Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, ELDERLY HOUSING - PDP - 14-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (3)Drawings will be rep r. 155. Correct sanitary sewer profile. (scale, inverts, other utility crossings, etc.) Profile drawings will be corrected Jeff Hill also sketched a detail of the traffic rated clean out that will be used in this project. This detail will be added to the plans. 156. Clearly define the abandonment of existing stub and core drilling of new connection at sanitary sewer manhole. OX 157. Use 1.5 inch water services for all 6-plex buildings. Include the 1.5 inch meter pit detain on the detail sheets. The mechanical engineer for this project, RAD One Design, provided TSP with fixture count calculations for each building. The calculations show that a 1-inch water service is sufficient for each building. Jeff Hill requested a copy of the calculations. He advised TSP to provide I %" service instead because there is no difference in tap fees compared to a I"service. Apparently, the water pressure available in this area is approximately 50-60 psi. We also discussed the water needs for the yard irrigation system for the site. Jeff Hill suggested that a 1 %" water meter pit be added somewhere at the center of the site strictly for irrigation. TSP will contact an irrigation designer tofind out whether that is sufficient. 158. Provide insulation detail and calculations for our review. See attached. Jeff Hill provided the detail for sanitary sewer pipe insulation. The detail will be added to the plan set. 162. Re -align sanitary sewer at tie-in to existing sewer as shown on marked up plans. The City Standards do not allow shallow angle connections for sanitary sewer lines. JVA revised their drawings fron the last review to eliminate the shallow angle connection they had for the line that was realigned with Brook Drive and added a manhole to achieve this. In this review, Water and Wastewater felt that the additional manhole would not be easily accessible for maintenance work because it is located in the natural resources buffer zone and in a very steep area. Jeff Hill requested that the drawings be revised back to previous design to show a shallow angle connection for this line and eliminate the additional manhole. Current Planning Can additional sidewalk connections be added from the living units to the pedestrianibike path to the east? The slopes fronn the living units to the path on the west are too steep to incorporate additional sidewalk connections. They will not comply with ADA. At the conclusion of this meeting, it was decided that the Engineering Department would schedule meetings with Light and Power so that the design team can review their comments with them and the owners of the Skyline Acres to discuss the signatures required on the plat and the utility plan set as well as the pedestrian path that is to be extended to Richmond Drive from this property. If there are any discrepancies in this memorandum, please let me know so that I can get them corrected. Cc: Steve Olt, Current Planning Dave Stringer and Katie Moore, Engineering Jeff Hill, Water and Wastewater Kevin Tone and Curtis Kostecki, JVA, Inc. The City requested t z shallower pipe such as an elliptical pit installed The pavement above the pipe needs to be protected by geoteclrriical fabric. JVA will investigate if the storm sewer slstenr can be lowered to obtain more cover over the pipe. 126. Please provide a variance request regarding the spacing of intersections on an arterial (the Standards require 1320' between intersections, please show what is existing) The City requested that the curb cut into the development should align with Seneca Street across from W. Horsetooth. The spacing between this intersection and Shields is less than 1320'. The City requested an application for a variance be included with the application for variances for Kunz Court street setback and driveway design for Brook Drive. This engineering variance was approved by Cbampney A. McNair, A. City Engineer at the City meeting on August 29, 2001. No variance letter will be required 160. Please label depths of concrete for Transfort pad and bike/ped trail. See ite►n 81. 161. Please assemble/staple utility plans for your next submittal. O.K. 164. Horsetooth plan and profile: Please provide existing north flowline as well as designing the flowline along the south edge for 100' offsite. Please see plans for additional comments. The north flowline design is not required Water and Wastewater 147. It appears that the sanitary sewer main is not within the utility easement. Coordinate the plat with the utility plans. The plat will be revised so that the sanitary sewer main is within the utility easement. 148. Clearly label all fittings and valves on water mains. All fittings and valves on water mains will be added to Sheet C2.1. 149. Coordinate landscape plan with civil plan to reflect the same information. Provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. The landscape plan will be revised to match the civil plans. 