Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSU SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-11-08Dave Stringer - Transportation Services Comments, doc Page 1 Transportation Services Comments - CSU's College Ave. Pedestrian Underpass Submitted by: Mark Sears, Engineering, Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planning, and Gaylene Rossiter, Transfort. Drainage - The storm runoff and nuisance flows need to be intercepted at the west entrance to the underpass. If the runoff is allowed to flow through the tunnel it will cause the pedestrian problems. In the winter the water will freeze and make the underpass extremely dangerous for pedestrians. Lighting - There needs to be a street light at each entrance to the underpass and excellent lighting in the underpass. We would also like to have lighting for the sidewalk from the underpass to the transit stop. Entrances - Consider an aesthetic treatment to the concrete wing walls/headwalls. An artistic form liner could be used or a broken -fin form liner could be used. The broken -fin treatment also makes it more difficult to vandalize with paint. Water Proofing - What type of water proofing will be used. Safety Railings/ Guard Rails- What type of railings will be used to protect people and motorists from falling/driving off the wing walls/headwalls. Emergency Phones - Will emergency phones be installed near the entrances to the underpass. Size of Underpass - The 8'x 12' box is marginal in size compared to it's length of 126', some people may not be willing to use it. We recommend that a much larger box, ie. I O'x20', be used to give the underpass a better chance of being used. Bottom of Underpass - Recommend placing a 2" to 4" thick concrete sidewalk on the bottom of the underpass, rather than just relying on the bottom of the boxes to be smooth enough. Relocation of Bus Shelter and Benches - Relocate the Bus Shelter and Benches to the north approximately 30'. Use the same size concrete pad and the existing bus shelters and benches, and arrange them the same as they are now. The City would like to add an additional concrete pad for the installation of a bike locker, a bike rack, and for the existing bus bench w/advertising on it. City Financial Participation - The City of Fort Collins is willing to pay for some of the sidewalks shown on the plans as "future." The sidewalk along Remington Street and the one that diagonals from Remington Street through the park to connect to the main sidewalk. The sidewalk from College Avenue down to the sidewalk that connects the parking lot to the underpass. Also the sidewalk and ramps needed north of the underpass on the west side of College to connect with the existing sidewalk south of Pitkin. City of Fort Collins From: To: THRU: Date: Re: Utilitie. light & power • stormwater • wastewater • water PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Basil Harridan, City of Fort Collins Utilities, Stormwater. The Sear Brown Group CSU Facilities Department Dave Stringer, City of Fort Collins, Engineering Department April 19, 1999 CSU Pedestrian Tunnel Drainage Comments Here are our comments on the CSU Pedestrian underpass. 1. The calculations for the 100 year flow show a Q100 of 3.1 cfs, while the sizing of the inlet grate was done for the Q2 of 0.7 cfs. Please revise and use a 3.1 cfs design 100 year flow. 2. Please show that the outfall 8" PVC has adequate cover to prevent icing. Please provide a proposed profile showing depth and cover. A minimum 1 foot of cover is recommended if feasible due to existing elevations. 3. Please address how areas to be disturbed by the installation of the pipe would be restored. 4. Please address the issue of the (lack of) capacity of the existing 3" drain where you are directing the runoff to. We do not know from the supplied information that this system does have a positive outfall. If it does, and you would like to use it then show where it ties to the City's storm sewer system. 5. If it is indeed currently positively tied to our system, then it is doubtful that the existing 3" pipe would have the adequate capacity to handle the additional runoff directed at it from this underpass, as it was probably designed as a nuisance flow drain for the park. It is recommended that the drainage from the 70O ti'Voo(j St. • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6700 • FAX! WAW-419 • FAX (970) 221-6593 • TDD (970) 224-600 3 e-mail: utilities(« ci.fort-collins.co.us • www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/UTILITIES underpass be directly to tied our system. Please note that there is an existing inlet at the northwest corner of Lake and Remington that may be used. 6. As mentioned in your letter a permanent drainage easement will be required from the City for the drainage outfall through Park property. Construction easements for the pipe and related drainage improvements will also be needed. 