Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITY SERVICE CENTER PDP AND PLAT - 16 90E - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS• 9 September 23,2002 Ted Shepard Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Co 80524 City of Fort Collins Utility Service Center Response to Staff Project Review comments Dear Ted, VF RIPLL a ASSOCIATES INC. Landscape Architecture Urban Design Planning 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80521-2604 PHONE (970) 22_4-5828 FAX (970) 223-Ih62 We have reviewed the staff letter dated August 28,02 and have the following comments: Department: Current Planning Topic: Public Hearing Issue Contact: Ted Shepard 58 As soon as the Preble's Jumping Mouse is submitted and found to be satisfactory, the PDP may be scheduled for an Administrative Public Hearing. Please contact Ted Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Topic: General Issue Contact: Dave Stringer 11 Is a signature block required for Griffin Drain ownership? No response was provided A response was provided on the last submittal - Based on conversations with the City of Ft. Collins (Jack Gianola) a signature block is not required for the Griffin Drain. Page I • 13 Call out curb and gutter type, Elm Street and parking lot. No response provided A response was provided on the last submittal — Curb and gutter type has been added. 15 Will existing Fire hydrant on Elm need to be relocated? The valve may be in Gutter or curb head No response provided. A response was provided on the last submittal - The existing fire hydrant on Elm Street will require location, which has since been modified on the revised plan set. 16 It appears that off -site easements are require for pond, retaining wall and trail. No response provided A response was provided on the last submittal - The water quality pond and trail will require easements, which will be submitted as separate documents and in conformance wit the City's MO for such dedications. The construction of the retaining wall is expected not to require access on off -site properties, and can be accommodated by careful execution of this project construction component. As such, no easement or legal description will be submitted for the retaining wall structure 17 How will the existing alley terminate at the North end? No response provided A response was provided on the last submittal - At this point, the Owner has elected to maintain Type 3 barricades that restrict access through the alley at the north end. The City will be responsible for maintaining the barricades. Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore Topic: General 51 No Issues. Page 2 Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez Topic: General 38 After reviewing PFA has no comments pertaining to the surfacing of the storage yard. Department: Stormwater Utility Topic: Box Culvert Access Issue Contact: Basil Harridan 49 Please coordinate the box culvert access with Maureen Scullion in order to make sure that the proposed details meet OSHA standards. Maureen Scullion was contacted and the issue of installing rungs for RCBC access was discussed. As the RCBC system is clearly a Confined Space and subject to Confined Space Entry regulations. Where the RCBC is up to 16 feet deep at the upstream end, the proper method to access the system is via a minimum two person team which includes a harness/tri-pod (or equivalent) to allow authorized personnel access to the culvert. Rungs, ladders or similar access devices creates the potential for access under circumstances which might be considered hazardous for some in the event the devices were installed (i.e., slipping due to ice, hang ups, debris collection). Manhole access with rungs are provided further downstream at a location where the relative depth of RCBC is on the order of 6-8 feet. This is provided with the details for manholes. However, the RCBC system is still considered to be a Confined Space, and subject to OSHA regulations. It is therefore recommended that access to the system be conducted using a team that enters via harness/tri-pod system or enter from the downstream (outlet ) section as is standard practice. It should also be noted that access to the inlet section includes a trapezoidal grate which is substantial in weight, and should only be removed in the event of a failure to the system and via a crane (or similar device) capable of handling the weight of the structure. Basically, access should be from the downstream section. This approach was discussed with City Staff and determined appropriate for this Project. Page 3 Topic: Box Culvert Profile 50 Please show crossing of future ELCO water line on the box culvert profile. While conceptual in nature, this future, proposed feature is included on the set. Topic: Box Culvert Trash Rack 32 It seems that the box culvert is designed with a security rack at the downstream end. Please make sure that the grate is not anchored to the headwall as currently shown, but is secured with lockable and movable devices such as hinges and locks for maintenance access. No trash rack was intended for the outlet end of the RCBC. Topic: Details 55 Please provide a construction detail of the water quality outlet box that would include all box size dimensions and all concrete and reinforcement construction detail. Dimensions and relevant spot elevations were on previous sets, and have been made easier to discern. Reinforcement details are included as notes on the set, and have been specified in the Contractor's Project Manual which is clearly spells out how to build the structure. Please provide an opening slot on the downstream side of the water quality pond stilling basin for dewatering. A 15" RCP CL III has since been added. Note the pipe has an inverted slope which will act as a spill structure under minor events. Topic: Erosion Control 56 Standard City erosion control notes need to be on the plan, they are still not shown on the current erosion control plan. Thought these were handled in the Construction Notes section (first couple of sheets). Notes have since been added to the erosion control sheet. Pagc 4 The BMP's mentioned in the report versus those on the plan, versus those in the calculations do not match. Please make it so. This was a clerical error. The word hay has since been changed to gravel. Project Schedule needs to be on the erosion control plan. A tentative schedule is now on there. However, this schedule is contingent on a NTP for construction and the weather conditions typically seen during various parts of the year. What happens where with permanent revegetation? How are the swales and the new pond to be protected from erosion until vegetation is established Please refer to landscape plan associated with this submittal. Erosion control features shall include bales and silt