150. Permanent structures may not be placed in utility easements. (ie. trash enclosures, development signage, etc. The trash enclosure was relocated at the last minute. The site plan will be revised so that the trash enclosure in not located in the utility easement. 151. Provide concrete encasement of all sewer lines which cross above or within 18-inches vertically of water line. The water and sanitary sewer lines located close to the curb cut from IY Horsetooth appear to be very close to each other. The pipes have to be concrete encased if they are less than 18" apart. 152. Use different line types to distinguish between utilities, ROW(s), easements, etc. There was an error made during the plotting of the overall utilityplan submitted The line types for the drawings will be corrected. 153. Provide gravity block design on water main lowerings. The City has a new detail for the water line crossing detail. JVA will revise the drawings. 154. Label all fire lines as DIP. Provide lengths of DIP for fire lines. 112. Horsetooth cross sec s: Cross sections on Horsetooth are required at 50-foot intervals. (checklist XXX1.A) TSP and JVA received an a -mail from Katie Moore on August 17, 2001 stating that the cross sections required for W. Horsetooth shall be 50' apart within the boundaries of this property and 100' apart offsite. 113. Please label which side is north and which is south. This item was deleted from the list. 114. Please label cross -slopes and slopes within and adjacent to the ROW. See item 101. 115. Please label cross -slope shall be no less than the existing slope. (7.4.C) This issue will be clarified in the drawings. 116. Please provide additional spot elevations. Additional spot elevations will be provided. 117. Please provide more details/spot elevations regarding the driveway cut across from Brook Drive. There is not enough information given to make a judgement on the variance request. A variance fora different design for the driveway ut Brook Drive is required. This can be included in the same application as the variance./or the setback at Kunz Court. The driveway has deviated fronz the City Standards because of the need to convey emergency, oveaflow from Westfield park and V0,4 detention pond oven flows through Brook Drive in the .100 year or greater storm. This engineering variance was approved by Champney A. R:fcNair, Jr. City.Engineer tit the City nneeting on August 29, 2001. No variance letter will be required. 119. Site plan: Please match the site plan with the utility plans and plat. Easements, ROW, radii and other items do not match. See redlines. The site plan will be revised. 120. High swell soils need to be addressed in the soils report. This issue is duly noted especially at the cul-de-sac and the entrance to the development. 122. Please provide design of pedestrian bridge and address the issue of who will be building it. The City will provide TSP and JVA with the standard City design for this bridge. The City informed its that the bridge would be built by VOA, with no funding assistance from the City or the adjacent property. VOA will also be responsible for funding half of the pedestrian trail along the west boundary of the property. The City believes the ftttnding will be available to build the other half of the trail sometime in 2002. 123. Please provide easement for laterals on plat. This information will be included in the plat. 124. Site plan: Crosswalk bars are not required across these driveways. The City will not maintain crosswalk markings placed there. Please see site plan for additional comments. The crosswalk bars shown on the site plan will be removed. 125. Sanitary sewer plan and profile and other sheets: Please place utilities a minimum of 2' below scarified subgrade elevation. (12.2.2) Please see plans for additional comments. 97. Please provide leger This item was deleted from the list. 98. Where is the design for Brook Drive? The design of Brook Drive is required for 500' beyond the proposed construction (plan and profile) (7.4.1.A8) Additional survey is required to design Brook Drive. TSP and JVA received an e-mailfrom Katie Moore on August 17, 2001 stating that the City will not require a design for Brook Drive. However, the pedestrian and bike path still needs to be extended to Richmond Drive. The additional survey work is still required. 99. Please see Kunz Court plans for additional redlines. In reviewing this item, Katie Moore informed its that recorded easements are required for the vision triangles at the driveways along Kunz Court. 100. Kunz Court profiles: Please provide minimum 2% cross -slopes in all locations. (including cul-de-sac) JVA will revise the street profiles. The 2% slope is required from the lip of the gutter to crown of the road. 101. Please label slopes within the ROW and adjacent to the ROW. JVA will provide the slopes of the street profiles within the ROW and adjacent to the ROW. We discussed the possibility of not having to label the slopes adjacent to the ROTV if the slopes are straight line slopes. 102. Horsetooth plan and profile: Please show expansion to the correct location (41.5' from centerline). (figure 7-217) See item 37. 103. Please show street cut. The street cut at W. Horsetooth will be shown on the drawings. 