Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2016-06-02�rof t� Collins REVISION Current Planning COMMENT SHEET PO Box 580 Fort Collins,.CO 80522-0580 Fax: 970-224-6134 DATE: February 27, 2015 TO: Comcast Engineer: Sheri Langenberger RP150001 Aspen Heights Road Plans — Suniga Road (New Vine) and Redwood Street 2nd Round of Review PLEASE NOTE: Please return all comments to the project engineer no later than: March 9, 2015 If you do not have access to the Accela program, please send your comments via email to: reveretteaWcgov.com Note -.Please identify your redlines for future reference MNo Problems © Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or Accela) Do, U elaP-rs avtd- C75j-,.-Jer--, *IwL ✓ t; t- V,;t, o ww� T, p e4 u C 1� C am, F s n- s.c_ rr rT % 'Alp fd Jo R� AO OCA,4 - • Z t Wl Name (please'print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS �C Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other. Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape -? 70-- SG >_ o z4S the pole impact the sidewalk location and ramp grades? A blown up detail of this area needs to be provided to make sure the clearances are met and truly determine where the ramps are to be located. This has been shown on the landscape plan but not the utility plan. Utility and Landscape Plan - Need to show how the concrete nose of the median is to be provided per detail 801. Need street x-sections for Suniga and Redwood. Suniga Cross Sections - Suniga is a primary road and the minimum cross slope shall cant' through the intersections. There are several cross sections in which the cross slopes are not meeting the 2.0% minimum cross slope. - On 3 of the cross sections you are showing the sidewalk slope exceeding the ADA maximum cross slope of 2.0% I really hope this is just an error and that the sidewalk was not designed with a 4.8% cross slope. - Why does the sidewalk on the north side of the road switch back and forth from sloping toward the street and then sloping toward the pond? - Need to show that there is a 1 foot approximately flat area behind the sidewalk as per the standards and details and that the slopes do not start right at the back edge of the sidewalk. - The flowline grades and locations need to be provided as they were on the example I gave you. Redwood Cross Sections - The flowline grades and locations need to be provided as they were on the example I gave you. - Where Osiander will tie in - Redwood needs to retain the 2.0% minimum cross slope. Also need to show that there is a cross pan in this section. - Sectionl0+00 This doesn't look right. The cross section shows that the east side of the road is higher(by a foot or more) but the flowline slopes show that the east side would actually be slightly lower than the west. Need addition elevations and information on the intersection details (see plans). Also need a detail for the future Suniga/ Redwood when the road goes through to see how it will work then. Intersection Details - - The flowline slopes at the ramps need to meet ADA standards. A few that will need to be revised. - On the intersections with the medians, show the crown line location and where the high elevation spot on the median is. - Quite a few locations where the flowline slopes shown on the intersection details do not snatch the slope information on the profiles. - Can't check several of the intersection detail infonnation because the PCR infonnation is not labeled on the Redwood profiles and the Blondel and Osiander designs have not been submitted. - Have a few locations where the slopes arrows show flows going one direction, but the elevations provided show it should go the other way. 4 - . A copy was received and routed. I will forward any comments received. If you could send me a PDF copy of sheet 10 I need to route that to the Parks department so they can review the proposed irrigation tap and sleeve locations for the median. Traffic Operations has redlines with additional markings/ changes noted. Traffic Operation has marked up the signing and stripping plans in my redlined set with their comments. FROM COMCAST, Don Kapperman. If comcast fiber needs to be relocated it is a developers expense. There is a vault between the New Vine Drive and Osiander on the east side of Redwood Street. Please call in for locates to see if it is needs to be relocated. I can met on site if it needs to be lowered or moved. 970-567-0245 Is the sidewalk chase shown on Suniga taking water off of the roadway or drainage water onto the roadway? Can't tell as no design point elevations have been provided. If it is taking water off of the street into the pond then this is a concrete sidewalk culvert and needs to be labeled as such, the size identified, and detail provided in the plan set. If drainage is going from the pond into the street then this is a metal sidewalk culvert and needs to be labeled as such and the size identified on the plans. Suniga profile - - The Aspen Heights plans show different the Blue Spruce/ Suniga intersection grades and slope across the cross pan. As proposed the Aspen Heights plans will need to be revised. The grades now match and the slope shown on the approved plans match the profile, but the slopes shown on the intersection detail do not match the profile. - The Blondel grades don't match the approved design plans for Blondel. Either need to match the approved plans or provide a design that shows how this design ties to the end of the existing street. Blondel design has not yet been received. Once this is received it will be reviewed. