HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARVEST PARK - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2005-03-16on Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
June 23, 1999
Terence C. Hoaglund, ASLA
Vignette Studios
719 Pear Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Terence,
As you know there has been much discussion with regards to the standards and designs
that would satisfy the requirements of various City departments. In conjunction with
Engineering's Comment Sheet for Harvest Park, this memo serves as a summary on the
views and requirements for Engineering. Please note that other departments may have
additional comments.
Traffic Circles:
It is agreed upon by Engineering that the use of traffic circles is allowed, though requires
a variance, as it is not currently in our standards. Note: The City Traffic Engineer
considers the use of traffic circles at T-intersections a problem because of potential
"shortcutting" through the traffic circle. Engineering supports this view.
Narrow Residential Streets with public alleys/private rear drives:
At the tail -end of our last meeting we had discussed the possibility of making the private
rear drives, (used in conjunction with the narrow residential streets that encircle the
"pocket" parks) public alleys — which would allow the narrow residential street standard.
In recent internal staff meetings, it was viewed that making the rear drives public alleys
would create other negative issues that were not anticipated.
Our City Engineer has indicated that he would not be against a variance on allowing the
narrow residential street width in conjunction with the private rear drives for these pocket
parks, so long as Poudre Fire Authority would not be opposed to this deviation from
standards. It is still the position of Engineering that in order to fully comply with our
standards and create the best possible situation with the given design, the streets
surrounding these pocket parks should be designed to residential standards.
With the use of the private rear drives, the Land Use Code stipulates that 150' is the
maximum length allowed for a dead-end private drive. The development proposal shows
private rear drives dead -ending at distances longer than l 50' at several locations. The
intent of this code requirement was more for situations where the rear drives served as
281 North College Avenue • F.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • t970) 221-6605
.._,. .,.. ", .,...,�. .EL 6UL 7J" GU _
rock first. The soils repo¢ indicates that bedrock (claystone) in this area has swells that range
from 0.5 percent to 33.6 percent and indicates ;hat they feei it would be prudent to place basement
foundatinr.s at least four feet above bedrock (presumably for residentiai basements). For the
culvert, however, we aon't feel that !us swell potential would have a significant effect on the
cul ve, [.
As an alternative to placin_ the footing direcdy on the bedrock, the footing could be placed at the
elevaucn shown on undisturbed native soil with a toewa ll extending down to and keyed into the
claystone.
Since either of these two approaches could provide improved scour protection at minimal cost
increase, we su,-oest that they be considered_
H rseanla Kacncnr,eo��m
11/20/00 16:16 FAX 970 482 6368 _ THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP 2001
SEAR -BROWN
209 South Meldrum
Fort Collins. Colorado 80521
(970)462-5922
FAX (970) 482-6368
Denver (303) 456-5526
DATE:
November 20, 2000
TO:
Mark Virata
COMPANY:
City of Fort Collins
FAX NO.:
221-6378
FROM:
Mike McRoberts
REGARDING:
Scour Calculations for County Road 9 Bridge
Harvest Park/Sage Creek
Total number of pages transmitted (including cover sheet): 3
COMMENTS:
Mark:
i am writing this letter in response to the November 17, 2000 memorandum to Sohn Lang and
Marc Anderson from Steve Banks of Lonco, Inc. (See attached copy-) Mr. Banks' memo
indicated that no scour depth determination had been done for the proposed box culvert on
County Road 9, and that no provisions had been made to protect the County Road 9 box culvert
against scour.
As noted in the second voice mail message that 1 left you last week while you were on vacation, I
learned from Jim Allen -Morley (Project Manager for Harvest Park) that scour depth
determinations for all bridges associated with the Harvest Park/Sagc Creek project were
performed using ]HEC-RAS. The calculated scour depths for each bridge are documented in the
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Harvest Park dated March, 2000. (The calculated
scour depth for the culvert on County Road 9 is contained on page 440 of the report.)
Also, Drawing 20, of the Utility Plans for Sage CieekMarvest Park, County Road 9, Box
Culverts, McClelland Channel Jmprovcments, April 2000, shows the prescribed riprap required
to prevent scour damage to the County Road 9 box culvert, including the wingwalls.