104. Please label the existing edge of asphalt. The existing edge of asphalt will be labeled along on W. Horsetooth. 105. Please label the ROW and easements. The ROW and easements along TV. Horsetooth will be labeled. 106. Please show how new and existing curb and gutter tie together. See item 37. 107. Please correct radius values for the curb returns. This information will be included in plans. 108. Please provide spot elevations as required. This information will be added onto the W. Horsetooth plan and profile drawings. 109. The paved transition to the east may not be needed if the transition can be accomplished through striping. Please provide a striping and signing plan for Horsetooth. See item 37. 110. Please provide grading on Horsetooth. This item was deleted front the list. 111. Please put lines in the revision box. (All sheets) This item was deleted from the list. In reviewing this ite Catie Moore said that she would provide i with the standard detail for the pad for Transfort and the pedestrian bike trail, which shall be included in the drawings. 82. Kunz Court plan and profile: Please label radii of curb returns on both Horsetooth and Brook. Horsetooth radii should be 25' and Brook Drive radii should be 20' per table 8-2. The drawings will be revised to show the correct radii. 83. Please provide additional spot elevations at both intersections as shown on drawing 7-32B. The drawings will be revised. 84. Please call out driveways as concrete to the ROW. This item was deleted front the list. 85. Driveway width requirements vary with the number of units served by the driveway. Please provide 28' driveways for parking lots serving 12 or more units. (drawing 7-29B, table in lower right hand. corner) It was decided that the 24' driveways and parking lot aisles shown are correct. This item was deleted from the list. 86. Please design corner pedestrian ramps to standard. (see ramp detail on your detail sheet) It was not geometrically possible to align the sidewalks and pedestrian ramp given the 20' radii for Brook Drive. The City will review this issue. 87. Please provide radii for cul-de-sac as shown on redlines. The drawings will be revised. 88. Is the gutter infall or outfall in the center of the cul-de-sac bulb? This item is shown on the drawings and has been deleted from the list. 89. Please provide additional spot elevations in the cul-de-sac bulb. (see redlines) This item was deleted from the list. 90. Please label flowline elevations ad east and west, not left and right. This item was deleted from the list. 91. Please design street so that there is no drop in the flowline as shown at station 0+ 54.3 (why would the flowline drop 6" in one spot?) The drawings will be revised. ProTle design started at lf•'. Horsetooth Road Centerline. At the W Horsetooth flowline, the profile shifts to the Kunz Court flowline profile. Flowline profiles will start at 6V. Horsetooth Flowline per City request. 92. Please maintain constant grade on Kunz from flowline on Horsetooth back for 125'. (drawing 8-15) The drawings will be revised. 93. Please show overlaps or gaps on the flowlines at the station equations. Flowline stationing will be used.for flowline profiles. 94. For the northernmost vertical curve, the minimum length of a sag vertical curve is 70'. (table 7-18) Vertical curve design will be corrected. 95. Please provide a minimum 1% flowline slope within the cul-de-sac. (figure 7-19) The drawings show a slope of 0.95%. The slope will be revised. 96. Please provide a flowline curve table including radii, arc lengths, angles and tangents for all curves. This information will be included in the drawings. 66. Please remove city c ct names and numbers from the utility cc sheet. The city contact names and numbers will be removed from the Utilityplan cover sheet. 67. Please correct general notes and construction notes as shown. The general notes and construction notes will be corrected. 68. Please see cover sheet for additional comments. F-Ve discussed including the developed drainage map in front of the erosion control drawings in the plan set. 69. Drainage and erosion control plan: Please show additional flow arrows. This item was deleted from the list. 70. Please more clearly show existing contours and more clearly label new contours. The screened existing contours will be plotted darker per city request. 71. Please provide more spot elevations and label high points. This item was deleted from the list. 72. Please see plans for additional comments. This item was deleted from the list. 73. Overall utility plan: What are all these lines? Barely anything is labeled. This item was deleted fr-oni the list. 74. Please show street cut approximate limits. The construction at the curb cut into the development will be shown on the drawings. JVA to add the following note at that location: `The final limits of the construction shall be determined in the field by the City Inspector.' 75. Please call out how irrigation will pass under ROW (what kind of pipe, size, etc.) This item was deleted. 