7. Please provide a design for the inlet grate that is more resistant to clogging. A trash grate should be added to the design, the trash grate should also be designed in such a way that would not be susceptible to icing. 8. The drainage study submitted does not have a cover sheet with written explanations, it also is not signed or stamped by a registered PE. 9. Please delineate on the plans the contributing area to the basin draining into the tunnel. Please minimize through your grading design the potential area that might drain down to the tunnel. 10. Please tie in the grading of the wing walls on either side of the tunnel with the existing grades, and show all proposed grading outside of the tunnel area as it is not completely provided on the current set of plans. 11. Please address the issues associated with erosion control during construction. 12. Please refer to redlined plans for any additional comments. 9#10 July 9, 1999 Facilities Management Fort Collins. Colorado 80523-6030 City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Attn: Ted Shepard, Current Planning 281 North College Avenue, P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: College Avenue Underpass Construction Documents Enclosed are 10) sets of plans and specifications for the referenced project as prepared by The Sear -Brown Group. Since our initial submittal to the City, the concept for the project has remained consistent. Changes incorporated into these documents include primarily the filling in of details and further development of the design concept. A major consideration now, is that it appears that the Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF) will gain title to the High School Park site this fall, eliminating the need for acquisition of certain easements from the City. We anticipate CSURF holding the land and CSU will lease it from the Foundation. If details can be worked out. CSURF may transfer title to CSU at a later date. The potential of this acquisition occurring has delayed construction of the underpass from its previous schedule. Consideration is now being given to commencing construction this fall, but construction of the project could be postponed until spring 2000. The following is our response to the City's April 1999 review of the project (see attachment) A. Responses to April 19, 1999 Project Comment Sheet from Basil Hamdan of Utilities, Stormwater 1. Please reference the Sear -Brown letter addressed to Basil dated June 25, 1999, we believe the issue is addressed. 2. The drain line is not below frost line. Given the inlet elevation at the walk and the existing outlet elevation, the depth is shallow.- 3. The area will be restored with topsoil and sod. 4. The field verified size is 8". The connection is indicated on the submitted drawings. 5. Please reference the Sear -Brown letter dated June 25,1999. 6. If the land title in fact is transferred to CSURF, the easement will be unnecessary. If title remains with the City the easement will be sought. 7. Please reference drawing and Sear -Brown letter dated June 25, 1999. We believe the concern is addressed. 8. The final construction documents will be stamped as required. 9. Please refer to drawing #7 for the drainage areas. 10. The drawings being submitted address the grading. 11. Please refer to drawing #7. 12. We believe the revised drawings address the redline comments. EPA f4,(Green . Lights Division of Administrative Services P A R T N it RR B. Transportation Services Comments (not dated) Drainage — There is not adequate fall for a drain pipe. The floor of the tunnel does slope to the south to keep nuisance water to the wall. Lighting — The lighting plan is now included and we believe the design addresses the concerns. Entrances — For the purpose of graffiti removal, no form liner will be used on the cast - in -place walls. Paint and/or graffiti protection may be used. Water Proofing — The box segments will be dampproofed and the joints will be waterproofed. The specification is based on MOT specs and similar to the Vermont underpass. Safety Railings/Guard Rails — The drawings now show the intended rail design. The design and specification is based upon CDOT design. Emergency Phones — Phones are now shown on the electrical drawings. They are located away from the actual entrances in order to get them in the `open' for better visibility and safety for callers. Size of Underpass — The current 8'X10' is the maximum the budget can afford. The 8- foot height is linuted by the street and water flow elevations. Bottom of Underpass — A layer of concrete will be added to create a smooth floor. Relocation of Bus Shelter and Benches — These will be relocated as requested. City Financial Participation — Upon definition of funding and priority, the additional sidewalks would be welcome. C. Responses to comments from Ted Shepard dated April 19, 1999. 1. The two (2) lost trees are being replaced as previously worked out and agreed to by Tim Buchanan. This is indicated on the drawings. 