HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD TOWN NORTH - FDP - 28-99C - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)12
6/01/01 Maintain a 10 feet separation distance between thrust blocks and all other underground
utilities. Water and sewer services must remain perpendicular to the main from the main to the
property line when at all possible.
2/13/02 Repeat comment.
13
6/01/01 The City of Fort Collins Utilities standards require an 18-inch minimum separation between
existing water/sewer lines and all storm sewer/box culverts. Per our previous meeting, please
provide details of how this sanitary sewer and storm sewer conflict may be resolved. Provide details
which will show that the existing/proposed pipe will not be located in the flow of the cannel and that
the proposed box culvert will not bare on the existing/proposed pipe. Please contact Jeff Hill at 221-
6674 or Roger Buffington at 221-6854 to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter.
16 1
Repeat comment, As previously indicated, provide details for all water main lowering.
21
6/01/01 Several master utility plan notes located on sheet 7 do not correspond to items found the
overall utility plans sheets. Please provide a quality review check of the plans prior to resubmittal.
2/13/02 Repeat Comment.
41
As previously indicated; pothole existing ELCO water district main located in the intersection
of Vine and Jerome St. and provide pothole information on these plans. Provide a signature
block for the ELCO water district.
42
Sanitary sewer mains may not be reduced in size as flow travels downstream. Coordinate
plan views with profile views of sanitary sewer mains.
43
As previously indicated provide concrete encasement of all sewer mains (storm and
sanitary) which cross above or within 18-inches vertically of water lines.
44
See utility, landscape and site plans for other comments.
54
Is the existing 12-inch water main to be lowered to accommodate the proposed box
culvert? Provide all information necessary for the construction. Clearly define all
connections on the existing and proposed 12-inch water main.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please
fe I free to ca me at (970) 221-6750.
urs T7uly,
OY JJONES
Ci P#anner
Page 16
2. Sheet 66 - Fill is not allowed in the floodway. There appear to be several locations where
fill is being placed in the floodway. Please review and revise as necessary. The following
locations appear to be filling in the floodway:
? Intersection of Osiander St. and Alley M
? Intersection of Blondel St. and Alley Y
? Tract HHH and Alley L - South of Osiander
? North of Alley Z
? Culvert just east of future Redwood St.
? 24" rcp west of future Redewood St. (no grading info is provided for this to review)
3. Sheet 66 - please correct the date of the FIRM. Should be March 18, 1996.
4. Sheet 66 - Since the floodplain line work comes from various sources, please include a
note on Sheet 66 that describes the source of each set of line work. Please include the
source for each of the following lines: Poudre River Product Corridor, Poudre River 100-year
floodplain, Dry Creek floodway, BFE lines, cross-section lines.
5. Please include the table headings at the top of all tables on sheet 68.
6. Drainage Report - please correct the date of the FIRM. Should be March 18, 1996.
7. Drainage Report - please correct sheet numbers to refer to the updated floodplain plan.
8. Drainage Report - please update the drainage report with the updated floodplain tables
shown on sheet 68. Please correct the appendix number in the report that refers to where
the tables are located.
9. Drainage Report - please include a copy of the FEMA FIRM panel with the site location
marked.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: General
4
6/01/01 Please coordinate landscape plan with civil plan to reflect the same information and provide
the required landscape/utility separation distances.
9
6/01/01 Clearly identify the method for phasing water and sewer mains (2-foot sewer stubs, water
mains plugs, etc.).
2/13/02 Repeat Comment
10
6/01/01 Gas mains may not pass through, above or below water meter pits. As previously indicated
provide 4 feet separation between curbstops and gas/electric lines.
2/13/02 Repeat comment
11
6/01/01 Clearly identify all existing water/sewer lines which are being abandoned. Clearly identify the
method /procedure for the abandonment of existing water/sewer lines.
2/13/02 Repeat comment.