If you have any questions or comments, please advise
Sincerely,
Mike cRoberts
Design Engineer
I.:VOBS\861-0o1a\dmslVims -Scour Cal.-CR9 riot
THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP
FULL -SERVICE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
209 SOUTH MEI.DkUM
FORT COI.LINS, COLORADO 80521-2603
970-482-5922 FAX: 970-482-6368
Mr. Cam Mcnair
City of Ft. Collins Engineering Dept.
281 N. College
Ft. Collins, CO. 80524
May 3, 2000
RE: Harvest Park Variance Request
Mr. McNair,
This variance request is for the reduction of the parkway from 5.5 feet to 4.5 feet along
Cornerstone Dnve in order to allow the construction of a temporary sidewalk. (see attached
exhibit for location).
A variance is requested to allow the reduction of the parkway from 5.5 feet to 4.5 feet along
approximately 220 feet of Cornerstone Drive. The variance is needed to enable the construction
of a retaining wall next to the property line that would allow the construction of a temporary
sidewalk without adversely impacting the adjacent property owner. According to the Landscape
Architect the 4.5-foot parkway will support the proposed landscape trees.
It is the understanding that an amount of money will be put in escrow to replace this walk when
the adjacent property is developed.
It is anticipated that the retaining wall would be a maximum height of 2 feet next to the sidewalk.
Please call me at 482-5922 if you have any comments or questions regarding this letter. Thank
you,
Yours Sincerely
JimAllen-Morley
Project Manager
cc: Darwin Horan Writer Corporation
Dino Ditullio Everitt Companies
Terrance Hoaglund Vignette Studios
NI'.v 1 -11
STANDARDS IN EXCELLENCE
04/25/00 15:27 $97027^5578 AYRES ASSOCIATES
Q 002
MM
ASSOCIATES
April 25, 2000
Mr. Mark Virata
City of Fort Collins
Engineering Review
281 North College
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Re: Groundwater Issues Harvest Park Residential Subdivision, Fort.Collins, Colorado
Dear Mr. Virata:
Ayres Associates completed a site -specific groundwater study to provide underdrain design,
construction, and maintenance guidelines for the Harvest Park Residential Subdivision. The
results of this study are contained in a report entitled, "Groundwater Investigation and
Recommendations for an Area Underdrain System" dated October 19, 1999 by Ayres
Associates.
This study involved data collection and analysis of site -specific groundwater conditions to
determine peak seasonal rates of groundwater inflow to an area underdrain system. The
following paragraphs include a brief description and results of the data analysis.
Site specific data was obtained from two geotechnical investigations along with baildown and
slug injection tests performed on two of the four piezometers installed on -site. The geotechnical
investigations were conducted by CTUThompson and Terracon, the results of which are
contained in the following reports:
• "Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Ruff Properties, Southwest County
Road 9 and Harmony Road, Fort Collins, Colorado," CTL Job Number FC-1149 dated
March 12, 1999.
• "Soil and Groundwater Profile Report, Harvest Park Residential Subdivision, Northwest
Corner of Larimer County Roads 9 and 36, Fort Collins, Colorado' Terracon Project Number
20995108 dated June 30, 1999.
The baildown and slug -injection tests were analyzed by the Horslev method resulting in
hydraulic conductivity values ranging from 3.6x104 to 1.1 x10-3 cm/s for the lean clay layer and
4.Ox10 4 to 3.3x10-3 cm/s for the silty sand water -bearing formation. Split spoon samples taken
from TH-1 and TH-5 by CTL and PZ-2 by Terracon were analyzed by the Fair -Hatch formula
which estimates hydraulic conductivity based on gradation tests. The resulting hydraulic
conductivity estimate from this procedure ranged from 2.3x10-3 to 4.7x10'2 cm/s for the on -site
clayey sand (SC). As a check, the hydraulic conductivity values just determined were compared
to the values estimated for the Stetson Creek PUD, located directly east of Harvest Park.
Hydraulic conductivity values for the sand layer and the lean clv were 8.0x10'3 to 2.0x10" cm/s
respectively. From this data, hydraulic conductivities of 8.0x10- for the sand layer, and 1.0x10-3
cm/s for the sanely lean clay overburden was used to conservatively estimate underdrain flow
rates-
Owen Ayres & Associates, Inc.
