HomeMy WebLinkAboutROMERO HOUSE (425 TENTH STREET) - FDP - 43-04A - CORRESPONDENCE - UTILITY PLANS (6)Anne Aspen - Re_ Fwd FW: Romero Ho►' Revisions, _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ -_ _ ,- Page 2
This is just my editorial for the morning - I'm full of opinions (ask
anybody). We really need to get back to just making the set buildable. All
of the information needs to be in a logical place in a plan set, but not on
every sheet - we can expect contractors and surveyors to look through a set
of plans - they do not need to see every note, line, etc on every single
sheet. As far as scanability goes, I have the same attitude - if one
contour label is not readable, I don't care as long as someone can count
between contours that are readable. If a small piece of a note overlaps a
line, but the context of the note is still getting across, I don't mind.
I'm glad that it sounds like we are done with Romero House - the meeting we
held early with the Staff helped considerably. My comments above are things
that I think need to be discussed in order to get some other plans finished
up as quickly as we were able to do the Romero House.
Have a good week.
Mike
Michael Oberlander, PE, LSI
North Star Design, Inc.
970-686-6939
— Original Message —
From: "Marc Virata" <MVIRATA@fcgov.com>
To: <mike@northstardesigninc.com>
Cc: "Anne Aspen" <AAspen@fcgov.com>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: Romero House Revisions
> Mike,
> I'm still a little concerned about the information shown for the
> construction of the access ramps. I'd like to see spot elevations on
> the ramps to verify that theyre meeting slope requirements. We've had
> problems in general with regards to building these in the field, and I
> wonder in this case if the area might be too flat to build these in some
> areas. Other than that, I'm fine with the plans and appreciate the
> additional information you provided from the last review.
> Thanks,
> Marc
> >>> Anne Aspen 03/04/05 10:09AM >>>
> Please look this over and get back to me with any comments.
> Thanks,
> Anne
> >>> "Katherine E. Woods" <kwoods@cityvisions.org> 03/03 12:03 PM >>>
> Anne-
> Do these changes address the questions satisfactorily?
> I will forward the landscape plan issues separately.
> Once we get your ok, we will print the mylars.
> (Do the lighting photometrics need to be on mylar?
> Thanks,
Anne Aspen -_Re: Fwd -FW: Romero Houca Revisions _ _ _ Pa-be-11
From: "Michael Oberlander" <mike@northstardesigninc.com>
To: "Marc Virata" <MVIRATA(Pfcgov.com>
Date: 03/07/2005 6:18:26 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: Romero House Revisions
Marc -
I am assuming that you were looking at the .pdf file with my revisions. On
the grading plan, I added a separate view of just the ramps and the ramp
spots (just above the approval block) - they will work ok based on my math.
I wrote in the redlines that the City needs to look at the ramp detail. If
it is something that is not getting built correctly, adding spot elevations
is not going to help. The surveyor will still give one and maybe two stakes
for each ramp in the field (they just put a stake with the curb and gutter
staking that says "ramp"). I added the spots per your comment because there
are only 3 ramps for this project, on a large project, you are going to get
a lot of push back from designers to adding 4 spots to every ramp - it will
be a huge effort (with little likelihood of changing how things are built in
the field). On top of that, we are having issues with "scanability' while
most departments at the City are asking to see more information on plans.
Based on our most recent projects, here are a few examples:
Natural Resources wants to see a "limits of disturbance" line on every sheet
of every plan that has environmental issues - they also want to see "natural
habitat and features buffer" on each sheet - I think they want to see
multiple buffers if they exist - not just the one that encroaches into the
site the most. These environmental issues could be put on their own sheet
in the set and removed from all other sheets - just referenced.
On projects with construction phasing, we were required to show the phasing
on every sheet. A phasing plan could be added so that every aspect of
phasing does not show up on all sheets - the grading plan would show where
any pavement ends between phases, the utility plan would show and stubbed
pipes, etc.
Stormwater wants to see the floodplain, floodway, erosion buffer limit and
product 6 corridor on every sheet - in places like Spring Creek where there
are different FEMA and City Floodplains and Floodway% we need to show and
label both. Again, this could all be on the drainage plan only.
On this particular project, you were asking for more spot elevations - you
are not the only one that seems to want to see more elevations, cross
slopes, flow arrows, etc. - the problem with more spots is that they add
clutter. Even at 20 scale, the Romero plans are busier that I think they
need to be.
Hatching seems to be a big issue with scanability, but the stormwater
department wants to see the 100 year water surface of detention ponds
shaded, engineering wants to see street cuts hatched, outfall curb needs to
be hatched to delineate it, and wetlands typically need to be hatched. I
think all of these are valid, but we need to realize that for this graphical
enhancement, there will need to be text inside of these hatched areas - pipe
labels under street cuts, and pond information within the pond shading, etc.