Laserfiche WebLink
� • . <br /> x�soxnxnux <br /> . <br /> TO: Gordon W�tcher <br /> FROM: Jane Zimmerman <br /> DATE: October 5, 1992 <br /> SUBJECT: Plan Review, Family Tree Apts. <br /> CJII�CIIL7ITIONB <br /> ��t�ntion• <br /> The stac�e-storage relationehip of the pond should be <br /> submitt�sd to show that the pond has the capacity to store <br /> the required detention volume. <br /> pL�2� RBVIEIf COLIIIENTB <br /> v�c�tat�d axal�ss <br /> The City standards currently call for flows larger than the <br /> 2 year peak developed flow to be routed around vegetated <br /> swales. Catch basin #12 ahould be modified to split <br /> � incoming flowe - flows up to the 2yr flow (1.86 cfs) should <br /> be discharged to the swale, flows larger than 1.86 cfs <br /> should be discharged directly to the detention pond through <br /> an overflow pipe. Either a City restrictor device with an <br /> appropriately sized orifice or just a small pipe could be <br /> used to route flows up to 1.86 cfs to the swale. If a <br /> restrictor device is used, the riser should extend 0.5 feet <br /> above the maximum expected water level in catch basin �12. <br /> The overflow to the pond should only come into operation <br /> when flows reach 1.86 cfs to the swale and not before. The <br /> outlet of the overflow pipe should be protected by rip-rap. <br /> Calculations for the pipes/devices showing that the incoming <br /> flows are beinq split correctly in cb$12 should be submitted <br /> with the revised plans. <br /> The following note should be added on tk�e paqe with the <br /> biofiltration swale cross-sectional details: <br /> Recommended methods for constructing vegetated swales have <br /> chanqed since the last set of plans were reviewed. The <br /> chanqes typically reduce the cost of swale construction and <br /> increase the chance of successful establishment of <br /> vegetation in the swale. The paragraphs given in the <br /> � , <br />