Engineers/Sclentlsts/Surveyors
3665 JFK Parkway, Building 2, Suite 300, P.O. Box 270460, Fort Collins, CO 80527 VIRAT4LT.DOS
(970) 223-5556, Denver Metro (303) 572-1806, FAX (970) 223-5578 1.32
Prened on roeycled paper
04/25/00 15:28 V9702`578 AYRES ASSOCIATES
[it 003
Mr. Mark Virata
Page Two
April 25, 2000
A groundwater inflow analysis was conducted using the Prickett-Longquist Aquifer Simulation
Model (PLASM) assuming conservative values of hydraulic conductivity and seasonal high
groundwater levels. Additionally, after review of preliminary utility trench layout and depth with
respect to site -specific soil profile information, there is a strong likelihood that the permeable
sandy gravel layer may be directly intercepted over much of the northeastern half of the site.
Over the rest of the: site, this sand layer was not found in any of the test borings. PLASM
groundwater flow simulations were performed for both scenarios to develop underdrain flow
capacity requirements.
With these site -specific values and modeling approaches, a peak inflow value of 310 gpm at
ultimate buildout was obtained. A design value of 310 gpm was therefore utilized for
determining the required long-term conveyance capacity of the underdrain system. Eight -inch
PVC pipe at 0.4 percent slope can convey in excess of 450 gpm while 8-inch ADS N-12 pipe
can handle approximately 380 gpm at the same slope.
Larger underdrain main may be used at this site, but from the analysis of site -specific data 8-
inch diameter pipe is adequate. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may
have, or if you require additional information.
Sincerely,
Owen Ayres & Associates,
Michael T. Vielleux, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
MTV:sp
cc: Jim Allen -Morley, The Sear -Brown Group
VIRAT4LT.DOS
1.32
'Transportation Services
[n,�;;n_�cring Jep�rtment .
i
Citv of Fort Coliins
February 3, 2000
Mr. Shaun Amundsen
3011 Indigo Circle South
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Dear Mr. Amundsen:
Thanks for meeting with me a couple of weeks ago to discuss the encroachment that you
constructed, which basically extends your back yard into a drainage easement. 1 believe that we
all agree that the encroachment itself is relatively minor in terms of its impact on drainage in that
area. The part of this that is troubling to our City staff is the precedent set by allowing some
property owners such as yourself to create this type of encroachment, while we strictly regulate
and require removals in other similar situations. The only difference in your case is your stated
perception that you received permission from our staff to do this. While we disagree with this
assertion, we are not willing to force the issue over this encroachment.
You have made the commitment to me and others on the City staff that when the property south
of yours develops later this year, then you will arrange with that developer to have your
encroachment removed. That development proposal is called "Harvest Park", and it is in our
review process right now. It is my understanding that Harvest Park was approved by our
Planning Department in a public hearing on January 5, 2000. Final utility plans are being
prepared now, and the developer will have to obtain all necessary easements and go through a
process within the Engineering Department to obtain a Development Construction Permit before
actual construction can begin on the project. It appears that the earliest that this can likely occur
will be in May of this year. It is more probable that the developer will not get started until later
in the summer, based on our experiences with similar developments.
The bottom line then is that the City is willing to allow your encroachment to remain in place
temporarily, under the following conditions:
You will not add to the encroachment, or otherwise enhance the area that is outside of your
property- That is, you will not add fencing landscaping, improvements to the retaining wall,
or any other enhancements that will make the encroachment more difficult or expensive to
remove.
• You will directly coordinate with the Harvest Park developer or contractor in order to have
the encroachment removed not later than September 1, 2000. If the design of the drainage
channel becomes a piped system, then the retaining wall will still need to be removed
because it will interfere with the required backfill for the pipe. You must understand that this
ort ollin., !-(>VI1���-I1�}iU (�l 01 _I-i�h0� ! VA fU-�i 'I h -i;
�,c �c�.c. ci. i ort-; ullins.co.a,
Page 2
Shaun Amundsen
Eebruary 3, 2000
does not relieve you of the responsibility of having the encroachment removed - the City will
not make this a requirement of the development. It is your responsibility to work this out
with the developer, as you stated that you would.
• If you are unable to coordinate such an arrangement with the Harvest Park developer, then
you must remove the encroachment at your own expense by September 1, 2000.
