees (tap fees).These fees will be assessed as per the schedule enclosed.Presently with the demolition of the Texaco station a credit of 26 wastewater fixture value units exists that may be applied to the fixture value units of the new convention center. Also required will be a 10 foot permanent easement and a 15 foot wide temporary construction easement. If you have any questions,please contact myself at 586—2866 or at the District’s office,Room 208,170 MacGregor Ave. Sincerely, James Duell Administrator I 0 ESTES PARK SANITATION DISTRICT Schedule of Charges for System_Investment_Fees The Estes Park Sanitation District shall use wastewater fixture value units to determine the system investment fee-for all structures,whether residential or commercial.The Basic System Investment Fee for all structures on a single piece of property, shall be $1,312.50.This Basic System Investment Fee shall allow up to and including fifteen (15)fixture value units.Each additional fixture value unit shall be charged at a rate of $87.50 per fixture value unit. For the purpose of classification the Estes Park Sanitation District recognizes the following definitions: a)Residence -A living quarter which does not pay sales tax on rent collected. b)Single Family Dwelling -A single family detached residence on a single property. c)Multi Family Dwelling -Any arrangement of multiple residences on a single property. d)Commercial Property -Any property which does not fit into definitions b or c. Also for purposes of classification,public use of facilities shall be limited to commercial structures.However,not all fixtures in commercial structures shall be considered public.Only those fixtures,whose intent is to serve the general public,not solely it’s employees,shall be considered public.Motel and hotel rooms shall be considered private. System Investment Fees are applicable to new structures, remodels or alterations to existing structures,or a change in the type of classification of the property.Should an existing property change in nature from one of the existing classifications (single family dwelling,multi family dwelling,or commercial)to a different classification (single family dwelling,multi family dwelling,or commercial),additional system investment fees will be assessed for all fixture value units over fifteen (15)per parcel of property.Unless,those additional units have already been assessed a system investment fee through this fixture value system or a previous tap fee schedule. This System Investment Fee Schedule was adopted at a Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Estes Park Sanitation District on November 14th,1989 and ordered effective November 15th 1989.These wastewater fixtures value units were based on the 1988 UPC schedule for drainage and the 1988 water use study performed by the Estes Park Sanitation District. Table 1 FIXTURE VALUE UNITS USED TO DETERMINE SYSTEM INVESTMENT FEES Units Kind of Fixture Bathtubs 2 Bidets 2 Dental Units or Cuspidors 1 Drinking fountains Floor Drains 2 Interceptors for grease,oil,solids,etc 3 Interceptors for sand,auto wash,etc 6 Laundry tubs 2 Clothes washers 2 Receptors,(floor sinks),indirect waste receptors for refrigerators,coffee urns, water stations,etc 1 Receptors,indirect waste receptors fore commercial sinks,dishwashers,air — washers,etc 3 Showers,single stafls,private 2 Showers,single stalls or gang,public 6 Sinks,bar,private 1 Sinks,bar,commercial 2 Sinks,commercial or industrial,including dishwashers,wash up sinks,and wash fountains 3 Sinks,flushing rim,clinic 6 Sinks,kitchen or dishwasher (residential)2 Sinks,kitchen and dishwasher (residential)3 Sinks,service 3 Nohile home park traps (one for ea.trailer)14 Urinals,pedestal,trap arm only 6 Urinals,stall 2 Urinals,wall 2 Wash basin,(Lavatories),single Wash basins,in sets 2 Water closet,(residential)1 Water closet,(commercial),trap am only 6 Clothes washers in groups of 3 or more shall be rated at six (6) fixture value units