fencing (especially at the RCBC inlet). Also, gravel mulch will be installed through the project where disturbed earth will be exposed for extended periods of time. Topic: Floodplain 46 Any grading work in the Poudre River floodplain will require a floodplain use permit. A Floodplain Use Permit has been filled out and is included with this submittal. Topic: Future Building 29 Please specify the Finish Floor elevation of the future proposed building and call out existing vehicle storage building elevation. Finished Floor elevations have been confirmed for future building. Note, these elevations are conceptual only. Topic: Grading 45 The grading plan should clearly call out the locations of the proposed retaining walls. The line thickness for the proposed retaining walls should be changed so that it is clearly visible on the plans. Indications as to where walls begin and end have since been made clear via notation (using a bolder line type winds up hiding other important features in the Page 5 • respective locale). Also, please refer to the CS700 for wall specifics (i.e., grading, overburdens, drains, etc.) Show existing trench drain around vehicle storage building. The existing trench drain shows up in all drawings. Topic: Griffin Drain Crossing 54 The crossing of the Griffin drain is now shown, however the elevation is not called out. It is recommended that the drain elevation be potholed prior to construction. Please add such a note to the plans. A note stipulating that verification of the Griffin Drain has been added, with notice of any conflicts to be made to the Engineer. Topic: Proposed wetlands 47 Please provide a detail on the plan for the proposed buried riprap at the wetlands. Provide a low flow crossing of the bike path. Make sure this sheet is signed by the City Parks Department. For clarification, the water quality pond is not to serve as an energy dissipator, plunge pool. Also, a 15-inch RCP is now provided under the gravel trail adjacent to the Cache La Poudre River, effectively facilitating nuisance drainage conveyance above an approximate 2-foot dead pool. The City Parks Department has been consulted quite often throughout the course of this project, but have not been forthcoming with any project information to date (i.e., review comments, fencing requirements, etc.). What Parks does with the CD set is their own business. Topic: Storm Pipe Profile 53 Please specify water -tight joints on the profile sheets for the storm lines where the HGL exceeds the crown of pipe. A note has been confirmed on all relevant sheets. Pa-c 6 Topic: Trench Drain Detail 48 Please provide a detail on the plans for the proposed trench drain around the transformer pad. Make sure that the specs are such that the drain can withstand heavy equipment loading. As a courtesy, cut sheets for the slotted drain were provided to the City for review, and were confirmed to be adequate. A detail is provided. Topic: Utility corridor documentation 57 Please provide a copy of the utility corridor reservation for the drainage facilities proposed on the site. This was previously submitted, and will be resubmitted. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General 19 Repeat Comment: Maintain 10 feet of separation between existing buildings and sanitary sewer trunks and proposed relocated ELCO water main. This sheet is purely conceptual in nature, and merely indicates a proposed alignment which is likely to change again. However, due to City review procedures such information is required for review of all departments which desire to see full build out conditions. Basically, this design is only for planning only. 20 Clearly define all aspects of existing and proposed water/ sewer services (i.e, size, location, etc.). This sheet is purely conceptual in nature, and merely indicates a proposed system which is likely to change again. However, due to City review procedures such information is required for review of all departments which desire to see full build out conditions. Basically, the design is only for planning only, and subject to change. Pagc 7 • • 22 Will the existing 6" City of Fort Collins water main be abandoned with future building? Clearly define all aspects of future building impacts on existing water/sewer. Water mains and services may not extend under one building to serve another. This sheet is purely conceptual in nature, and merely indicates a proposed alignment which is likely to change again. However, due to City review procedures such information is required for review of all departments which desire to see full build out conditions. Basically, the design is only for planning only, and subject to change. 23 Provide all appropriate details on detail sheet (Le. water main lowering, meter pits, etc.). See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. This was done, and in actuality we'll be pulling the steel-pvc couple detail as it no longer applies. 41 Clearly define how grading will affect existing sanitary sewer manhole located at the south east corner of this site. Will the existing manhole need to be raised? The wall has been realigned slightly so not to impact the existing manhole. 42 Provide separate water and sewer services for each individual building. This sheet is purely conceptual in nature, and merely indicates a proposed alignment which is likely to change again. However, due to City review procedures such information is required for review of all departments which desire to see full build out conditions. It is recommended that if this proposed alignment is selected for a sanitary service a variance be requested from City criteria. 43 Will existing fire hydrant need to be relocated along Elm Street? Provide a 2 feet minimum separation between back of curb/sidewalk and fire hydrant. Pagc 8 44 Curb stops and meter pits may not be placed in vehicle travel areas. Again, the features shown on this sheet were conceptual in nature. But the conceptual meter location has been pushed closer to the "future" building in lieu of a conceptual service vehicle whacking it out in the future. 52 CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THIS PROJECT. IF IT IS A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN THEN GHOST IT OUT OR LABEL IT AS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. We're hoping it's real clear now. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: zoning The term security fence has been removed from the plans. The specific height and type of fence are labeled on the site, landscape and civil engineering drawings. Fencing will comply with 3.8.11 (B). Please call if you have any questions or need further information. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you further during the development review process. RAW Sincerely, VF Ripley Associates. Sear Brown Page 9