• Should the actual commencement of construction of the Harvest Park development be
delayed beyond September 1, 2000, then you will remove the encroachment yourself at your
own expense. Otherwise, we will have this done by City forces, and your property assessed
for the cost.
Please signify your understanding of these terms by signing below and returning a signed copy to
me by February 21, 2000. If you have any questions on this, please call me at 224-6015.
Sincerely,
Cam McNair, PE
City Engineer
CC] Jim Hibbard
Gary Diede
..................................................................................
I understand and will comply with the terms stated above in order to allow the referenced
encroachment to remain in place temporarily.
Shaun Amundsen
Transport '-)n Services
Engineering Department
Citp of Fort Collins
December 6, 1999
Jim Allen -Morley, P.E.
The Sear -Brown Group
209 South Meldrum
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Harvest Park Variance Requests
Dear Jim,
This letter is to inform you that the City Engineer granted the variance requests you
submitted dated October 5, 1999. As you know, the City Engineer has been involved in
the discussions regarding the design of the traffic circles. With the design acceptable to
the Poudre Fire Authority and discussed at length in City Staff meetings, the City
Engineer felt comfortable granting the traffic circle variance.
With regards to the sidewalk variance, the City Engineer felt comfortable with this
request as Transportation Planning had no objection.
The City Engineer notes that these variances do not necessarily set precedence or change
the application of our design standards in other situations.
Please inform me of any questions or concerns you might have.
Sincerely,
l
Marc P. Virata
Development Review Engineer
281 North COIIe.�,c A� cnuc • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (9/0) 221-6605
City of Fort Collins
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Transpor, on Services
Ungineerint, Pepartmert
MEMORANDUM
Marc Virata, Development Review Engineer
Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager
Cam McNair, City Engineer 04 I!
December 3, 1999
Variance Requests for Harvest Park PDP
I support both of these variance requests. These issues have been thoroughly debated at
Transportation Coordination meetings as well as special meetings called to deal with these
specific items.
The traffic circles are of a design and size that are nearly identical to others in that part of town,
and the designs have been supported by both PFA and our Traffic Engineer.
The sidewalks are not necessary on the pocket parks, and adequate pedestrian facilities are
provided around these parks on the opposite sides of the adjacent streets. Transportation
Planning also supports these designs.
As always, these variances do not necessarily set precedence or change the application of our
design standards in other situations.
21,'1 Forth ((,I It A% c°nur • P( ?. Ro, ;80 - Port CoIli ns. IX) 80;22-O;80 • 070) 221-h605
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: 12/2/1999
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
Thru: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager 4 u
From: Marc'Virata, Development Review Engineer
RE: Variance Requests for Harvest Park PDP
The Scar -Brown Group, on behalf of the developer for the Harvest Park PDP has submitted two variance
requests. The first is a variance to allow the use of four traffic circles on site. Second a variance from our
street standards to not requiring sidewalks along the roadways adjacent to the "pocket parks" in the
development.
Traffic Circle Variance Request
A variance request is required to allow traffic circles in the Harvest Park PDP because the use of a traffic
circle is not specified in the "Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets,
Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways".
It is my opinion that this variance request can be supported. City Staff has been working closely with the
engineer to ensure that the design ofthis traffic circle can accommodate all modes of transportation,
including Poudre Fire Authority (PFA). In the past, we have allowed traffic circles to be used in other
development projects only to find that the size and design of these traffic circles could not easily
accommodate large vehicles, notably the non -articulating fire trucks that PFA uses in emergency situations.
Ron Gonzales has accepted the design of the traffic circles for Harvest Park. Enclosed are illustrations the
Engineer has submitted indicating that large emergency vehicles can navigate these circles.
Sidewalk Variance Request
The "Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and
Other Public 'Ways" specifies that sidewalk is constructed on both sides of a public street. A variance
request is required to allow no sidewalk on various streets internal to Harvest Park. The streets in question
have "pocket parks" along one side of each street to which no sidewalk is requested. It is my opinion that
this variance request can be supported. While sidewalk is important for pedestrian connectivity,
connectivity is not lost in this case. Sidewalk is still provided on the other side of the street. Access ramps
are provided at key locations, sidewalks are provided along the pocket parks at key locations to maintain
connectivity throughout the neighborhood, and most of the pocket parks have internal pedestrian walkway
features. A benefit in not requiring sidewalk is the widening of green space for recreational activities.