Page 15
46
The west detention pond is graded with an ivert roughly 5 feet below the proposed wetlands
just to the south of the pond. if the wetland to the south will truly exist, then the pond would
have a permanent water surface elevation equal to the ground water elevation, which
probably equals the wetland elevation. This permanent wet surface elevation will reduce
the volume available for detention. A soils report is needed to determine the water surface
elevation when the Lake Canal is running in order to accurately depict what the wet surface
elevation will be during the summer months. If the groundwater elevation is below the invert
of the pond, then the wetlands will be dry and not function as intended. Please investigate
this issue and set up a meeting with City staff to discuss.
47
The water quality volume is located in the west pond only. This would result in the eastern
third of the site not obtaining water quality and releases straight into the outlet structure to
Dry Creek. The whole site needs to have water quality even if the entire volume is in the
western pond. Also, since the pumps are releasing at a slow rate to obtain the water quality
40-hour extened detention, the volume for water quality and detention in the west pond will
take a longer time to drain than normal. This will result in the pond being partially full if a 100-
year storm event occurs the day after a significant rain, which is normally the case. This will
reduce the volume for the 100-year storm. Please call to set up a meeting to discuss this
issue.
48 ,
Northern Engineering's SWMM model submittal submitted is dated May, 2001. Since the
pond grading has significantly changed, a new submittal with revised pond rating curves is
required.
49
Please provide the HGL for all storm sewer lines on the profiles. The assumesd HGL at the
Lake Canal should be the WSEL at 150 cfs.
50
For the 310.4 cfs flowing in the Lake Canal during an overflow scenario, the wier that was
sized for this flow is down stream from where the spill from the detention pond would take
place. Can Lake Canal and the Box Culvert handle this flow between these two points.
Please provide calculations/cross-sections for this area.
53
The alley stormwater calculations and cross -sections do not show or prove that the dwellings
will not be inundated. Also, a drainage easement is needed for any 100-year flows that are
not contained within the right-of-way. Please show in alley cross -sections that no dwellings
will be inundated and provide drainage easements for the 100-year flow that is not
contained in the right-of-way. The 2-year flows also need to stay within the gutter and right-
of-way. Please call Wes Lamarque at 416-2418 if you have any questions.
Topic: Erosion/SedimentControl
52
There are many issues with the erosion control plan. Please call Bob Zakely at 224-6063 to set
up a meeting to discuss.
Topic: Floodplain
51
1. Delete the Poudre River 500-year from the plat and plans. Adjust labeling of lines per
Floodplain Plan (Sheet 66). Verify that lines on plat match those on Sheet 66.
Page 14
167
Details -
Will need the roll over curb and gutter detail if the variance request for the alleys is denied.
Department: Light & Power
1
No additional comments.
Department: PFA
Topic: General
177
PFA has no further comments as submitted.
issue Contact: Doug Martine
Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
23
6/18/01 Please provide detailed calculations for storm sewers using either UDSewer or StormCad.
Explain any assumptions or expected conditions concerning the outfall into Lake Canal.
2/13/02 Repeat Comment.
24
6/18/01 Please show detailed grading including side -lot swales and high points for all lots.
2/13/02 Repeat Comment.
25
6/18/01 Please provide cross sections of all swales on the plans and label swales with slope on
grading plans.
2/13/02 Repeat Comment.
27
6/18/01 Please revise the pond rating curve to reflect the new WSEL and spillway elevation and
make sure the report is consistent with Northern Engineering's report.
2/13/02 Repeat Comment.
32
6/18/01 Please include additional storage -discharge points on the pond -rating curve to reflect the
spillway discharge in the report and on the plans.
2/13/02 Repeat Comment.
Topic: Drainage
40
The box culverts, both east and west, currently are designed to have notches in the bottom
for sewer line crossings. This could lessen the integrity and cause a shorter lifespan for the
box culverts. Please call for a meeting with stormwater and water/wastewater to discuss
options for an alternative design.
45
The west detention pond is graded with no positive outfall and uses a pump for its outflow.