each. Estes Park Sanitation District requires food service facilities to install and maintain interceptors for grease,oil,solids,etc.. and car wash facilities to install and maintain interceptors for sand,auto wash,etc... User units which do not fall within the classifications provided in Table I or because of distinctive characteristics of property to be served,will he subject to Table 2 —Discharge Capacity,or to Board of Directors review and special fees applied. Table 2 —Discharge Capacity For Intermittent Flow Only (In gallons per minute)/(Liters per second) (1PM L/s Up to 7 1/2 Up to .47 Equals I Unit. B to 15 .50 to .95 Equals 2 Units 16 to 30 1.110 to 1.89 Equals 1 Units 31 to 50 1.95 to 3.15 Equals 6 Units Over 50 Over 3.15 to be determined by Board of Directors For continuous flow in a drainage system,such as from a pump, sump ejector,air conditioning equipment,or similar device,two (2) fixture units shall be assigned for each gallon per minute of flow. The Estes Park Sanitation District highly recommends the installation and use of water saving devices whenever possible. •_; January 31,1990 MEMORANDUM TO:All affected agencies FROM:Steve Stamey Town Planner Special Review 89-7 -Estes A por.of Lot 41,Little Prospect Mountain Addition Area south and southwest of Holiday Inn Attached please find a special review application submitted Park.This application will be considered by Park Planning Commission on Tuesday,at 1:30 p.m.in the Board Room (Room 103) Building,170 MacGregor Avenue. Please submit any comments you may have regarding this special review no later than Monday,February 12,1990. SLS:cj Attachment Tr AfSARG -7’r -1116 646 ‘emittW-7D 1Wt INN j It..)(ot..jfLStq t.srr*Tills p9cposo Ar pea55r LOC3’ 4 I4cqsi&’,j ac.. 64s vc$t LUsU...c-eø’tevet.oie-Mos -p C’a,q%Lr US,)rJ 0,14 I U 1 OWH ()L LI IL PARK (()1\tiHIIyI)IvII()I1Mlr•Ji )iI’\IIMiNT 4, kS%JN)e,. *‘:4 •?,t/y t’‘ a Stvjñn’n SL.tiiivy tt ml!‘Imnimu SUBJECT: Isi vs I’iiL,Coloradn 80517 Park Conference Center by the Town of Estes the Estes February 20,1990 of the Municipal ‘.)reeorr*6a5 ‘5csica (Øsr0—wfrw 6A t-Wrøt 4 tewta,’. 0 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O.Box 850 Greeley,Colorado 80632-0850 *ç (303)353-1232 February 6,1990 Larimer Co.,S.H.7 Estes Park Convention Center (s.end Holiday Inn) DOH File )t5100 Mr.Steve Stamey Town Planner Town of Estee Park P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park,Colorado 80517 Dear Mr.Stamey: We have reviewed the Estes Park Conference Center Special Review,and we have the following comments. In our letter of Decenber 8,1989,we address concerns about the proposed access and surface runoff.We wish to reaffirm those comments at this time.The access openings for the facility must be permitted by this office prior to construction. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal.Please contact me at 350—2163 if you :ave any questions. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS D.RAbIES DISTRICT ENGINEER Evan A.Hoop ,Jr. Development/Access Coordinator EAH :smw cc:L.D Yost Area Foreman File:Hoooer via Crier 4 STATE OF COLOPADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O.Box 850 Greeley.Colorado 80632-0850 •-(9 -* (303)353-1232 December 12,1989 Larijuer Co.5.11.7 Mr.Steve Stamey,Planner Estes Park Town of Estes Park Convention Center P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park,Colorado 80517 DOH File 215100 Dear Mr.Stamey: Further review of the Estes Park Convention Center Spec±al Review has been made as a result of our telephone conversation,and the following /2/15/?’