Transportation Planning reports no objection to this variance request based on the present layout.
Please inform me of any questions or concerns you might have.
Sincerely,
Marc Virata
Transpot-.cion Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
sole access. Thus, Engineering is not opposed to these private rear drives, however a
modification is needed.
Multi -family access to Millstone Place:
The current design of the private drive that connects to Corbett Drive and Millstone Place
is in conflict with the Land Use Code (LUC). The LUC specifies that "if the drive is
connected to more than one street. then the private drive shall be aligned so that it does
not attract or invite "through traffic." [3.6 2(L)(1)(b)] The private drive must be
redesigned.
if you have anv concerns with these comments or have any additional concerns, feel free
to reach me at 221-6605 x7188. Additionally, Ron Fuchs can address any unanswered
concerns regarding street connectivity. I will be glad to meet with you to discuss matters
for Harvest Park in general if you wish.
Sincerely,
Marc Virata
281 forth College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605
THE SEAR-BROAAFN GROUP
FULL -SERVICE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
209 SOU'I'I I m1'1 DRUM
FORTCOH.INS, COLORADO 80521-2603
970-482-5922 FAX: 970-482-6368
Mr. Cam McNair
City of Ft. Collins Engineering Dept.
281 N. College
Ft. Collins, CO. S0524
October 5, 1999
RE: Harvest Park Variance Request
Mr. McNair,
This variance request is for following two items, (1) Variance from the road standards to
allow 4 traffic circles on the site. (2) Variance from the road standards to not provide
sidewalks along the roadways in the areas of the pocket parks.
Item 1
A variance is requested to allow traffic circles at the intersections of Rock Creek Drive
and Corbett Drive, Corbett Drive and County Fair Lane, Rock Creek Drive and Country
\lain and Country Main and County Fair Lane. Because there are no guide lines for
traffic circles, we have provided an exhibit which shows that the emergency � chicles
(SU 30) can comfortably maneuver through the traffic circle. This may be done in the
following ways:
1. Right Turn
2. Through
3. Left Turn around the roundabout
4. Left Turn against traffic
5. 360 degree Turn
Please refer to the attached exhibits.
This allows the emergency vehicles a number of choices in passing through the traffic
circle. We have provided exhibits for each scenario for a typical traffic circle. All traffic
circles have the same inside radius (35 feet) and outside radius (65 feet).
Ni w ' F: n. ,�,,
( t 11 I i:n1111.1n ii.,:,, ,"', N'
STANDARDS IN EXCELLENCE
We have also consulted with the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering and have
provided signage with yield signs and one way directional signs, and provided crosswalks
M feet back from the traffic circle llowline. The 20-foot crosswalk set back allows one
car to wail to enter the traffic stream and let pedestrians safely pass behind it.
The proposed traffic circles will provide a means of keeping traffic within the speed limit
and a safer neighborhood.
Item 2
A variance is requested to allow a variance from the City of Fort Collins Residential
Local Street Standard D-2-b in the areas of the pocket parks (see cross -hatched areas on
the attached exhibit). The variance would be to have a sidewalk provided only on one
side of the strut. The sidewalk would be provided on the side of the street with
residences. The Following is discussion in specific:
1. Pocket Park A has a walk along Country Fair Lane and has provided
handicap ramps at each corner.
2. Pocket Park B has a walk along Rock Creek Drive and has provided
handicap ramps at each comer.
3. Pocket Park C has a walk along Rock Creek Drive and has provided
handicap ramps at each comer and has interior walks.
4. Pocket Park E has walks along Autumn Harvest Way and Country Squire
and has provided handicap ramps at each comer.
5. Pocket Park F has a walk along Country Main and has provided handicap
ramps at each comer and some interior walks.
6. Pocket Park G has a walk along Country Squire and has provided
handicap ramps at each corner and some interior walks.
Each of the above parks will provide pedestrian access to homes and park and also
maximize the grassed area of the parks without reducing accessibility.
Please call me at 4S2-5922 if you have any comments or questions regarding this letter.