The City's policy for ponds that use a pump as their outflow requires that twice the volume
be provided in the pond incase of pump failure, which then the pond would act as a
retention pond.
Page 13
71
See additional comments on the plans
Topic: utility plans
99
Master utility plan notes sheet -
Typical service detail for a single-family lot says it is for lots 7-21, lots 7-21 of which block?
100
Master utility plan notes sheet -
There is a note on the master utility plans that says that all utilities shown are to be installed
with phase 1. Per the profile of line L a portion of it is not to be installed at this time, but it is
shown on the master utility plan.
101
Master utility plan notes sheet -
The pipe under Jerome for the Josh Ames ditch needs to be an elliptical pipe with tongue
and groove fittings in order to provide for adequate clearance above the pipe for the street
section. Hopefully this will do it.
160
Grading plans -
Retaining wall is not shown on all the grading sheets.
161
Grading plans - Show all locations of rip -rap that were identified at the end of street
improvements to protect the street end from undermining.
162
Details -
Make changes to alley approach detail.
163
Details -
Provide a type II barricade detail. It was referenced on the plans. Don't know what type this
is - may not be acceptable.
164
Details -
'Replacing asphaltic concrete pavement on aggregate base' detail where did this come
from? Use detail 22-1. It is current and correct.
165
Details -
Need an outfall curb and gutter detail with a 2 foot pan for where the curb transitions out to
outfall at the x-pans.
166
Details -
Provide an asphalt sidewalk section. Is this sidewalk have a slope, what is the pavement
thickness are there any design detail that need to be shown?
Page 12
58
Where are the walls that are indicated on the utility plans around the detention pond?
Need to show their location and limits. Utility plans now show a wall west of Jerome.
59
Need to indicate that the driveway flare shown as typical is typical for a 12 foot alley (the
alleys differ in width and therefor the flares differ). Need to show this not shown on site plan
or utility plans.
60
What material is the parking stalls off of the alley to be built in. Probably should specify if you
want them to be concrete. Also need to know if there is to be curbing and which way they
are to drain/slope.
61
Jerome is a collector street and per the City Code (Section 24-91) the street name for all
new collector and arterial streets shall be taken from an official approved list. Check with
planning for the most current list.
62
Need to show the retaining wall(s) on the site and landscape plan and label them. If this
wall extends up above grade we will want to know what it is to look like.
63
Adjust the boundary of the project to encompass the off -site asphalt path, the Redwood
Street improvements and the trail and path connections.
64
Make sure the ramps match those on the utility plans, some ramps locations changed due to
the x-pan placement. Want to keep the pedestrian out of the drainage pans.
65
The edge of alley y is not shown as it is to be constructed on the utility plans.
66
Show the sidewalk on the east side of Redwood being constructed.
67
Some of the easements shown on the site plan do not match the plat or are not shown on
the plat. I have highlighted those that I have noticed.
68
Make sure that in the blow up detail for the different kinds of lots that the building envelopes
do not encroach into the easements. As shown they do.
69
There is not an easement for the parallel parking stalls adjacent to alley y and the stalls cross
property lines. Should there be an easement here?
70
Need to show the trail by the pond being all constructed by this project. We do not want a
30-foot gap. I believe the portion that you say is off -site is on the property that will be a part
of the future replat and thus a part of this property then. If not move the trail onto this
property so that there is not a gap in the trail.
Page 11
82
Why is there a note that says that the Jerome box culvert is to be owned and maintained by
the homeowners' assoc.? It is a public street and thus would normally be maintained by the
City.
83
Provide a radius for the easement intersection at the corners highlighted.
84
Jerome is a collector street and per the City Code (Section 24-91) the street name for all
new collector and arterial streets shall be taken from an official approved list. Check with
planning for the most current list.
85
Need to provide water easements as needed and shown on the utility plans and site plan
Not all have been provided at this time.