2. An information meeting was held for the public on November 16, 1998 at the Old Fort Collins High School. Both University and City representatives were present to give a brief explanation of the tunnel and the annual flower trial garden plus respond to any questions. There was discussion on moving the underpass and pedestrian way more to the south, which was later done and depicted in the design. Persons from the public also stated that the future trial garden shade structure and flowerbeds should be designed to have a curvilinear layout with attractive shapes that would be interesting. These items have been incorporated into the trial garden design. In addition, several articles about the project have been published in the local newspapers, producing only positive comments. 3. The parking, lot is a separate project. The City has reviewed the project. We believe the issues were addressed or responded to and are acceptable. A. The drainage will be taken care of in the near future. CSU is not `resisting' from a philosophical standpoint; it has been a financial issue. B. The Sear -Brown report addresses the drainage issue. C. The parking lot project design considers and maintains most of the trees. This was worked out with Tim Buchanan also. D. The lighting for the parking area was included in the review of the project with the City. 4. The walk is loft. wide and is concrete. 5. The documents call for tree protection. 6. The permit may not apply if the land title is transferred to CSURF. Tree protection will remain as an important consideration. 7. The erosion control information has been added. 8. The signature; may not apply if the land title is transferred to CSURF. The input and fact that the issue needs to be handled remains important. 9. The `skylight' is now on the drawings. It may be handled as a bid alternate for funding reasons. 10. The electrical designer has considered this in the design. 11. We agree. D. Responses to comments from Engineering dated April 12, 1999. 1. Details of east and west entrances are included in the documents submitted herein. 2. Water line is still being worked out with Water/Wastewater. 3. Detail added. 4. Repair will extend 50' each way. 5. This is being addressed with CDOT. 6. Sidewalk is designed for placement on compacted or undisturbed soil. 7. Details for wing walls have been added. 8. Railings are now detailed on the drawings. 9. Class 6. Now indicated on drawings. 10. This will depend on the land title transfer. 11. Detail added to the drawings. 12. We agree. This information is indicated on the drawing submitted herein. E. Responses to comments from Water/Wastewater dated April 14, 1999. CSU is very willing to offset the existing line under the tunnel or provide equal resources if the City would rather pursue another option. Again, we wish to thank the City for its review of this project. If you have questions, please contact me at 491-0150. Sincerely, GregZm th Attachments: Sear -Brown June 25,1999 drainage study report City comments from prior SD/DD review C.c.: Gerry Bomotti Ron Baker Nancy Hurt Tom Kehler Mike Powers REVISION A, COMMENT SHEET DATE: April 12,1999 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: CSU Pedestrian Tunnel All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 1. East and West Entry detail should be shown. Also include dimensions. 2. Show in detail how water main deflection work will be done. 3. Give detail of inlet at entries. 4. Show limits of asphalt, curb, gutter and sidewalk repair. These are to be repaired as per city standards. 5. S. College Ave is a state highway and therefore requires a permit, FYI. 6. Include a bedding detail along sidewalks. 7. Details also needed for all wing walls and existing inlets 8. Railings are needed on barrier walls at the box culvert and wing walls. 9. Class 5 or 6 Road base? Depth? 10. Easement should be given in a separate document since there is no plat. 11. Show detail of how to build rain drain 12. The existing concrete highway that currently lies underneath the asphalt does not need to be replaced. 13. The contractor is to coordiniate water lowering rt Collins watts�dertment. Date: '�'+ — �`� Signature: �-- ' Please send copies of marked revisions Plat ,.Site Utility XLandscape q .., City of Fort Collins PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW DATE: JULY 12, 1999 TO: ENGINEERING PROJECT: CSiJ COLLEGE AVENUE UNDERPASS - BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW ALL COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY TED SHEPARD NO LATER THAN STAFF REVIEW MEETING: JULY 21,1999 Any Colorado Department of Transportation permits are the responsibility of the applicant. Suggest future sidewalks on eastside, be shown to connect to underpass walks, similar to what is shown on westside of College. Change note regarding asphalt street repair limits from "State" to Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT. A City Excavation Permit from