Thank you,
Yours Sincerely
i y
m Allen -Morley
Project Manager
cc: Darwin Horan Writer Corporation
Dino Ditullio Everitt Companies
Terrance Hoaglund Vignette Studios
Marc Virata - Re. DCP Application, for Harvest Park Page 1
From: Marc Virata
To: "GWingfield@stanpac com".GWIA.FC1
Date: 11/14/02 3:39PM /= rc._6.*
Subject: Re: DCP Application, for Harvest Park
George,
Our City Inspector has finished reviewing the "Project Quantities and Cost Estimate Sheet' for Harvest
Park Phases 3A & B A change was made, reducing the total infrastructure cost you calculated from
$1,202,039.34 to $1,106,243.65 (water and sewer main costs were removed.)
So the bond/letter of credit should be in the amount of $1,106,243.65, with the inspection fee amount
remaining at $29,870.57.
Let me know of any questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Marc P. Virata
Civil Engineer
City of Fort Collins - Engineering Department
Phone: (970) 221-6605
Fax: (970) 221-6378
mvirata@fcgov.com
>>> George Wingfield <GWingfield@stanpac.com> 11/11/02 09:52AM >>>
Good Morning Mark,
Enclosed is the DCP Application and FEE sheet for PHASE III A &
B of Harvest Park. I will get a
check for $300.00 and drop off a signed copy of the DCP
application with the Site plan, Project schedule and
Cost Estimate, Tuesday.
«DCP Application Phaselll.doc>>
<<HARVESTPHIIIA.XLS>>
Once you have reviewed and prepared to scheduled the
preconstruction, please let me know and I will be
glad contact everyone. When the final fees have been checked
and the bond quantity is good I will get
both those items.
Thank You
George
09/10/2001 15:08 9704612801 SEAR BROWN PAGE 01
SEAR -BROWN
5285 McWhinney Blvd., Suite 190
Loveland, Colorado 80538
(970)461-2800
FAX (970) 461-2801
Denver (303)458-5526
FAX COVER LETTER
DATE:
September 10, 2001
TO:
Marc Virata
COMPANY:
City of Fort Collins Engineering
FAX NO.:
(970) 221-6378
FROM:
,Tim Allen -Morley
REGARDING: Harvest Park
CC: Basil ilamdan, Lance Newlin, Ron Cook
Total number of pages transmitted (including cover sheet):
COMMENTS:
Marc,
Please find attached to sketches of the manhole that is in the valley pan at Ruff Way and Corbett Drive.
It is my understanding that the manhole in concrete is unacceptable. However, for this particular
installation and location it was not possible to avoid.
As you can see the pipe in Corbett Drive is located under the valley pan and any intersecting pipe will
result in a manhole connection in the valley pan.
The pipe was originally located in the center of the road under the medlar„ I i l I
water it was located to the east side. At that time with the water line being located on one side of the
median and the sewer on the other, this was the most practical location.
With the storm sewer being installed and the sanitary sewer also being installed it is not feasible to move
the storm sewer to the west. Moving the storm sewer to the east would have made it &ff<orlt f1r rhp Al
utilities work in the parkway.
The location it is shown in now is probably as good a place as possible. It is not in the flow line. It is
not in front of a pedestrian ramp. It is in the center of a solid area of concrete and not on the edge.
In summary, this is the only location where the location of the manhole cannot be corrected out of the
concrete area and it location has minimal impact of traffic and drainage flow.
I would like to request leaving the manhole where it is as there really is no other better solution with out
major disruption. Please discuss this with Basil Harridan and Lance. I will be happy to attend any
meeting you think necessary.
09/10/2001 15:08 9704612801 SEAR BROWN
� p
f
c �
09/10/2001 15:08 9704612801 SEAR BROWN
On _ d�8 ..kg NMd.
1V 00/LO/80 31V0 N0110112IJ,SNOD
f)IIAVH(l a3AOHded
d(Iuva vls lHaILLS
v7av bIV9111
a l unoo HHm2 'T
.nvassoao
uouDasaasui
jumis
I'Tl
z_z.
07u>
Gr
➢�O
-
co
M-pZ
}
_ rn
Z=4-
➢Z
mN
1n
Z
Lo
Lo(-)
n
ZN
7 x
mz
��
m0
,.a`.
ncn
o
A M
D
oc
(n
�m
r
D O�
D L/A
r
'I
�z
z�
O
h �7
z
O
D
H~ems
T
°
00
g
a
£ O
Ol
o0
p
p N :IE
S
YY
o
w
�.