86
Lake Canal Company easement or row? Is this to be an easement - that is the way it is
being shown, but is not the way it is labeled? If it is to be row then the area of the canal
needs to be its own tract so it can be dedicated to the Canal Company. Row indicates
ownership.
87
It appears that you are showing the dedication of a portion of existing Vine Drive. Was this
section not part of the existing dedicated row?
88
Are their any utility easements that are needed adjacent to Jerome that need to be
dedicated by separate document in order to get utilities to the site.
89
Have some easements that do not match what is shown on the site plan
90
Need to show existing redwood row, including where it exists out to Vine
91
See additional comments on the plans.
Topic: Site Plan
56
What are the lots with only alley frontage for? What is to be on these lots? If they are
garages for other lots how are they going to be tied to the other lots? How are you
identifying that the G lots are associated with the other lots and can not be sold separately
and are for garage use only. Don't see anything on the site plan or the plat discussing
parcel links. Add the some note that is to be on the plat onto the site plan. All G lots are to
be sold with the same numbered lot, no G lot shall be sold separately. Garage lots are for
garages only no Jewelling units can be provided on these lots.
57
Need to include the sight distance easement restriction language on the landscape plan.
Include the entire note - see attached for full note wording.
Page 10
152
Curb return profiles -
Missing curb return information for: Blondel and re -aligned Vine and Redwood and Cajetan.
Topic: Plat
72
Need to identify who is to own the private access easements. Easiest might be to reference
the reception number for the filed document that contains the explanation. Monica said
she had a three -page document that explained the easement that will need to be filed at
the county. This should be filed and the document referenced on the plat by its reception
number.
73
Need to define the points where the easements change type, Response was that where the
easement change occurs a different letter is presented. Okay, but that doesn't tell us where
the easement actually ends. Need to provide a line to define the boundaries.
74
Will need to increase the text size. I can not tell what some of the numbers are and this is a
pretty clear copy.
75
Remove the label future development from Tract KK. It is misleading, as this parcel will
probably never be developable.
76
You may not wish to dedicate the alley now between Block 7 and Tract KK since any
changes in the future to the row will require an action of council.
77
What is existing row? Show what is existing along future realigned Vine Drive and Redwood
Street.
78
Need to show the off -site easements that are needed and indicate that they are to be
provided by separate document.
79
How are you identifying that the G lots are associated with the other lots and can not be
sold separately and are for garage use only? - Add to note #7 All G lots are to be sold with
the same numbered lot, no G lot shall be sold separately. Garage lots are for garages only
no dewelling units can be provided on these lots.
80
Add the explanation paragraph to the sight distance easement.
81
A note on the plat indicates that all tracts are to be owned and maintained by the
homeowners' assoc. A couple of the tracts are also labeled as future development areas. I
doubt you want the homeowners to own those.
Page 9
140
Pascal and Heschel -
Can not add any drainage flows to College Ave., the street must slope away as soon as
possible. Design needs to be adjusted.
141
Pascal and Heschel -
Need to show how this lines up with Woodlawn Drive across College Ave.
142
Pascal and Heschel -
Provide curve info.
143
Pascal and Heschel -
At intersection of Blondel provide a ramp on the west side of the intersection and move trail
so that it aligns with the ramps. Ramps to be built on the south side of this intersection need
to be built as close as possible to the sidewalk culverts so that they are close to aligning with
ramps across the street. This would be a good location to place directional ramps.
144
Alley K-
Minimum vertical curve requirements are not being met. Min K=20 for sag. 15 mph design.
145
Alley K-
Identify the sta where the valley pan depression is to occur.
146
Alley K-
Clarify the valley pan depression note.
147
Alley P-
Identify the sta where the valley pan depression is to occur.
148
Alley L-
Indicate end of phase 1 improvements.
149
Alley L-
Show how this project will tie into existing grade at the end of the phase 1 improvements.
Per conversation with stormwater a portion of the turnaround is in the floodway where
changing existing grade is not allowed. Need to show how this turnaround works with the
existing grades, how it ties in and what the slopes are.
