HomeMy WebLinkAboutADVANCE AUTO PARTS - FDP - 26-07/A - CORRESPONDENCE - UTILITY PLANSShelb Sommer - Re: Advance Auto Parts --''omments Page 2
This is a problem even more so because the ponding water will occur right at the access driveway where
the flowline grade is almost flat at 0.2%. Major pooling water condition. It appears to me that the flowline
grades between STA 1+00 and STA 3+19 can be adjusted such that an acceptable flowline grade can be
maintained and the flowline elevation at STA 1+00 matches or ties into the existing. I see two options to
show that how this works .. A) show both the proposed and existing profiles along the same horizontal
location which may require additional survey work ? or B) provide a blow up detail of just that area at the
south most end of the new curb and gutter where it ties back into the existing ground and provide enough
surrounding spot and flowline elevations to show that no water will pond at this location.
10. Sheet C8 - College design - Same comment as above really, where the proposed off -site design ties
into existing elevations at the intersection with Pinion. At this location the drainage flowline elevation of
the cross pan at pinion will not change so the proposed flowline profile must tie back into the existing
flowline profile at this location. I can also try to explain this more clearly by phone or meeting. It's possible
that a blow up detail with adequate spot elevations and flowline elevations at this location will also clarify
that drainage will work without ponding.
My calendar is wide open tomorrow if you would like to meet to discuss these comments or we can also
try to resolve them by email and telephone. I am also copying Brian on this email.
Respectfully,
Randy Maiziand
970-416-2292
CC: Christman, Kay
Shelb Sommer - Re: Advance Auto Par' Comments Page 1
From: Randy Maizland
To: Dinneen, Lucy; Sommer, Shelby
Date: 01 /31 /2008 5:07:37 PM
Subject: Re: Advance Auto Parts - Comments
Hello Lucy,
I have looked over the 11x17 utility plan set that was submitted on Tuesday and I still have a significant
amount of comments that I will do my best to list below. I have the redline marked up copy that I
recommend you obtain for clarification and we can either mail them to you or you may pick them up in
person. Unfortunately, I will need to see the revised plans before I can suggest a mylar submittal for
signatures (electronic drawings may be OK by email). As I have done with this submittal, I will do my best
to expedite the review within a few business days and resolve any issues informally through email or
phone if possible.
Comments:
1. The Utility Plan set should not include the Site Plan or Site Plan details. Please remove sheets C1, C2
and C3 from the Utility Plan set and adjust the cover sheet index accordingly. The Site & Landscape
Plans are filed seperately.
2. Sheet C8 should be titled "Interim Street Improvement Plan & Profile" , adjust the cover sheet index
accordingly.
3. Sheet C9 for the alley design was not included in this plan set ? I will assume it was an error made
while making copies. I will need to see this sheet included with the next submittal. The only comment on
this sheet on the previous round of review was to label the existing telephone poles in the alley ROW "to
be relocated or undergrounded by developer or utility provider". If this note is added to both pole locations
this sheet should be OK.
4.Sheet U1 - Overall Utility Plan - should come before the construction details in the plan set. Revise the
sheet index on the cover sheet accordingly.
5. Sheet C6 - Grading Plan - The pond retaining wall will be retaining higher than 30" according to TW &
BW elevations shown. Any retaining walls over 30" will require a separate permit from the building
department. Please clearly label the wall "Under Sep. Permit by the Building Department".
6. Sheet C6 - Grading Plan - Please label the sidewalk handrail "Handrail installed per LCUASS 1101"
and provide this detail in the construction detail sheets.
7. Sheet C6 - Grading Plan - In the retaining wall cross section in the top left corner, please show the
foundation system for this wall. No part of the wall (foundation, tie backs or geogrid etc...) may extend into
the ROW.
8. Sheet C8 - College design - The standard street cross sections need to show the actual calculated
cross slope of the existing pavement from the crown. The new pavement and overlay pavement cross
slope should also be shown. The new pavement cross slope and overlay section should not be less than
the existing and should not exceed 4%. Please clearly show this information in the cross sections.
9. Sheet C8 - College design - My biggest issue with this design is that the proposed flowline profile and
the existing edge of pavement profiles are not shown at the same horizontal location. Only a note on the
profile that the proposed gutter flowline is 2" lower than existing edge of pavement. Without knowing what
the existing profile looks like along the same horizontal line as the proposed gutter flowline, I can't
determine if water will freely flow to the south without creating a ponding condition at the far south end of
the new gutter. If the new gutter is two inches lower than the existing ground .. at STA 1+00, this condition
will essentially cause water to pond at least two inches deep all the way back to approximately STA 2+20.