? comments are added to those comments made in our letter of December 8, 1989.Any access to State Highway 7 will require an Access Permit due to the change of use of the property.The State H±ghway Access Code allows for one access to a Category L highway.Any more than one access point requires a variance to the code.The proposed one way access flfly he Cy)/2rJtC1 as a variance with its modification to a two lane,one way facility. The second lane would provide the capability of a passing movement within the drop off area,thereby minimizing the potential of queuing in the through lane of State Highway 1.The width of the two lane facility could be something less than 24 feet and still accommodate two lanes of traffic with the “throat”of the drive the same width as that of the two lane portion.The southerly,two way access would remain the principal access to the remainder of the parcel and other buildings on the property.That access could be from i6 to 2b feet in width if the vehicle volume does not exceed five DHV.The two way access shall be 25—35 feet in width if any one of the following apply to the access. a.Vehicle volume of the access exceeds five DRY. b.Multi—unit vehicles are intended to use the access. c.Single unit vehicles in excess of 30 feet in length will use the access. d.Special equipment using the access exceeds 16 feet in width. The possibility of the construction of a deceleration lane for right turns should also be explored if the projected traffic warrants. Thank you for your comments and the opportunity to review this Special Review again.Please contact me at 350—2163 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS D.RA1S DISTRICT ENGINEER Evan A Hooper,r - Development/Access Coordinator EAI-I:smw cc:L.D.Yost File:Hooper via Crier __ -__ III!_— TAU ____ i4f\United States Department of the Interior IfJJI?J BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ________ —Great Plains Region — EASTERN COLORADO PROJECTS OFFICE —— P.O.Box 449 Loveland,Colorado 80639—0449 IN REPLY REFERTO:JAN 231990 E-400 Mr.Stephen L.Stamey Director/Planner Town of Estes Park Community Development Department P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park CO 80517 Subject:Request for Use of Estes Powerplant Parking Lot for Overflow Parking -Special Use Permit -Colorado-Big Thompson Project,Colorado (Special Use Permit) Dear Mr.Starney: As requested in your December 18,1989 letter,we are enclosing a Special Use Permit (Contract 9-LM-60-L1156)for use of the Bureau of Reclamation powerplant parking lot.Please have the appropriate official sign in the block noted as permittee and return the entire form to this office for final execution.A fully executed copy will then be returned to you.Additionally, please remit $200.00 for administrative fees associated with processing this permit. If you have any questions,please contact Tom Gibbens or Wil Banner at telephone (303)667-4410. Si ncerely, Steven R.Clark Project Manager End osures 7. EXHIBIT A SPECIAL CONDITIONS CONTRACT NO.9-LM-60-L1156 1.The permittee agrees to the following specific conditions: I, a.Develop angle parking to create a consistent traffic flow pattern in order to reduce vehicle pedestrian conflict and improve safety. b.Allow public parking only with no designation for “RV Parking.” c.Develop 15 parking spaces for Reclamation employees and Government vehicles. d.Adequately stripe and sign above parking areas and proposed “Bus Zone.” 2.Should repairs be needed In parking lot surfacing,the Town will participate by cost sharing of repairs as determined by Reclamation to maintain the parking lot in a reasonable condition. 3.No discrimination will be allowed with regard to any fees charged for services in that this service benefits the general public and is located on Federal Lands. 4.No subcontracts with private interests are allowed to provide shuttle bus service to the Estes Powerplant Parking Lot under this permit. C)5 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS FOR ESTES PARK CONFERENCE CENTER Portion of Lot 41 &42,Little Prospect Mountain Addition Town of Estes Park,Colorado PREPARED FOR:TOWN OF ESTES PARK P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park,CO 80517 PREPARED BY:ESTES PARK SURVEYORS &ENGINEERS,INC. P.O.Box 3047 Estes Park,CO 80517 November,1989 I 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PACE I.SCOPE 1 II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 III.BASIN DESCRIPTION 2 IV.DESIGN METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS 4 V.PROJECT SITE RUNOFF RATE CALCULATIONS 9 VI.DETENTION VOLUMES 11 VII.RECOMMENDATIONS 11 VIII.SUMMARY 13 IX.APPENDIX 13 I hereby certify that this report for the Estes Park Conference Center Development was prepared by me or under my direct supervision for the Town of Estes Park and said report meets or exceeds the criteria in the Larimer County Storm—Water Management Manual. Paul M.Kobhevar P.E.