HomeMy WebLinkAboutROMERO HOUSE (425 TENTH STREET) - FDP - 43-04A - CORRESPONDENCE - UTILITY PLANS (7)Anne Aspen-_Re:_Fwd FW: Romero Hov-4 Revisions Page 1
From: Marc Virata
To: Michael Oberlander
Date: 03/07/2005 8:26:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: Romero House Revisions
Mike,
I missed the info you provided on the grading plan, my apologies. I'm not adept at looking at plans on a
computer screen. I don't have any further comments as a result. The issue on adding spot elevations on
every ramp should perhaps be a topic of further discussion. We've started to ask for these because of
issues in the field and to use our judgment as to where this would be applicable. I haven't been asking
this in areas where new roads are to be constructed along with the ramps, but in infili sites where the
ramps are tied to an existing street, it seems appropriate.
It's understood that there's sometimes a balancing act between providing "enough" info and making a plan
set readable. Yet, I probably don't make the same amount (or enough) of scannability comments that
others do. Let us know if you'd like to have a dialogue about this issue in general and we can perhaps
have other consultants involved along with our inspectors and other departments.
Thanks,
Marc
>>> "Michael Obedander" <mike@northstardesigninc.com> 03/07/05 06:22AM >>>
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 gust 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