Y
N
O
<z
C
N
m
N
N
X
C w n
coCD
\
\
N
07
=
mOC
n
no
-A+O
Z
o�
om
0
or
c-
<
0—
00
m
z'n
O Z
S ,
0
0
r
I
�1
It
� m
Q x
Z Z
� N
oz
Zq
x
SEAR BROWN
Name
Firm
Address
Fax Machine #
From
Date
Fax Transmittal Cover Sheet
Please deliver the forthcoming pages to:
Mark Virata
City of Port Collins Engineering
281 N. College, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(970)221-6378
John Gooch
July 19, 2001
5285 McWhinney Boulevard, Suite 190
Loveland, CO 80538
(970)461-2800
(970) 461-2801 (FAX)
Transmission includes this page plus 1 page (s).
If you do not receive all the pages, please call us as soon as possible.
Comments: Mark,
The following sheet shows the proposed crosswalk for the intersection of Ziegler Road and Rock
Creek Drive at Harvest Park. Per Jim Allen-Morley's request I'm submitting the following sheet as
one of three options to be considered. If the following sheet is not acceptable for the crosswalk, the
other two options are: (1) Remove a portion of the middle median to accommodate no intrusion into
the crosswalk or (2) Move the crosswalk striping closer to Ziegler Road (Eastward). It is my
understanding that the original plans provided drainage through the crosswalk area; therefore, new
spot elevations have been issued and the crosswalk striping has been shown per detail 16-11, of the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. If you have any questions, give me a call.
Thank you,
Date response is expected
Prolect # 861-001
Prolect Name Harvest Park
#SB-02 (06/00)
1 d 6991'�N Wb99 ll 100 61'I�
ZIEGLER ROAD
i
i
I
w
I
li
I
'G 'd B99I'ON1"
MLMORINDUM
From: Steve Banks X9
�
To: John :-an; / Marc Anderson
Dare- November 17, 2000
Project Or. -Call Bridge Inspection, Maintenance and Repair Contract
Subject Culvert Review — Sa_e Creek / Harvest Park
As requested in your memorandum of 1118/00, we have performed a review of documents
provided regarding the Sage Creek / Harvest Park Calvert Documents reviewed included the
following:
• Drawings 23 and 24 (revisions 3 and 2 respectively, both dated 10/19/00), prepared by Sear -
Brown
• Drawing 1 (revision 0) Harvest Part: — McClellands Channel. Exhibit 2 — Existing and
Proposed 100-Year Eoodplains w=C-R-AS Cross Sections — prepared by Sear -Brown,
plotted May'_3. 2000
• Table 1, Table 4 and Table 5 depicting hydraulic information from a hydraulic report
• Pages 4 and 8(?) from the Writer Corporation, Ruff Property soils report prepared by
CTLYThompson
In addition to reviewing these documents, telephone discussions were held with Marc Virata of
the City of Fort Collins who advised us that no scour depth deterrnination had been trade and that
the invert throuch ;he box culvert would not be made of concrete.
We reviewed the above information with regard to the footings for the box culven and the
potential for scour of The crushed rock on which the footings will rest.
The drawings indicate that the existing soil should be removed to bedrock including removal of
"loose material" which we interpret to include weathered bedrock. Crushed rock would then be
place in 8" lifts and compacted with a vibratory compactor up to the elevation at the bottom of the
footing_ The invert of The channel scales to be approximately 4'-9" above the boaom of the
foounLs.
While the win�walis do have scour protection in the form of toewalls that extend down almost to
bedrock, there is no such protection for the culvert foundations themselves. Scour depths are not
always determined for the desi_,n of culverts, however, since this was not done here is is not
possible to say with certainty whether adchional scour protection measures are required here. If
the invert of the culvert were concrete we do nor think furtner measures would be necessary, We
also do no[ have anv inforrnaaon with retard to rip -rap protection which may be planned and
might provide adequate protection.
In the absence cf this information it see _s that since .he foundation excavation will be taken to
oeruock anyway. the footing could be placed at rhat e-icvazion rather than. placing 3' of crushed
H,suar,ki vtennsua.�el/'Wmx+c