&P.L.S.15760 j 15760 j4’1 0 I.SCOPE This report is a drainage analysis of a storm—water system to be constructed in conjunction with the develop ment of the Estes Park Conference Center on a portion of Lot 41 and 42,Little Prospect Mountain Addition.In cluded herein is an overall drainage analysis providing the following detail: A.Identification of overall drainage patterns in the basin. B.Peak runoff rates for the historic and developed 100—year frequency storms at locations in and around the project site. C.Estimate of the volume of storm—water that would represent the difference in runoff between the historic and developed conditions on the project site. The specific details of the system required for the proper development of this site are included on the site plan attached hereto. II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located between Colorado Highway 7 and Stanley Avehue and just South of the Holiday Inn.More particularly, the site is located in the NW 1/4 of Section 30,TSN,R72W of the 6th P.M.,Larimer County,Colorado.The description of the property is shown on the attached development plan. —1— The proposed development on this site includes the additional construction of a 24,000 square foot building, drives,parking and walkways.The proposed development will be contained solely upon the site shbwn on the development plan.Some modifications to the original drainage scheme were necessary to isolate additional runoff created when this building and accessories are constructed. III.BASIN DESCRIPTION The southerly line of this property is at or near a natural high point where surface flows are directed to the southeast and northeast.Offsite surface flow crosses this site and has been considered in computing historic and developed flow rates.This site slopes from southwest to northeast and drains into the roadside swale adjacent to Colorado Highway 7.The slope before any development was begun on the property was uniformly at about 4.4%.Hydrologic characteristics are typified by shallow topsoil,good ground cover and sparse tree cover. The topsoil is very granular and easily erodible. The primary purpose of this report is to size the needed detention volume and outlet in order to maintain historic flow rates from the site.The owners intend upon com pletely landscaping the property as development occurs and are anticipating a healthy ground cover. —2— T 0 The proposed outlet for surface water shall e located along the east line of the property at an existing storm sewer inlet.Storm water from the detention pond shall flow underground along the south side of the property and to a point near the northeast corner of the new building. This property is under the same ownership and use.The existing surface runoff is well contained,as it flows to the East toward Colorado Highway 7,where it is collected by a grated inlet on the Westerly side of the highway.This inlet drains to the Northeast along First Street. A significant natural swale traverses this site and will be completely filled in by this project.Because of this, and the poor quality of the downstream drainage system,it may be beneficial to divert the flow in this swale at Stanley Avenue. The calculations in the next section of this report refer to three design points: Point A =the above—mentioned,natural swale at Stanley Avenue; Point B =an existing inlet (15’CMP outlet)along the south side of u.s.36 about 300 