150
Alleys general -
Provide radius information for all curves including pavement edges.
151
Curb return profiles -
Have a few places where things do not match the plan profile sheets.
Page 8
129
Cajetan -
Design for Cajetan west of Jerome needs to be provided in this set of plans and numbered
as part of the set. It should be labeled as 'preliminary not for construction' though.
130
Cajetan -
Can not add any drainage flows to College Ave., the street must slope away as soon as
possible. Design needs to be adjusted.
131
Cajetan -
What does the note end of typical section mean?
132
Cajetan -
Missing some slope values and other information.
133
Baum -
The ramp at the intersection with Osiander (north side) needs to be shown aligning with the
ramp on the other side.
134
Baum -
Provide a note indicating that the sidewalk and the ramp on the north side are future.
135
Osiander-
Provide rip -rap at the end of the pavement section to prevent undermining of the curb and
gutter and pavement.
136
Osiander-
What do the grades do at the end of Phase 1 improvements? How do you tie into existing
grade? Show and label.
137
Osiander-
A point on the profile says to see intersection detail for this area. Why? All the detail shows is
that the slope in this area is .50%. Why can't that be shown here?
138
Osiander-
Missing a PCR elevation.
139
Pascal and Heschel -
Design for the portion west of Jerome needs to be provided in this set of plans and
numbered as part of the set. It should be labeled as 'preliminary not for construction'
though.
Page 7
Add a note so that it is clear that the path connection to the north is to occur regardless of
whether interim or ultimate phase 1 improvements are constructed.
117
Interim redwood
Make sure that 'Potential' is in front of pavement section.
118
Jerome -
Add note about the fence and gate setback at the outparcel.
119
Jerome -
Have greater than allowed grade break.
120
Jerome -
Show retaining wall if it is to exist.
121
Jerome -
Show the barricades across Pascal and Cajetan being located right behind the cross -pan as
this is where we want them located and they will place them where you show them.
122
Jerome -
Need to indicate if you are building the corner ramps on the west side of the street. If you
are you need to how barricades where the sidewalks would continue.
123
Jerome -
Provide a detail of the depressed curbing. What does this look like?
124
Jerome -
The vertical curves at the north end of the street do not meet design requirements.
125
Blondel -
End Phase construction line is shown incorrectly in the profile.
126
Blondel -
Need to provide curb return information for the connection with re -aligned vine.
127
Cajetan -
Intersection with Herschel, move ped ramp on the north side to the west side of the
intersection to keep the pedestrian out of the drainage flows. Pan was not located here in
prior submittals.
128
Cajetan -
Remove barricade across sidewalk at redwood intersection.
Page 6
105
Redwood street -
Are the parkway areas above the culvert to be grass? Is there enough cover above the box
to support landscaping?
106
Redwood street -
Provide flowline profiles.
107
Redwood street -
Remove 'for reference only' this plan is not for reference only - this project is responsible for
the construction of a portion of this street.
108
Redwood street -
The design as shown does not provide adequate cover over the proposed dry creek box
culvert. Need to change the profile so adequate cover is provided and/ or modify the
culvert configuration to achieve adequate cover.
109
Redwood street -
Design needs to meet minimum flowline grade requirements. As shown it does not.
110
Redwood street -
What is the existing grade being tied into? Provide the information on the plan.
111
Interim redwood -
Remove ultimate improvements and only show what is to be built as interim.
112
Interim redwood -
Identify where the end of curb and gutter placement is with the interim.
113
Interim redwood -
Provide elevations at the intersection with Vine. Where is the transition? What radii for
pavement edge?
114
Interim redwood -
Provide rip rap or some kind of protection at the end of the curb and gutter to prevent
undermining due to drainage off the end.
115
Interim redwood -
Don't provide a barricade across the NW sidewalk. It would block the trail connection.
116
Interim redwood -
Page 5
154
Missing some transition elevations and locations.