76. Please show ROW on Kunz Court and clearly label all easements using different line weights/types. It was decided that the line that represents the back of the sidewalk shall be darken to differentiate it as a ROW too. 77. Please call out driveways as concrete to the ROW. The concrete part of the driveways will be poehed to represent concrete. 78. Please label manholes and cleanouts, dimensioning from centerline street. This item was deleted from the list. 79. Please label storm sewer and sanitary sewers: type of pipe, sizes, slopes, length and segments between manholes, manhole numbering. Dave Stringer requested that the sanitary manhole numbering and water/sewer pipe sizes be labeled on the overall utility plan. The detail information is provided in the enlarged plan. 80. Please show parking stall striping. This itein was deleted froin the list. 81. Please see plans for additional redlines. Additional survey is aired for approximately I000' beyond tl rst boundary for the design of the connection. The City will inform the property owners (if fec•tea by the construction of this sidewalk as soon as possible. There is an existing irrigation lateral along the east boundary of this site that will have to be piped under the new sidewalk. At the City meeting on August 29, 2007 the City stated they mould evaluate the need for the Brook Drive sidewalk connection A decision should be reached by August 31, 2001. 49. Grading/drainage/erosion control plan: show drainage arrows, curb spot, elevations, centerline spot elevations, finish grade elevations for lot corners, etc. on all lots, clearly label temporary and long term erosion control devices, more comments on plans. If es Laararyue from the Stormwater Utility Department has approved grading and erosion control drawings along with his review of'the drainage report pending minor modifications. 50. Lateral owners need signatures on plat. The signatures from the property owners of Skyline Acres are needed on the plat. The Citywill find out whether there is one person from this subdivision that can represent all the owners. If not, the 18 approval signatures obtained by JVA earlier on will be scanned onto the plat. 51. Plat comments: Please correct plat wording and signature spaces. Please provide spaces for the ditch company and lateral owners to sign. The signature blocks will be revised. See item 50. 52. Please see drawing 8-07 for the correct dedication of TOW at corners. 53. Please label the total existing ROW for Horsetooth. 54. Please combine the 5' `shared easement and the 10' utility easement along Horsetooth into one 15' standard utility easement. 55. Please dedicate the ROW for Brook Drive to Local Residential Standards. 56. Please provide the vested rights statement. 57. Please dedicate sight distance easements and add sight distance language on the plat. This easement will be added on the plat. The landscape plat[ will be revised to accommodate the vision triangles. 58. Please label adjacent properties. 59. Plat should correspond to the most current utility plans (access easements are misplaced on this plat). 60. What is going on with the temporary construction easement for Parks? And the pedestrian access easement within the ditch easement? 61. Please see plat for additional comments. 62. Utility plan cover sheet: Please provide better print quality plans. I can't read the shadowed lines. There was an error made during the plotting of the overall utility plan submitted The line types for the drawings will be corrected. 63. Please show the new layout in the vicinity map. The vicinity map will be revised. 64. Please include the plat (for reference only) in the Utility plan set. The plat will be included in the Utilityplan set. 65. Please provide a signature block for the ditch company. A signature block for the ditch company will be provided on the cover sheet of the Utilityplan set. This easement is wit the ditch and access easements on the p The ditch and access easements on the west boundary of the site will be revised to include the construction easement. 33. Street standards (drawing 19-03) require a 40' setback of the first parking stall from the flowline for the street or an approved variance to the standard. JVA is in the process of working on the application for a variance. TSP and JVA pointed out that if the 40' setback were enforced, it would make the site almost impossible to develop. This engineering variance Was approved by Chumpney A. McNair, Jr. City F,ngineer at the City meeting on August 29, 2001. No variance letter will be required. 36. Driveways should be shown as concrete to edge of ROW. JVA pointed out that this condition is very apparent in the drawings, bunt would include a detail tag at all the driveway locations to comply with the City's request. 