feet west of Stanley Avenue; Point C =existing inlet (24”CMP outlet)at the northeast corner of this project. —3— 0 The calculations show flows for the 10-year return period at each design point for historic/undeveloped conditions,developed conditions and for both of these conditions if the flow is diverted from the above-mentioneti. natural swale toward the inlet along the south side of U.S.36 (design point B). IV.DESIGN METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS The method of analysis used for determining peak runoff rates was the Rational Method as follows: Q =C Cf I A where:Q =peak runoff rate in cubic feetpersecond C =combined runoff coefficient =.25 for undeveloped or historiccondition =.95 for hard—surface areas Cf=1.25 for 100—year storm I =storm intensity in inches per hour A =area in acres For developed conditions,C =0.50,as estimated by Prospect Mountain Northeast Drainage Study. —4— 0 Overland flow was calculated using the following equation: T =1.87 (1.1 —C C)Dl/2/Sl/3 where:C C=adjusted runoff coefficient 0 =length in feet S =slope in percent T =concentration time in minutes Detention volume calculations were based upon the following equation as provided by Richard Widmer,Town Engineer: V =T (d —K i 4356O where:V =volume to be detained in acre—feet Th=historic concentration time in mm. Td=developed concentration time in mm. historic runoff rate in cubicfeet/sec. developed runoff rate in cubicfeet/sec. K =factor based upon ratio TI/Ta —5— 0 DESIGN POINT A Area =23 Acres —Existing ) H =7810 —7570 =240’ L =2500’.S =9.6% C =0.25 historic T= ________ C =26 mm. I =2.39 in/hr .5(2.39)23 =28 ifs developed (30 cfs PMNE Drainage Study) 1.86(1.1 — - T= C 1= .25)(2500)1/2 61/3 =37 mm.10 yr. historic 9. 1.96 in/hr .25(1.96)23 =11 cfs 0.50 developed 1.86(1.1 -.5O)25001/ 9.61/3 —6— 0 2 DESIGN POINT B —Existing Area =40 Acres H =7796 —7522 =274’ L =2400’..S =11.4% C =0.25 historic =0.50 developed T =1.86(1.1 —C)2400l/2 =40.5 (1.1 —C) 11.41/3 Tc=34 mm.historic =24 mm.developed I =2.03 historic =2.52 developed .25(2.03)40 =20 cfs historic =.50(2.52)40 =50 ifs developed DESIGN POINT B —Proposed Area =59 Acres U =7810 —7522 =288’ L =2900’..S =10% C =0.25 historic =0.50 developed T =1.86(1.1 —C)2900W2 =46.5 (1.1 —C)c (10)1/3 =40 mm.historic =28 mm.developed I =1.28 historic =2.27 developed .25(1.88)59 =28 cfs historic =.50(2.27)59 =67 cfs developed —7— a DESIGN POINT C -Existing Area =29 Acres H =7810 —7542 =268’ L =3100’..S =8.6% 0 C =0.25 historic =0.50 developed T=1.86(1.1 C)(3100) (8.6)1/3 =50.5 (1.1—C) =43 mm.historic =30 mm.developed I =1.80 historic =2.14 developed Q1o=.25(1.8)29 =13 cfs historic =.50(2.14)29 =31 cfs developed DESIGN POINT C —Proposed Area =6 Acres (total basin) H =7568 —7542 =26 L =600’S =4.33% C =0.40 historic/existing I =3.66 in/hr Q10=.74(3.66)6 =16 cfs =10 mm. 1/2 .25)(600)1/2 =24 mm.c 1= 1 0= T= C 1.86(1.1 — 1/3 2.52 in/hr .25(2.52)6 =4 cfs 0.74 developed 1.86 (1.1 —.74)(600)1/2 (433)1/3 —8— 0 0 CALCULATION SUMMARY -BASIN Design Flows for 10 Year Storm——Unaltered Flow Paths Design Point Historic Developed A 11 28 B 20 50 C 13 31 Design Flows for 10 Year Storm-—With Altered Flow Path Design Point Historic Developed A 11 28 B 28 67 C 4 16 V.PROJECT SITE RUNOFF RATE CALCULATIONS A.Historic A =4.30 Acres L =600’H =26’ S =4.3%ave. C=0.25 T 2 yr —25 yr =1.86(1.1 —.25)(600)1/2 =.85(28.02)(43)1/3 24 mm. T100 yr =(1.1 —1.25(.25fl 28.02 =22 mm. —9— I 0 Storm Return I CCf A Q 2 1.46 0.25 4.3 1.6 10 2.52 0.25 4.3 2.? 