155
Add a note regarding transition elevation and where it is measured from.
156
Pascal Heschel intersection needs some work. Things are still not clear. Need some
additional information, elevations and clarification.
157
For cross pans not located at a 4 legged intersection need to identify what portion of the
curb is to be ouffall and where the transitions occur and over what distance they occur.
Need to provide a detail for an ouffall curb and gutter with a 2-foot gutter. Then verify that
these now work and that a low spot is not created.
158
Alley intersection details -
Indicate the material, min slope and direction of slope for all parking spaces located
adjacent to the alleys. Is the double line curbing? If so it needs to drop to a 0" curb height
at its intersection with the alley.
159
Alley intersection details -
Missing some information - some intersection information not yet provided. They have been
marked.
Topic: Phasing plan
97
Need to show that the off site sidewalk is to be build as a part of Phase 1.
Also need to include the path connection and ultimate redwood street work within Phase 1.
98
Provide a design for the offsite sidewalk connection to college. Need something that shows
where it is to be located and what elevations it is to be at. Will need easements for this if it is
not constructed in the existing row.
Topic: plan and profile sheets
102
Vine Dr (re -aligned) -
The state does not allow drainage onto the state highway. The design needs to keep flows
off the highway (Section 4.11(1) of the state highway access code. Will need to create a
new low spot with inlets and piping.
103
General -
Have several locations where the elevations shown on the plan and profile sheet do not
match the detail sheets
104
General -
Provide Key maps
Page 4
Can the standard pavement section with sub base be provided above the box or does this
area require a special design - potentially concrete?
173
For the box under Redwood, There needs to be separation (minimum distance to be
determined by water wastewater) provided between the pipe casings and the bottom of
the box or the bottom of the box will need to be designed so that the casing is enclosed in
concrete and a part of the structural design of the box bottom.
Topic: General
37
Variance requests that are needed -
Redwood alignment, curves and tangents do not meet standards.
Alley section -request to use a v-pan. For this request here is some information that needs
to be considered and provided with this request. Will need to show that the 2-year storm stays within
the v-pan/ row. Will need easements on private property adjacent to the alley for the 100-yr storm.
Need information to know the width of this easement adjacent to all alleys, is it consistent width, does
it vary. No fencing or structure will be allowed within these easements. Foundations will need to be 1
foot higher than the 100-yr level. This cold be very impactive to the plans and the plat.
55
Variance has been received for Redwood Street and is under consideration.
92
The culvert work under Redwood can not be done until the condemnation for the property is
complete and the City and/ or Monica owns the property. The timing of this may not work
for the applicants schedule therefore we talked about providing a temporary second point
of access until this construction work can be done. If this is to be done a plan showing the
design, location and grading (if any) needs to be provided with this set of plans. A
temporary emergency access easement is needed for the location of this drive on site and
offsite if it is not within existing row and/ or an existing emergency access easement. All
easements by separate document need to be signed, in acceptable format and received
prior to acceptance of mylars for signature.
93
Need easements for all grading and construction work that is outside the platted boundaries
and not within the existing row. All easements by separate document need to be signed, in
acceptable format and received prior to acceptance of mylars for signature.
94
Showing a retaining wall on the west side of Jerome. On one sheet it indicates that the wall
is to be 3-4 feet above grade where another sheet it shows it at grade. If it is at grade what
is the purpose of the wall. If it is above grade then we will need to see a design of the wall
due to the visibility of it. It will be important to know what it looks like.
95
The Lake canal needs to sign all sheets that show work affecting the canal.
96
See additional comments on the plans
Topic: Intersection details -
153
'Provide information requested on Plans..
Page 3
Topic: Plat
182
See the Technical Services handwritten comment sheet. There are many problems with the
plat from their perspective.
183
Tract F and KK are to be in the future Dry Creek Channel. Please remove the label "future
development" from these tracts.
