Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPVH HARMONY CAMPUS - FDP - 32-98B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - REVISIONSk See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Response: OK This plan set is more than adequate for a PDP, however will require more work for final approval. Please provide a profile along alignment of W.M. Show existing and proposed grade and location of all MT's /vaults associated w/W.M/ (this profile does have to be included in the plans.) Response: Profile provided to Roger Buffington. Sincerely, The Sear -Brown Group Alisa Babler Design Engineer cc: Theresa Michalak File 823-001(a) 7 M Add ramp on North corner of Timberwood and private (service) road -see notes on site plans for details. Response: Ramp added to drawings. Is PVH or Dial responsible for providing enhanced crosswalks across Timberline (@Timberwood)? Response: Whichever project is built first will construct the crosswalks. Dial and PVH plans have been coordinated. Utility plans didn't show extent of the improvements at Timberwood/Timberline nor at Timberline/Harmony. Response: See revised street design. Water/Wastewater Coordinate Landscape design with civil design and provide required landscape/utility separation distances. Response: OK Show and label all valves, access manholes and other items associated with Harmony Transmission main in all views. Response: OK Label all fittings, plugs, thrust blocks, etc. on services and fire lines. Response: OK Show vaults for each Air Relief Valves in profile views. Reconfigure 12-inch water main profiles in order to eliminate all unnecessary Air Relief Valves and bends when possible. Response: OK Ef Please include the appropriate side slopes as stated in the SHAG. This includes, beginning at the edge of asphalt, a 6:1 slope for 12 feet, 4:1 slope for 6 feet, and steeper than 3:1 slope thereafter. Response: N/A, Harmony Design is a separate submission set. Please provide a preliminary design of Harmony Road 1000 feet beyond the construction limits, You will need to show interim and ultimate improvements. The design of Harmony will need to meet the requirements stated in the new State Highway Access Code. Response: N/A Harmony Design is a separate submission set. You will need to acquire off -site easements and possibly ROW for the improvements to the Harmony Road/Timberline Road intersection. Response: See General Note 20 Please show interim and ultimate improvements to Harmony Road. I would suggest having two different sheets (1 for the interim/short range improvements and another sheet for the long-range ultimate improvements). Response: N/A, Harmony Design is a separate submission set. Please provide profiles of the north and south edges of the medians as well as flowline/edge of asphalt profiles. Response: Done Please provide full cross sections Harmony Road. Include cross slopes, flowline/EOA elevations, ROW limits, medians, major utility crossings, etc. Response: N/A, Harmony Design is a separate submission set. Response to Redline comments: Exhibit A, Utilities Location Plan, sheet 4 of the plat was provided for additional information. Transportation Planning Extend median nose through crosswalk (enhanced) on east leg of Timberwood/Timberline intersection. Response: Done 5 .. Please provide cross -sections of both spillways in the plans that include all dimensions and other information. Response: Done. Engineering All offsite easements and ROW dedication documents must be submitted to the City prior to going to the Planning and Zoning Board. Response: OK No angle points will be allowed in the medians and roadway. Refer to AASHTO for the minimum radii required. Response: A 500' radius was used. Show spot elevations at all intersections as per details D-18 and D-19. Response: Done No curb return profiles were provided. Response: Done Please provide profiles of the north and south edge of the medians as well as flowline/edge of asphalt profiles. Response: Done Please provide full cross sections of Timberline Road. Include cross slopes, flowline elevations, ROW limits, medians, major utility crossings, etc. Response: 50' cross sections along Timberline have been provide The median in Timberline Road will need to be designed to allow for pedestrian refuge. Hence, it needs to be pulled into the crosswalk. Response: Done 4 Some of the flows along Harmony Road still need to be considered, specifically from sub -basin 2. Has the amount of flow to the irrigation ditch changed? Why not direct the flows from Harmony Road to Pond 393 via inlets and storm sewers? Please address these concerns. In addition, CDOT and the Ditch Company will need to approve of any changes in this area. Please provide approval letters from them. Response: N/A, Harmony Design is a separate submission set. The spillway for Pond 393 is currently positioned to flow into a field. Please explain the reasoning for this alignment or place the spillway to flow directly into the outflow Swale. In addition, please show the spillway and top of berm elevations