25 3.04 0.25 4.3 3.3 100 4.21 0.31 4.3 5.7 B.Developed A =4.30 Acres total A impervious =132,000 sf C comb =1.30(.25)+3.00L95)=0.74 4.30 Tc2 yr -25 yr =1.86(1.1 —0.74)(600)1/2=0.36 (28.02)(43)1/3 10 mm. T100 yr =(1.1 —1.25 (0.14fl 28.02 =5 mm. Use 10 minutes for peak runoff rate as a minimum Storm AReturnCf Q 2 2.10 0.74 4.3 7 10 3.66 0.74 4.3 12 25 4.38 0.74 4.3 14 100 5.82 0.92 4.3 23 —10— 0 0 VI.DETENTION VOLUME Storm Return Td 0d Tb h K V 2 10 7 24 1.6 1.86 3,456 10 10 12 24 2.7 1.86 5,944 25 10 14 24 3.3 1.86 6,865 100 5.0 23 22 5.7 1.9 6,162 VII.R E C 0 M M E N D A T I 0 N S The diversion of surface flows at Stanley Avenue yields &significant beneficial change at design point C.Of course,this diversion also increases the flow volumes by about 50%at design point B.The impact of this increase at point B could be lessened considerably by diverting some of the flow to an existing inlet (24’CMP outlet) that is located about 120 feet east of Stanley Avenue and along the south side of U.S.Highway 36. It would seem reasonable to accomplish this diversion by constructing a ditch along the west side of the street of sufficient size and slope to carry the 10 year storm. A ditch section of 18”depth and 9’top width will carry 40 cfs at 3%slope.As the slope increases north of Stanley Circle,the ditch section could he considerably smaller and will require erosion protection. —11— 0 0 The aforementioned calculations indicate a maximum desirable discharge rate at point C of 1.6 cfs.The detention volume that represents the increased flow from an un developed to a developed condition is 7,000 cubic feet for the 25 year storm.Both the peak runoff rate and detention calculations represent the site as developed in a fashion similar to that shown on the site plan.The proposed provisions for detention of storm—water runoff should be constructed at the same time as the development of the new building and accompanying improvements. It shoud he noted that all of the calculations contained herein represent an analysis of increased flows due to the proposed construction shown on the accompanying development plan.Existing buildings generate runoff that flows primarily to the east and are not being accommodated in the proposed detention area. The areas for detention of storm water are around the low point inlet within the service drive west of the building (6,000 cubic feet)and also within the storm drainage pipe that leads to design point C (1,600 cubic feet).A restricted flow device shall be placed at design point C upstream from the 24”CMP that exists to the northeast across Highway 7. —12— 0 VIII.S U M M A R Y It is my opinion that the information contained herein represents an acceptable approach to storm—water manage ment in and around the previously described site.The analysis and sizing of recommended components provides the framework for a desirable system that can serve to better and/or maintain water quality within the basin. The information contained within this report represents standard and accepted engineering practice.No other warranty is either expressed or implied. IX.APPENDIX INDEX Intensity/Duration Curves (Town of Estes Park) Detention Volume Formula Runoff Coefficient Reference Drainage basin Map (Town Map -1979) —13— C’ Yolum.lob.d.tofn,d ft ii I[I t Hydrovrnpt.ci Dtv.Iop.d flun,(( C TI I z,.ct g..•....::ttr_-- I Ilydroqrcnh of 1-Iltienc Rvnolf on t Mo.lm.nn ‘.1....foIc (CnI II Ill ZID TIME 2.0- I., KP.T :7;— 1.1 •.5 Lu I. 3.0 1.9 l.l—j 0 I 2 3 q Formula for Apprdximoting Detention Volurne:* KHW60 T11J1j43560 N - —-1 i I., FIGURE 2 V Volume lo be u’flainetj (acre Iert) Historic Time of Concentration (niinules) Developed Time of Concentralion (minutes) 0H historic Runoff (cubic feel per second)- QS Developed Runolt (cubic feet per second)-. K factor band upon rahio as showW bngropti * ••1 i i I . :f TRIANGULAR HETIIOD FoR I I I - .DETERIIINII1G DEIENTION VOLWE -- I 1 -.c;o,Ov4 naIAn.Id:,eLrtvisian j CITY i;;zjir l’:t I ASVa1J..EIC-II4EERIHG OE?APTM!NT a z rr z -1mz CD H 0 0 U) CDr0C-I 022 C’ a REF:PROSPECT MOUNTAIN (NORTHEAST)DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN TABLE 11—7 VALUES OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT,C Character of Surface Runoff Coefficient,C Pavement Asphaltic and Concrete .95Brick.95Gravel(decomposed granite,native).70 Roofs .95 Crass —native ground coverFlat,3 percent .20Average,3 to 15 percent .25Steep,15 percent or more .35 Grass —irrigatedFlat,3 percent .10Average,3 to 15 percent .15Steep,15 percent or more .25 ;T.r.o’•,:&4c.cws:4 *MJ’j)$J It AkJ TABLE 11—3 REVISED INTENSITY-DURATION RELATIONSHIPS FOR VARIOUS RETURN PERIODS Rainfall Intensity (inches per hour) Return Period (yrs) Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 mm.2.76 3.96 4.68 5.64 6.60 7.44 10 mm.