Topic: Site Plan
178
The Overall Development Plan Shows a "major pedestrian/bicycle route" crossing the future
dry creek channel, but this crossing is not referenced on the PDP. Please coordinate with
Sheri Wamhoff as the details of the development agreement start to take shape regarding
whether or not this PDP will be required to contirbute any money toward that crossing. It
seems like if we expect that the entire cost of the crossing to be absorbed by the
development in Parcel C, this may be setting up a situation where too few units will be
absorbing such a cost.
179
Put the street names on the context map (sheet 2 of 6).
180
Change the term "final compliance plan" in each of the title blocks to "Project Development Plan."
181
In accordance with the ODP comments, the portion of this PDP that abuts the future realigned drive
will need to have street trees. Such street trees are the responsibility of this PDP. Coordinate with
Sheri Wamhoff about how this will be arranged in the Development Agreement
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff
Topic: box culverts
168
Provide CDOT details M-601-1, M-601-2 or M-601-3 and M-601-20 as applicable and needed.
169
Per a meeting on 2/8/02 at least the bottom of the box under Jerome will need to be cast in
place. The whole box can be cast in place or only the bottom with a three -sided box
attached to that. The sewer pipe under the culvert needs to be encased in concrete under
the box and the encasing needs to be structurally designed into the floor of the box
structure. Provide a design for whatever portion of the box is to be cast in place. Provide
copies of structural calculations for our files with the submittal.
170
Make sure notes provided reflect the design being provided.
171
Provide values for the structural backfill requirements.
172
What is the minimum elevation that occurs between the top of the box structure and the
bottom of the curb and gutter section? What kind of clearance is above the box structure?
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
BHA Design Date: 02/15/2002
4803 Innovation
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Staff has reviewed your submittal for OLD TOWN NORTH, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
FC & MODIFICATIONS OF STANDARDS, #28-99A & 28-99C, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Topic: General
174
There has been much confusion associated with the re -engineering of the grading for this
project, which in turn seems to be the cause of some delay in the review process. Last
summer, when I received comments from the various departments and agencies, their
requests for follow up information in future submittals was based on the assumption that the
design details were progressing forward, and didn`t consider the possibility that much of the
foundation of information that the project was based upon (the previous utility and grading
plans) would take a step backwards in the form of a substantial redesign. Prior to the
resubmittal of this round of review, I revisited the comment sheets from the last round of
review to determine which departments still had outstanding issues and which had
requested to see copies of revisions. Natural Resources, Traffic Operations, and
Transportation Planning were three departments that had not requested to see the revisions,
however the regrading work has caused significant enough changes that these
departments have indicated that they now need to have their own copies of the revisions
for review. I talked to Russ Lee of BHA Design on the telephone shortly after staff review on
2/6/02 and informed him that he needed to arrange that each of the three said
departments (Traffic Ops, Nat. Res., & Trans. Ping.) be delivered copies of the site plan,
landscape plan, and Utility Plans. Russ was able to have the requested information delivered
the next day (2/7/02) to each of the 3 departments. These 3 departments are currently
reviewing the revisions, but they have only had them for a week. I will make these
comments available to you as soon as the departments forward their comments to me.
175
Ward Stanford from Traffic Operations did have some comments based on the response
sheet from Sheer Engineering (See the attached comment sheet dated February 5, 2002,
176
This submittal was premature. The Stormwater Department has indicated that the grading
information is only at about a 50% level of required detail. There are still no detailed grading plans.
Without this level of detail, we don't have all the required information to give you a complete list of
comments. Another round of review will definately be required. Because the detailed grading
information was not complete, the next submittal will be the first time that we see some of the
information. Be aware that if we have comments on this new information, this cannot be construed to
be a new comment late in the process. Be aware that because the next round of review will be the
first time we see the detailed grading, if there are substantial problems discovered with that grading
information, this may require the need for an additional round of review. Have your engineering
consultant work directly with the Stormwater, Engineering, and Natural Resources Departments to
hopefully solve all the related issues on this next submittal.
Page 1