the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department will be required. Contact Rick Richter at 221- 6605 a Date: Signature: 09/11/1998 15:35 19704070012 PAGE 03 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS City of Fort Collins DATE: August 31, 1998 PROJECT: College Avenue Underpass Between Pitkin and Lake APPLICANT: Colorado State University represented by Greg Smith with Rob Hume, Ted Barela and Doug Rames from Sear Brown Group as consultants. LAND USE DATA: Request to construct a bicycle/pedestrian underpass under South College Avenue between Pitkin and Lake Streets to connect an existing C.S.U. parking with old Fort Collins High School. (Existing parking lot may be expanded in the near future.) At this time, the underpass consists of a seven foot high box culvert to be constructed by an open street cut. Obtaining a federal grant would upgrade the facility. COMMENTS: 1. The Parks and Recreation Department, Parks Planning Division, has concems about the impact on High School Park. This park has a well - established aesthetic character of being an open meadow. Also, the trees in the park are mature and, by the gazebo, create a "forest effect." Therefore, the primary concern is the placement of the tunnel and the path as presently shown. The path should be shifted to the edge of the park as much as possible. The path alignment should minimize impact on existing trees even if this means that the path Is not direct 2. Every effort should be made to minimize the loss of trees. The City Forester will evaluate any tree that needs to be removed and require mitigation based on the appraised value of the tree. The grading and excavation within High School Park must cause as little disturbance as possible. For further information regarding issues with the parks and trees, please contact Janet Meisel, 221-6640. 3, The Stormwater Utility is concerned about keeping water out of the tunnel. This may require berms along the edges at the entrances. Getting water out of the underpass and routing this water over to the natural outfall is also a concern. Retention is not allowed so a pumping system may be needed to eliminate standing water. If there is positive gravity flow to the outfall, be sure that nuisance flows or irrigation flows do not cause standing water. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVTROMMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 CURRENT PLANNING DEPARP4ENT PAGE 04 09/11/1998 15:35 19704070012 4. If the outfall is on park property, then a drainage easement will be needed from the City. Generally, new development should not add any additional stormwater runoff onto adjacent downstream properties. 5. Regarding the potential expansion of the existing parking lot, please be aware that any increase in impervious surface will create additional stormwater runoff. This runoff must be accounted for and not ignored. The runoff must not be routed down the College/Prospect intersection as this area floods during the 100-year storm and is under capacity. The runoff should be placed in a storm sewer and routed down the railroad right-of-way to Spring Creek. As you are aware, this site has always had a drainage problem. There is a development on the west side of the railroad just north of Prospect which also needs to improve their drainage system. Please contact this party as they may be willing to provide a drainage easement and participate in improving the outfall system to Spring Creek. For further information regarding stormwater runoff issues, please contact Glen Schlueter, 221-6589. 6. Please coordinate with the City's Light and Power Utility. Existing electrical system is in the College Avenue median and will have to be accounted for. Temporary power may be provided by overhead facilities during construction. Power is available in the area for any lighting associated with the tunnel. Lighting must be designed to be aesthetic as well as functional. Lighting must not interfere with drivers on College Avenue. For further information, please contact Bruce Vogle, 221-6700. 7. Please coordinate with the City's Water and Wastewater Utility. There is an existing 4 inch diameter water main in College Avenue that will be impacted. This main will have to be re-routed. For further information, please contact Roger Buffington, 221-6681. 8. The Transportation Planning Department is concerned about the lack of the federal grant at this time. The facility should be designed to incorporate additional features in the future should the grant be forthcoming. A larger -scaled project would be supported by the City, even if these upgrade are included in a future phase. 9. Grades should be handicap accessible for both the running and cross slopes. 09/11/1998 15:35 19704070012 PAGE 05 10. Future plans should include a larger context that describes how the underpass connects to the campus bicycle and pedestrian system. There should be no gaps between the underpass and the existing system. 