on the grading plans to designate the location.. Response: The spillways for both ponds are now located over the outlet pipes. Please provide detailed grading exhibits for Pond 394 and Swale B 8 in the grading plans. Be sure to include the pond spillway and top of berm elevations to designate the spillway location. Response: An extra grading sheet (sheet 10A) has been added to the plans to show pond 394 and swale B. The City of Fort Collins no longer maintains the benchmarks used at the site. Please use one of the current City vertical control benchmarks to tie-in the site elevations. Response: The survey for this project was completed prior to the installation of the new City of Fort Collins vertical control benchmarks in September 1998. Due to discrepancies between the two datums, the project has maintained the control from the survey in order to avoid confusion during construction. Sear -Brown uses the new control for all new projects whenever possible. The equalization pipe for Pond 393 is a concern. Has the potential for delay effects from the equalization been examined? An EXTRAN analysis in conjunction with the SWMM analysis would clarify this concern. Please indicate with calculations and documentation that the size of the equalization pipe is sufficient. This is a repeat comment Response: An HY8 culvert sizing for this pipe has been done. The chosen 48" pipe will pass 41 cfs. this is half of the maximum 82 cfs flow into the combined pond system. The first pond holds more volume so designing for this equal split of flows will be adequate for all possible pond filling conditions. The head difference required added to the 100 yr water surface elevation will still be below the weir crest elevation. Therefore this pipe will function at full capacity during the 100 yr event without the pond overtopping. 3 Response: The rating curve was revised and the correct 10 year hyetograph was used. The hyetograph is in the appendix. There are several discrepancies noted in the UDSEWER analysis of storm sewer profiles A & B. Please revise these values and clarify as needed. One important issue is in regards to profile B- The design flow manhole #3 (60.3cfs) only accounts for sub -basins 1, 15, & 18. It does not seem to account for basins 12 & 14 (14.8cfs) which also contribute flows at manhole #3. Response: The flows contributing to profiles A and B have been correctly routed and these revised flows applied to the correct manhole nodes and inlets. The ground surface elevations for storm sewer profile A & I on the plans do not seem to match those used in the UDSEWER analysis. Please clarify. Response: The ground surfaces at the outlets are noted as the crown or pipe invert out. This is noted on the UD sewer output. The other elevation discrepancies have been fixed. Please include some of the Flow Master results that were obtained for tailwater elevation estimates in the rating curve calculations for both ponds. Response: The Flow Master results are now included. The riprap calculations are confusing. Please show how (with an equation) the d50 value was obtained for each calculation. Also, please explain why the method used does not finish with that method's sizing technique (ie, Class 6 instead of Type L). Response: See revised riprap calculations. On the drainage plan, please provide cross -sections of the detention pond emergency overflow spillways with dimensions/elevations indicated, and also indicate the spillway elevation and top of berm elevations on the grading plan. Response: The cross sections have been provided on the profile sheets and elevations are stated on the grading plan. Please clarify the boundary between sub -basins 3 and 32 (which appears to be missing). Response: The boundary is shown in the plans and the areas have been modified accordingly. 2 THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (970)482-5922 FAX (970) 482-6368 Denver (303) 458-5526 January 29, 1999 Tim Blandford City of Fort Collins, Engineering 281 N College Fort Collins, CO RE: PVHS Dear Tim: The following is our response to the City's written comments, dated December 12, 1998. Please feel free to call if you have any additional questions or comments. Stormwater Utility Please show the existing drainage easement for the swale on the South property boundary. Response: Easement has been added to plat. The contributing area to detention pond 393 was calculated incorrectly. Thus the runoff coefficients, allowable release rates, and rating curve are incorrect. Please recompute the contributing area and revise those numbers that were affected. Response: The area has been recompiled and the numbers affected, including the SWMM model, have been revised accordingly. Please use the revised rating curve for pond 393 in all the SWMM analysis. In addition, please revise the rainfall hyetograph used for the 10-year SWMM analysis (see page 64 of the redline report). Please double check and make sure that the SWMM rating curves for ponds 393 and 394 are complete and accurately reflect the values calculated.