Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-11-28DAVIS PARTNERSHIP P. C. ■ E ■ June 28, 1996 Ms. Susan Walsh Director of Construction Front Range Community College 3645 W. 112th Ave. Westminster, Colorado Re: Front Range Community College/Lorimer Campus Construction Document Review Comments Project 96503 File IA Dear Susan: A R C H I T E C T S ■ ■ On June 21 st, we received plan review comments from the City of Fort Collins Planning Department dated and distributed to city departments on May 24th. We offer the following response for your review and comment: Stormwater Item 1. It is my understanding from discussion with Landmark Engineering that the requested documentation was included in the initial submittal and that the issue of Master Plan drainage basins has been resolved following verbal clarifications by Landmark. Item 2. Landmark has obtained a HEC-2 model from the City that was previously unavailable. The requested computer modeling will be available for submission to the City shortly. verification of the floodplain elevation relative to finished floor elevations cannot occur until the computer model is complete. Item 3. Landmark has enlarged the culvert size 3" to accommodate the 100 year flow without over topping the entry drive. Item 4. The City has requested dedication of drainage easements for the swole north of the Laboratory/Classroom/Office Building and the detention pond. It is my understanding that this issue will be addressed by the College/State. Please let me know if your require any further action from the design team. Item 5. 100 year flood ponding levels at curb inlets is under review by Landmark Engineering. Item 6. Landmark will incorporate the requested area designations on the drainage plans. RODNEY S DAVIS GAR' M ADAMS HUGH W. BROWN DAVID M. RHYNE BRIT PROBST ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ MELLON FINANCIAL CENTER 1775 SHERMAN STREET SUITE 3100 DENVER, COLORADO 80203-4325 1303; 861-8555 FAX (303) 861 3027 Ms. Susan Walsh FRCC Construction Director June 28, 1996 Page 2 Item 7. It is my understanding from discussions with Landmark that the requested detailed development and documentation of all swole cross -sections, with dimensions, 100 year flood elevations and Q(100) is unnecessary and time consuming. Please let me know if the College wishes to respond to this request. Item 8 The requested 100 year flood documentation was provided by the City. It is my understanding that Landmark has verbally clarified the source of this information with the City. Item 9. The City has requested escrow of erosion control funds, performance standards, effectiveness calculations, and construction sequence schedules. It is my understanding that this issue will be addressed by the College/State. Please let me know if you require any further action from the design team. PSC Comments Item 1. The Drexel Burrell survey of the campus acknowledges the existing gas service "blanket easement". We acknowledge the recommendation that any property re -platting should record a new easement. We do not anticipate any re -platting associated with the current scope of work. Item 2. We acknowledge that costs for relocating existing PSC will be billed to the College. Item 3. Subsequent coordination with PSC has led to a development plan where the Laboratory/Classroom/Office Building gas service is directly from Harmony Road rather than from the existing gas line west of Building B. PSC has indicated that a new gas easement will be required for the relocated gas main between the Student Center and Library since more than one building is served. Please let us know how you wish us to proceed with designation of any new easements. Item 4. A utility coordination meeting was held as requested by PSC on June 25, 1996. Light and Power Item I. We ccknowledge L+P's recommendation that the Harmony Road entrance be shifted east 4-5 feet. The original alignment was shown at the direction of the Traffic Engineering department to align with Starflower Drive The City has indicated to Landmark Engineering thot, given the Ms. Susan Walsh FRCC Construction Director June 28, 1996 Page 3 current entrance drive lane configuration (with a combined left turn and through lone), a shifted alignment would be considered upon resubmission. Item 2. Power requirements for the Laboratory/Classroom/Office Building and Building A renovation have been reviewed with the L+P project engineer. Power demand requirements for the Library and Student Center will be submitted within the next 4-6 weeks as the designs for those projects are finalized. Item 3. We acknowledge that new construction- for the new entry drive and drainage swale may require lowering the existing power service to the campus northeast of Building "C". US West Item 1. We acknowledge that any modification to existing lines near Harmony Road requires coordination with US West. A coordination meeting is currently being scheduled by Dennis DeRemer. TO Item 1. TCI's interest in working with the College on future service needs is acknowledged. Parks Item 1. No comments were noted. Enaineerinq Item 1 Comment noting re-examination requirements of any construction occurring three years after approval of plans is acknowledged. Item 2. Requested General Notes will be added to development plans as requested by the City. Item 3. As stated above, the Harmony Road entrance drive will depict traffic lane configurations with a combined left turn and through lane. This alignment does support shifting the drive alignment shift east as suggested. Communication between the City and Landmark suggests the City is willing to consider such a configuration. Ms. Susan Walsh FRCC Construction Director June 28, 1996 Page 4 Item 4. Landmark has shifted the detention pond to the south to ovoid the Harmony Road right-of-way. Water/Waste Wafer Deoarfinent Item 1. No comments were noted other than the reference to Fort Collins / Loveland Water District jurisdiction which we acknowledge. Transportation Item 1. No comments were noted. If you have any questions about the above information, please do not hesitate to call. Please let us know at your earliest convenience whether the College/State wishes to formally resubmit any further documentation. Sincerely, DAVIS PARTNERSHIP, P.C. ARCHITECTS Curtis Cox Project Manager cc: David Beset - CCCOES Dennis DeRemer - FRCC/Larimer Brit Probst - DPA Dave Rounds - DPA P-\PROJECT$\FRCC\ADMIN\LE7ER\SWO62896 WPC D AV IS PAR ■ r November 7. 