11. Permits from Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) must be obtained for the street cut and the water line relocation. Also, a permit is still needed from CDOT for the parking lot access that was constructed a few years ago. 12. Be sure that the entrances to the tunnel are set far enough back from College Avenue to account for future widening. As a "major arterial," the future right-of-way will be 141 feet from flowline to flowline. Tunnel improvements should be placed in existing or future right-of-way. i3. Existing sidewalks -along Colfede shouTd-bd protecteafr-bm-drop-ofi's by railings. Railings should be decorative to improve the aesthetics of the facility. 14. For coordination with the City's Parking Manager, please contact Susanne Edminster, 221-6608. 15. For coordination with Transfort bus service, please contact Gaylene Rossiter, 221-6620. 16. Please account for snow removal and storage at the tunnel entrances. 17. The review process for the underpass will be similar to a Building Permit review. A pre -submittal should be arranged with Dave Stringer, Engineering Manager of Development Review. This meeting will determine the extent of the Utility Plans and the number of copies. Upon submittal, plans will be routed for comments. We anticipate at least two rounds of review. Critical points in the process will be obtaining the necessary permits from CDOT and the necessary easements from Parks Recreation. A permit will also be needed from, Engneering for conducting work in the public right-of-way. March 18, 1999 Colo L University Facilities Management Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030 City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Attn: Ted Shepard, Current Planning 281 North College Avenue, P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: College Avenue Underpass Schematic Design Submittal Enclosed are prints of the Plan and Profile drawings by The Sear — Brown Group for the Schematic Design of the proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Underpass at South College Avenue in the vicinity of the old Fort Collins High School. The conceptual plan was presented to Staff at a CRT meeting held August 31, 1998. A follow-up field meeting took place with select City staff on September 22, 1998. There will be at least one more design submittal forthcoming as the project develops in greater detail. This will address final design items such as lighting, signage, construction coordination, landscape details, etc. Since our first discussions with Staff, there has been considerable progress in the development of the project. The project location has shifted southward and there have been several meetings with various City staff members (stormwater, utilites, traffic) in an effort to gain information and to design the project so it best addresses the needs and concerns of both the City and University. The University's current schedule is to complete construction of the tunnel prior to August 15,1999. The following is our response to the Conceptual Review Staff Comments dated August 31, 1998. The numbering below corresponds with the comment numbers in the Conceptual Review staff comments (see attachment). 1. The use of the High School Park is an ongoing, somewhat separate, discussion. However, we have very much tried to address the impact of the proposed tunnel on the Park by routing the walkway as depicted in this submittal. Specifically, to minimize tree removal, maintain open space and serve the needs of pedestrians. 2. We have met on -site with City staff in an effort to work out location of the underpass and the pedestrianways. The location of the tunnel as shown in the conceptu (7i,,�(G,­'reen .:. Lights Division of Administrative Services r . a n r� r has been adjusted approximately 62 feet south to the location depicted in this submittal. This location has the agreement of the Parks & Recreation and Planning staffs as stated in Tim Buchanan's letter dated January 22, 1999 (see attachment). 3. The schematic design proposes a gravity drainage system for the tunnel. The tunnel floor pitches slightly toward the south to congregate nuisance water to one side. 4. The design depicts the proposed drainage routing/easement. The easement is pending. 5. The design for the expansion of the University parking lot on the west side of College Avenue is committed to addressing these drainage issues. 6. We have acknowledged your request and met with City Staff on these matters. Additional input from City Staff will be sought during future review submittals as the details are designed. 7. Coordination has taken place with the City's Water and Wastewater Utility. Output from these meetings is depicted on the design submittal herein. The supplemental funding, if approved, will not be forthcoming for several years. The focus of the project is the tunnel and the University's resources are being concentrated in addressing this portion first. The inside dimensions of the tunnel are now 8'H x 12'W in lieu of 7'H x 10'W at the conceptual phase. Supplemental funding would be welcome and could be used on additional features. 