-2.10 3.06 3.66 4.38 5.10 5.82 15 mm.1.80 2.56 3.08 3.72 4.32 4.92 30 mm.1.24 1.78 2.14 2.58 2.98 3.40 1 hr.0.79 1.13 1.35 1.63 1.89 2.15 2 hr.0.48 0.65 0.77 0.93 1.06 1.17 3 hr.0.36 0.49 0.57 0.70 0.97 1.08 6 hr.0.20 0.27 0.32 0.38 0.43 0.45 24 hr.0.08 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.15 *Intermediate values that may he required can be reasonably approximated by linear interpolation. The accuracy of the frequency relationships developed using the NOAA Atlas for storm durations less than 24 hours cannot be assessed with theavailableprecipitationdata.Due to the extreme spatial variation inrainfallamountsforgivendurationsandfrequencies,the rainfall dataavailableatDrakecouldnotbe.considered applicable to the Estes Parkvicinity. Hydrologi’c Modeling The Stormwater Management Model (SWMM)was initially adopted as the hydrologic computer model of choice for this Drainage Master Plan.(See Item 3 of the Scope of Work).For various reasons documented in the “Flood Flow Analysis”section of this Chapter,Soil Conservation Service (SCS) hydrologic metbodoJogies were adopted in Jieu of the SWMM mode’.The SUS hydrologic mcLiiodolngy makes use ci hypoLhetical ralnial I events having a sped lied teiiipnr1 pitrn corivnl uhud w Ui basin unit hydrgnph.Pr 0 The determination of direct runoff using the SCS methodology requires the estimation of runoff curve number (CN).The estimation of the composite CN value for a subcatchrnent requires consideration of the hydrologic soil group and a land use treatment class.The combination of hydrologic soil group (soil)and a land use and treatment class (cover)is the hydrologic soil—cover complex.The National Engineering Handbook (NEH)provides a Table (Table 9.1)that gives CN values for various combinations of land use and hydrologic soil grouping.The analysis of basins “A”,“B”and “C”for the estimation of CN values is included in the technical appendix that accompanies this report,as a separate document. Similar to coefficient runoff rate recormummended and surface curve number (CN)values for the SCS values are utilized in the Rational Meth s.The following table lists runoff co for use in the Rational Forumla,based on characteristics. methodology,runoff od to calculate peak efficient,C,values varying slopes,soils Pavement Asphaltic and Concrete Brick Gravel (decomposed granite,native) Roofs Grass —native ground cover Flat,3 percent Average,3 to 15 percent Steep,15 percent or more Grass —irrigated Flat,3 percent Average,3 to 15 percent Steep,15 percent or more The SCS methodology makes use of for ‘predicting direct runoff: Q =(P-Ia) .95 20.r5::H• .35’.. .15 rai nfall-runof relationship ) Eqn.11—5 Rational Formula:Q=CIA maximum runoff rate,cubic feet per second runoff coefficient average rainfall intensity,inches per hour drainage area,acres TABLE lI—i VALUES OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT,C Character of Surface Runoff Coefficient,C .95 •.95 .70 the following 11—12 TABLE 11—9 SUMMARY OF PEAK DISCHARGES FOR PROSPECT MOUNTAIN (NE)* Peak Discharge (cfs) 100—Yr 47.8 58.2 88.2 52.2 76.0 43.2 •62.5 Hr 62.5 32.5 109.5 82.4 99.4 77.8 83.9 56.4 62.6 Basin Ident 2—Yr 5—Yr lu—Yr A—lOl 8.6 14.5 18.8 A—1O2 10.5 17.4 22.4 A—1O3 25.1 35.2 42.4 A—l04 8.1 14.4 19.0 A—lOS 10.8 20.0 26.9 A—106 8.3 13.1 17.0 A—i_Cl 6.3 12.9 18.1 A—1O8 15.5 23.2 28.5 8—109 7.2 11.2 14.0 8—110 28.3 41.6 50.9 B—ill -11.8 21.7 29.1 8—112 27.1 39.1 41.4 8—113 18.2 21.8 34.6 B—l14 8.5 11.7 24.6 C—115 4.1 9.8 C—l16 4.2 10.3 *Based on proposed development according to zoning 11-18 14.5 15.0 maps. • I I’, III II)•P — )I ----.::‘:-:•‘:..-- •-•I -:------>•-.- I II :‘I, II —-•-.••‘•—• —