Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY AND LEMAY CROSSINGS, 2ND FILING, PORTION OF LOT SIX, HOME DEPOT - PDP - 36-96J - CORRESPONDENCE - UTILITY PLANSDone. Number:51 Created:4/6/2004 [4/6/04] Need to add detail #707 back onto the plans (high volume driveway detail.) Done. Number:52 Created:4/6/2004 [4/6/04] Easement Dedications are needed in final format when mylars are submitted for signature. Once provided I will let you know what the filing fees will be for the easement vacations and the easement dedications. Noted. Also enclosed are the original redlines. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Jon Andresen or myself at 303-770-8884. Thank you. Sincerely, Galloway, Romero & Associates .AamE) X-'5� Gregory D. Kishiyama Project Engineer HD249-gdk-Itr.utility plans comment response2.doc Page 4 of 4 Number:44 Created:4/6/2004 [4/6/04] No site of landscape plans provided for review this round. Landscape plan has been attached. Number:45 Created:4/6/2004 [4/6/04] Did add Elco and Boxelder to the City signature block, but don't know if this will work for them. Attached is a copy of the signature blocks that they signed on a recent project. They had additional notes that they wanted added to the plans. Check with Elco and Boxelder on how they desire the signature blocks for them to be done. We have been in contact with Elco and Boxelder. Signature blocks have been modified on all sheets. Number:46 Created:4/6/2004 [4/6/04] On final plans the information in the revision blocks needs to be removed. This area is used to list changes/revisions made to these documents after approval. Not for the rounds of review up to approval. Revision blocks have been cleared. Number:47 Created:4/6/2004 [4/6/04] Sheet 2 of 18 Add the following to #s 6 and 7 under the schedule: - to be placed a minimum of 2 feet behind the sidewalk/right —of-way. Done. Number:48 Created:4/6/2004 [4/6/04] Sheet 2 of 18 Add the following to #22 under the schedule, will need to check with planning on the width of the walk that needs to remain clear: - A _foot clear walkway must be provided. Done. Number:49 Created:4/6/2004 [4/6/04] Sheet 2 of 18 The radii for the new driveway shall be 15 feet, per Section 8.2.9 of the LCUASS. The ramps at this access point are shown incorrectly. Please show going straight across, not at an angle. Also see diagram on the page of how the adjacent sidewalk/plaza will need to tie into this ramp to meet ADA standards. Radii and ramps have been modified as requested. Number:50 Created:4/6/2004 [4/6/04] Sheet 3 of 18 As indicated previously, need to provide additional spot elevations at the new driveway. See plans fort the minimum 4 spots that need to be provided. HD249-gdk-Itr.utility plans comment responseldoc Page 3 of 4 condition that there was a way to make the local drainage in the loading dock work and not be subject to backup from the Poudre and that a check valve would not be used. This is because we have found that due to a lack of maintenance, check valves diten don't work and then prevent local drainage. Please redesign how the drainage in this area will work based on the above conditions which were previously discussed}. The check valve has been removed. Due to site constraints, the loading dock area will be allowed to temporarily back up in larger storm events as discussed with Marsha Hilmes Robinson. 4. The drainage report should state that the property is in the Poudre River floodplain, list the FEMA map panel #, describe the LOMR-Fill, explain how the property is meeting the floodplain requirements (building 18" above BFE-condition of LOMR, the generator elevated 2 ft., elevation certificates required for CO, etc.). Topic: Grading Plans - Number: 36 Created:12/19/2003 417/04 — Repeal Comment — Please differentiate between outfall vs. Infall curb and gutter on the grading plan. This can be done by having one of the curbs shaded for example. On the current grading plan, there are no locations for where the curbs transition from inflow to outflow. The outfall curbs have been shaded on the grading plan. Topic: Utility Plans Number:35 Created:12/19/2003 4/7104 — Repeal Comment — Please include the 100-year HGL on the pipe profile and note that All Storm Sewers are to be Inspected by the City. 100-year HGLs have been added to pipe profiles. The inspection note is on the cover sheet (note 49) Topic: Utility Plans Number:16 Created:12/16/2003 (12/16/03) See Plans for additional comments. Plan redlines have been reviewed and drawings revised as needed. Number:43 Created:1/23/2004 [4/6/04] Need to, make sure that the plans meet scanning requirements. See appendix E-6 of LCUASS for information. Afew sheets still have overlapping information and faint lines. We have attempted to eliminate the overlapping information and have made adjustments to line qualities to make the plans more readable per LCUASS. We have also enclosed one original print for scanning purposes to help maintain reproducible quality. HD249-gdk-Itr.utility plans comment response2.doc Page 2 of 4 Galloway, Romero & Associates Design Engineering Planning 5350 DTC Parkway Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (303) 770-8884 FAX: (303) 770-3636 EMAIL: greg_kishiyama@graa.com June ll, 2004 Sheri Wamhoff City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave., 1 st Floor Ft. Collins, CO 80522 Re: Home Depot, Utility Plans Dear Ms. Wamhoff: _ Enclosed with this letter are 2 copies of the revised Utility Plans for the subject project, which address the comments received from the City of Fort Collins in April 9, 2004. The written comments are reproduced below with their associated responses in bold type. Topic: Easements Number:39 Created:1/19/2004 [4/7/04] Repeat Comment [1/19/04] Are Lot 2 or Lot 6 being replatted with this project? If not, will easement be dedicated by separate documents? It would be helpful to have an easement exhibit showing all the existing easements and the easements to be dedicated by this project on the property for both Lot 2 and Lot 6. We are not platting this project. The easements are by separate document. There is an Easement Plan (sheet 8 of 18) in the Utility Drawing set. Topic: Erosion Control Number:54 Created:4/8/2004 1. Please provide an erosion control surety calculation. Attached. 2. Why is the silt fencing not extended across the entire south end of the site? Silt fence has been extended across the south end of the site. 3. The agreement to allow the loading dock to be below the BFE was based on the HD249-gdk-Itr.utility plans comment response2.doc Page I of 4