1996 N E R S H I P P. C-1 R C H I T E C T 5 ■ ■ ■ Mr. Mike Redmond Manager, Facilities Front Range Community College 3645 West 112th Avenue Westminster, CO 80030 Re: Larimer Campus Storm Water Department Review Comments Architect's Project No. 96503.00-A04, File 1A Dear Mike: The following is offered in response to your Memorandum dated 10/30/96 regarding issues raised by Glen Schlueter of the City of Fort Collins Storm Water Department. You will note from the attached copies of letters submitted to Susan Walsh dated 6128/96 and 7/ 21/96 that we provided the College with an itemized response to the Storm Water Department's comments in the 6/28/96 letter. It was our understanding that further follow-up to the City's comments would Le only as directed by the College or State. It is my recollection that the prevailing wisdom at the time determined that soliciting the City's review comments fulfilled the State's obligations to the City and that further re -submittal would be unnecessary. With respect to your specific questions, we received the Storm Water Department's comments dated May 24th on June 21st. We revised our drawings to incorporate the Departments comments where noted in our June 28th letter. Jim Loonan has indicated to me that he verbally communicated with the Storm Water Department to clarify issues where indicated in our June 28th letter. Jim recently received a call from Glen Schlueter regarding the lack of any response by the College to the Department's comments. The following is a reproduction of our responses submitted to the College in our 6/28/96 letter with updated comments in bold type: Stormwater Item 1. It is my understanding from discussion with Landmark Engineering that the requested documentation was included in the initial submittal and that the issue of Master Plan drainage basins has been resolved following verbal clarifications by Landmark. The referenced verbal clarifications were between Landmark and Basel Hampton, of the Storm Water Department. RODNEY S. DAVIS GARY M. ADAMS HUGH W. BROWN DAVID M. RHYNE BRIT PROBST ■ ■ ■ s ■ MELLON FINANCIAL CENTER 1775 SHERMAN STREET SUITE 3100 DENVER, COLORADO 80203.4325 )303) 8 6 1 - 8 5 5 5 FAX )303) 861-3027 Mr. Mike Redmond November 7, 1996 Page 2 It is Landmarks understanding that the City agreed that the extent of increased imperviousness and boundary changes were insignificant relative to the drainage master plan. Additionally, the City reduced the criteria for storm water flow in the Smith lateral to 18cfs. This flow rate is well within the capacity of the existing lateral and no work being proposed by the College impacts that existing ditch. It should be noted that the master plan itself was not completed until June of 1996, after the initial review submittal and issuance of Department review comments. Based on Landmark's subsequent review of the drainage master plan, it is Landmark's belief that the Larimer Campus projects are in compliance. Item 2. Landmark has obtained an HEC-2 model from the City that was previously unavailable. The requested computer modeling will be available for submission to the City shortly. Verification of the floodplain elevation relative to finished floor elevations cannot occur until the computer model is complete. The City's request for a HEC-2 model of the Harmony Road flood plane was made unnecessary by the June drainage master plan. The master plan eliminated offsite runoff along Harmony as a contributing factor to the campus drainage requirements. Therefore it is our understanding that the only storm water required to be accommodated by the College is the runoff from the Campus itself. Item 3. Landmark has enlarged the culvert size 3" to accommodate the 100 year flow without over topping the entry drive. Item 4. The City has requested dedication of drainage easements for the swale north of the Laboratory/Classroom/Office Building and the detention pond. It is my understanding that this issue will be addressed by the College/State. Please let me 'know if you require any further action from the design team. Item 5. 100 year flood ponding levels at curb inlets is under review by Landmark Engineering. Landmark doubled the size of the curb opening to 10' in response to the City's concerns. Landmark calculates a maximum ponding of 6" for the 100 year storm. Item 6. Landmark will incorporate the requested area designations on the drainage plans. The area designations are incorporated on the drainage plans. It is our understanding that the drainage plans were not to be resubmitted to the City without further direction from the College. Mr. Mike Redmond November 7, 1996 Page 3 Item 7. It is my understanding from discussions with Landmark that the requested detailed development and documentation of all swale cross -sections, with dimensions, 100 year flood elevations and Q(100) are unnecessary and time consuming. Please let me know if the College wishes to respond to this request. We continue to maintain that given the modest nature of the drainage swales, that this time consuming request is unnecessary. Item 8 The requested 100 year flood documentation used by Landmark was provided to Landmark by the City. It is my understanding that Landmark has verbally clarified the source of this information with the City. This verbal clarification was with Basel Hampton of the Storm Water Department. Item 9. The City has requested escrow of erosion control funds, performance standards, effectiveness calculations, and construction sequence schedules. It is my understanding that this issue will be addressed by the College/State. Please let me know if you require any further action from the design team. Landmark has completed the requested performance standards, effectiveness calculations, and sequence schedules. It is our understanding that the erosion control plans were never submitted to the City. I hope the above information is helpful in your discussions with the Stormwater Department. Please let me know if you have any further questions or require any additional documentation. Sincerely, Davis Partnership P.C., Architects Curtis Cox L Associate cc: Susan Walsh FRCC/Westminster Dennis DeRemer FRCC/Lorimer Jim Loonan Landmark Brit Probst DPA P \PROJECTS\FRCC\SCI96503\ADMIN\LETTERS\MRI 10796 WPD