37. Horsetooth Improvements/ROW Please dedicate 57.5' for Horsetooth ROW. Please design Horsetooth improvements for ultimate conditions, showing continuance to grade and ground lines for 1000' beyond proposed construction (for continuity with adjacent areas). The ROW will be shown in the drawings. In talking about this issue, the City expressed that they have not decided whether the widening of W. Horsetooth should be constructed in this project. Matt Baker front Street Oversizing proposed not to widen the street at this time, but requested that a design for the widening of the street be available for bidding so that the cost is known and can be escrowed with the City. If the work is not done in this project, then JVA will need to design the curb cut into the development to include a culvert to maintain the existing irrigation lateral along the south side of W. Horsetooth. We then discussed how to taper W. Horsetooth from the widened portion of the street on the west side of the property to the existing street on the east. TSP and JVA were informed that the 320' taper beyond this property to the east as shown in the drawings is insufficient. Dave Stringer then requested three alternative designs from JVA. One to show a curb cut to tie into the existing street. The second design will show the widening of W. Horsetooth to the ultimate width within the boundaries of this property and the third design will show the ultimate widening of W. Horsetooth to 1000' beyond this property. The City proposed to compensate the owner for engineering design costs through the streets oversizing program for the engineering efforts required for the third design. Dave Stringer will also consult with the Transportation Department to determine what are the limits of the taper for W. Horsetooth and inform the design team as soon as possible. TSP and JVA received an e-nail from Katie Moore on August 17, 2001 stating that the existing curb and gutter on the west end of the property shall tie into the existing curb and gutter at W. Horsetooth and Shields at a straight line. The City would like the north and south flowlines of W. Horsetooth be shown: in the ultimate design 1000' beyond this property. Additional surveying work will be needed at TE Horsetooth and Shields to determine the ultimate design. .Signing and striping plans for the offsite ultinmfe design outside ROR fr•orrtage oJ'this project art., not required. The curb and gutter along W. Horsetooth within this property will need to be built in this project to assist with drainage. 38. Variance requests must be made by a licensed professional engineer, and include the identification of the issue, proposed alternate design, a comparison to standards, and justification of the variance. (Section 1.9.2 in the street standards explains in further detail). Please resubmit your requests following these guidelines (FYI — the request for the wider street width will most likely not be supported by staff). Sante as item 33. Katie Moore said that the mote that the staff will not support a wider street width might not be true now. 48. A pedestrian and bicycle connection needs to be made from Brook Drive street stub to Richmond Drive within existing Brook Drive ROW. (repeat comment) Vieeting Memorandum TSP Five, Inc. 503 Remington Street, Suite 5 Phone (970) 493-1772 Fort Collins, CO 80524-3089 Fax (970) 493-1820 Subject: VOA Elderly Housing Project Fort Collins, Colorado TSP Project No. 0500002 Date: August 16, 2001 Persons Present: See attached. By: Jennifer Thong, TSP Five, Inc. The purpose of this meeting was to review the comments received from the re -submittal of the Project Development Plan drawings with the Engineering Department, Water and Wastewater Department and Current Planning Department. The following are responses from the staff present in this meeting: Engineering 11. Printing should be legible on all plans. There was an error made during the plotting of'the overall utility plan (sheet C2.0) submitted. The line rules for the drawings will be corrected. 20. Please see the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Utility Plan checklist (attached) for assistance in completing the utility plan set, but note that the checklist is not comprehensive. (repeat) Please submit a completed checklist with your next submittal. The completed checklist will be submitted with the next submittal. 22. Offsite grading easements will be needed along east edge of property. Please see grading plan for locations. (repeat) Letters of intent from adjacent property owners must be provided by the time of hearing and actual easements provided by the time of filing mylars. TSP to provide letter of'intent for JVA to obtain written approval from the four property owners on the east side of the property for the offshe grading required for this development. The easements requested for the grading work will be incorporated into the grading plan and plat. 26. Please include signing and striping plans for Horsetooth and the development's street(s). The scale on these drawings must be 1:30. (repeat) JVA frill provide signing and striping plans for Kum Court and design within the IV Horsetooth Right-of-t! «y frontage of this project. TSP and JVA received an e-mail from Katie Moore on August 17, 2001 stating that the scale of the signing and striping plans for W. Horsetooth can be any scale as long as the drawings are legible. The scale of the drawing provided by JVA is 1:40, which is legible and consistent with other drawings in the submittal. 30. Please provide a construction easement for Parks to construct trail (35' width). (repeat)