The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA - Z PARTY RENTAL - PDP - 11-99 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (4)PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 19,1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT:. #11-99 A-Z Party Rental, Type I LUC PLANNER: Gen. Troy Jones ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by; November 10, 1999 ❑ No Problems ,'Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Comments: • The street dedication and easement dedication No. 2, close properly. Easement No: l does not appear to close, a sketch would be beneficial in determing this as well as its use. Sketches should be provided for the easement and the right-of-way dedications and originals given to the City prior to processing. The docj�[ ents provided are ok however please revise the documents as follows: 15.remd. + ue.t 4(s�J a Wwt -ILvi -rAv.iA ja ftjl. Covve&4-,- ii . 44v6.- For-the easement dedication: • It is understood by the'undersigned that, by acceptance of this dedicatron, the ity of Fort Collins will not accept the duty of maintenance of such easement. -T h w W u • • it. e� • Change the word "easement" in the third line of the Attorney's Certificate to "deed". r da For the right-of-way dedication: 1 • It is understood by the undersigned that, by acceptance of this dedication, the City of Fort Collins will not accept the duty of maintenance of such right-of-way until permanent improvements have been made and accepted by the City. s c44.7e -[ 34., to yoa. Utility Plans: • What type of material is used for the 4V' diameter pipe called out? p. V. c. (see plans for any additional comments) Date: Sign PLEASE SE C PIES ❑ PLAT OF MARKED REVISIONS: ,& SITE a UTILITY q LANDSCAPE ❑ NO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS 19' Will some type of erosion protection be necessary at the water quality structure outlets and the entrance to pond A? Please provide calculations that indicate whether or not riprap is needed at these locations. If needed, please show the dimensions of the riprap (length, width, and depth) and include a riprap detail. BoTFF pON�S k6:-C-D C1,'4sJ ii ��f�R4p. RESPONSE: _. ADDED �T;To. i�L4M. ; lease provide bottom -of -wall elevations for the retaining wall that encroaches into the existing channel. RESPONSE: X- Slio4-4t /a0# Ao�WA/lr 4.leaA&4-io., LA'"4 1I exi-j Erosion/Sediment Control Comments A.. -'The plan is OK as submitted. Thank you. Please refer to redlined plans and report for additionalreviewcomments. AZparty2.doc 131 Please provide channel capacity calculations for cross -sections A-A,°B=B 'and-C-C in the report. Also include the 100-year WSEL for each cross-section on:the plans. RESPONSE: Z i„�l„1../( f�a c�l�ut4fio:," �o. A�/ B-F3, C-cis DPkdS AMP w+orG GYNJ--r"4/0�J fo A--ror water quality ponds A and B, please include volume/stage calculations that show each pond has the required WQCV. Wthough the pri6' d water,quality_outlet' structure is acceptable, these structures have been known to clog easily and provide drainage problems. Attached with these comments are new outlet structure details that have been developed by the Urban and Flood Control Distract. -Please consider these designs for the proposed outlet structure. If the old structure is used, please provide a note that.the structure should not be fully installed (no gravel pack) until the potential for sediment entering the pond is eliminated: RESPONSE: W6 CNANG6D To Au oveer-14cd VoK'WirH .4 Sr EaL_ PEzPoe- 4rr-b Flow CowrZVL PL.ATE-. WE A•DPOP VOLaM6C�►pcvL<L//ea/j- !Please provide drainage easements for the water quality ponds. RESPONSE: T ha�G Ghclo�eo( fke .e oei%ei4 a dve,.�b•;�'. slid �� lease review the calculations for the water quality outlet pipes. The proposed hole size of 4 - 3/8-inch far exceeds the calculated need of 0.035 squared -inches per row. Note.that the minimum the outlet pipe configuration is a 4-inch riser pipe with 8 - 1/4-inch holes. y CNAuwFD To AU OVaAPLOW $6�C L017H Q SrEEL 1'EeFO=�t'r6 b RESPONSE: Flow C.oArTLoL PLA•71_0• TNe .4Jef_A/Pow_ O.O'3S /ft I Z vied 3 -/g", a4ej. POP- PoND "A': Tk- A1!Eplle0w pep L itiz For- Po,vo''B., d o Z vS6 D Z. �8 tin lei Pev va.o. L?"What will happen to incoming flows once the water quality ponds are full? Please provide overflow structures to allow the 100-year storm flows to bypass the water quality pond. These structures should have a drop box and outlet pipe similar to that shown in the usual water quality outlet structure. These flows should not be. directed over the retaining wall, since it may cause erosion problems due to the drop. RESPONSE: _ cHANG6D rO A40VOOr-6.0U) Box wirH .4 /Z- P-v-C• OdicET PIP6 GDR Poup ;el" 8. Please provide spillways (with calculations and cross -sections) for the water quality - ponds that can pass the 100-year storm flows to the pond. Since the spillways will be for emergency (greater than 100-year or clogged conditions) situations, they can.be notched into the proposed retaining wall with riprap at the bottom of the wall. RESPONSE: T AooeD A S�/c.Lwgy iN w,QL�, APTAcEur To TfeAJHEA1 �ofvet AZparty2.doc REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE::October.19;-1999 : TTO: _Stormwater- r PROJECT #1 Y,-99 A-Z Party Rental =: TypeI (LUC) All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff r'e'viewmeeting'-i. ` Wednesday, November 10, ,1999 No Comment ® Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) ,1! The existing channel that runs along the north and east boundaries of the site is known to carry 54.3 cfs based on a recent update of this portion of the Spring Creek Basin master plan. The channel must be able to carry these flows plus freeboard (the lesser of 1 foot or the depth of 1.33*Qloo). Please provide cross -sections (in several locations) and calculations that show the channel has adequate capacity. Tko:c.I4ew,c� w',ll Gpv� o+svS43G•<.I 6xcerf lV�sro %tie RESPONSE: er.t K6J /'AL fi0y iJ.��9e• Th�f G%rrwntl weJ deJI'la.L e..( b7 +1G Ctly 0� Go+i�Jt�6 Y4NoP�. r�+e e�orJle,%/o+J -- arL O- rl.lef 3 •. -4 %'4L Gare f, f4s repa,d. The grading in the existing channel north of water quality pond B indicates slopes greater (approximately 2:1) than the required 4:1 slopes per Section 7.2 of the SDDC. Please provide a maximum of 4:1 slopes at the site. A retaining wall in this location may be necessary. RESPONSE: We— rev/ro4 fAi., �jce f4., oJew,f rG.iwcsd44e of '+4G de�,� : wQ rs•./e tf 4:r r(a:e. Date: 1 �J / I I Signature: 09" CC ' T17� jcrVU5 . M"r, w VAI CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH M RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS sQPld site I Dainap Repoli Other kf5pw UtrUq Redline Utk 14I.ands