9. Gradients meet ADA requirements, with no slope exceeding 5% on pedestrianways. 10. The tunnel will connect to the campus bicycle and pedestrian system. The campus bikeway and pedestrian routes will be developed in future segments separately from this project. 11. There have been coordination meetings with CDOT. A License Agreement is being developed. 12. The setbacks have been discussed with CDOT who has indicated that these provisions are not required at this time. This will likely be addressed in the License Agreement. The east end of the tunnel including the wing walls, are within City property and will be added to the easement description. 13. There will be railings as suggested. Once designed, the railings will be reviewed with the City. 14. City Transportation staff (Kathleen Reavis in particular) have participated in meetings. We will continue to welcome their future involvement. 15. Transfort has also been included in past reviews. Due to the delay between the Conceptual Phase and this submittal there has been a typical concern from City staff/administrators with progress, status, etc. With the change in location of the tunnel to the south, the existing Transfort bus stop and shelter will need to be relocated north of its current site. Hopefully this submittal will relieve their concerns. 16. CSU will be responsible for snow removal as well as other maintenance to the tunnel and adjoining pedestrianways to the west and east. 17. This submittal is to address a portion of the review process. The CDOT License Agreement and City easements are being worked on. Nancy Hurt of CSU Facilities Planning is heading this effort. Her phone number is 491-0005. Sincerel , GrJ remith g 491-0150 enclosures: copy of August 31, 1998 Conceptual Review Staff Comments Tim Buchanan's letter dated January 22, 1999 CC: Gerry Bomotti Ron Baker Nancy Hurt Tom Kehler Mike Powers Comments Re CSU Underpass To; Dave Stringer From: Ted S. Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 1. Loss of trees is significant. C.S.U. should be held to the strictest standards of tree mitigation in the Code. There should be no relief granted to C.S.U. based on the "exempt from zoning" argument since the work is being done in the public right-of=way and in a city -owned park. 2. An informational meeting should be held with the property owners between Prospect and Pitkin on both College and Remington. The traffic control plan could have an impact on the businesses and the residential properties on Remington which will carry the burden of the detoured traffic. 3. The letter from Sear Brown indicates improvement to the existing parking lot on the west side of College. We need to see these plans. There are two issues with this improvement: A. Drainage must be routed south to Spring Creek. This will require an easement from the intervening property owners. In the past, C.S.U. has resisted this effort. B. If drainage is routed into the underpass and directed to the storm drain in High School Park, then the City is accepting developed storm flows that go above and beyond the underpass project itself. For this acceptance, we should charge "good and valuable consideration." Or, C.S.U. should lower the price on the Horticulture Garden site in C.A.T. as a trade. We should not accept parking lot runoff as a matter of course. C. There are numerous existing trees in this parking lot. We should see the Landscape Plan/Tree Mitigation Plan. D. We should look at a Lighting Plan for the parking lot expansion just as we would any commercial parking lot along South College Avenue. Lighting should be high pressure sodium and down -directional with sharp cut-off fixtures. 4. The plans should call out that the path is ten feet wide. Also, I do not see where the path is specified to be concrete. 5. The plans should include the standard "Tree Protection Notes" available from Tim Buchanan. 6. The plans should state that there must be a Development Construction Permit and a development coordination meeting to ensure that the tree protection measures are full understood by the contractors. 7. Be sure that Stormwater gets an Erosion Control Plan. 8. In general, the plan set should include the Tree Mitigation Plan like the Larimer County Justice Center. The City Forester should be signature party to the mylars. 9. 1 do not see where Transportation Planning's request for "daylighting" has been addressed. The median in College provides a perfect opportunity for this upgrade. 10. Lighting at the entrances to the underpass will be very close to College Ave. This lighting must not interfere with drivers vision. 11. This will be a very visible project for the community. Kelly Dimartino and her equivalent at C.S.U. should be fully informed so they can get the word out to the media and public.