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. - Need profiles of the median edges. Profile for the portion west of Blue Spruce is not yet included. The north profile doesn't tie to the south profile. The ends of each of these should be at the same elevation since they tie together. - On the profile you show different slopes occurring along the profile, but you do not indicate where the grade changes occur. Please identify these as you have on the Redwood profile with the triangle. - The PCR elevations shown at the Blondel intersection on the profile do not match those shown on the intersection detail. - Need to indicate at what station the inlets and the curb chase are to be located at. Redwood profile - Need to provide PCR/ PR station and elevation information. These are not yet shown on the Redwood profile. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. - Have a couple of slopes that doesn't meet minimum slope requirements. One spot that is still shown less than the .50% minimum. Might be rounding but needs to show as .50% - Have several locations where exceeding the maximum grade break allowed. May still have this. I can't tell as I don't know exactly where the PCR is located. - Need to see a design for Osiander to know that this all ties together. The existing Osiander design doesn't tie into the Redwood profile. Osiander design has not yet been provided. Once this is provided this can be reviewed. - Need to make sure Osiander is shown as having a cross pan. Barricades need to be shown at the end of Blondel and Osiander. - Have a couple of slopes that doesn't meet minimum slope requirements. One spot that is still shown less than the .50% minimum. Might be rounding but needs to show as .50% - Have several locations where exceeding the maximum grade break allowed. May still have this. I can't tell as I don't know exactly where the PCR is located. - Need to see a design for Osiander to know that this all ties together. The existing Osiander design doesn't tie into the Redwood profile. Osiander design has not yet been provided. Once this is provided this can be reviewed. - Need to make sure Osiander is shown as having a cross pan. Barricades need to be shown at the end of Blondel and Osiander. 0oWEN ('� CONSULTING GROUP, INC. February 27, 2015 Project File #: 11-358 City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attention: Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE: Aspen Heights — Offsite Improvements Suniga Road (New Vine) and Redwood Street RP 150001, Round 1 Dear Sheri, Please accept this letter and the accompanying documents in response to review comments received from the City of Fort Collins regarding our first submittal of Final Compliance drawings for the proposed Off -site Improvements associated with the Aspen Heights development. In this letter, we have replicated the comments received from the City and have inserted written responses (shown in blue italics) following each of the respective comments. We trust that you will find the following responses, and the corresponding revisions to the project documents, acceptable. If you have further questions or comments regarding this submittal, please contact me immediately. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221.6225, cmaPest9-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 02109/2015 02/09/2015: FROM COMCAST, Don Kapperman, 567-0245: Currently have a fiber line in thte east side of Redwood that needs to be in an easement. Please verify fiber run. Would like to receive a revised plat, site plan and landscape plan. Don Kapperman was contacted and he provided some limited information regarding the location of the fiber line, stating that it is located along the east side of Redwood St. The line has been shown on the drawings, with the instruction that the contractor is to confirm the location of the line prior to commencing any excavation in the area. Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slanoenbergerO-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02109/2015: The plans need to be named: Utility Plans for Suniga Road from Blue Spruce to Redwood Street and Redwood Street from Lupine to Cajeatan Street. 3715 Shallow Pond Dr., Fort Collins, CO 80528 - Phone (970) 226-0264 - Fax (970) 226-3760 Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE: Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 2 of 19 The title of the project drawings has been revised, as requested. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02109/2015 02/09/2015: Greeley and NEWT will need to sign the utility plans. Signature blocks have been added to the drawing sheets that depict work to be done in the vicinity of the existing Greeley and NEWT water mains. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02109/2015: Need turning templates to show that the median noses don't extend into the travel paths or need to be adjusted. Many of our median noses are not symmetrical to accommodate the turning movements. This can be exhibits and don't need to be on these plans. For all lefts at these two intersections Suniga Road/ Blondel/ Blue Spruce and Suniga Road/ Redwood. Show WB-67 with min 4 feet between the opposing tracks. Exhibits have been created to show the turning pathways of a WB-67 truck maneuvering through the intersections of Suniga / Redwood and Suniga / Blue Spruce / Blondel. The noses of the Suniga Rd. median both east and west of the Suniga / Blue Spruce / Blondel intersection were adjusted to accommodate the turning trucks, however, due to the narrower width of the Blue Spruce and Blondel street sections, 9 is not possible to maintain a 4' separation between opposing trucks entering these minor streets without the trucks encroaching into the outbound lanes of the minor streets. This is not considered to be a significant issue, however, since the potential for turning trucks having to make concurrent left turns into these minor streets is extremely small. Copies of the exhibits are included with this resubmittal. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: New Vine Drive needs to be changed to Suniga Road throughout the plans. The name New Vine Drive has been replaced by Suniga Road on all the project drawings. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Redwood Drive is shown shifting to the west. I need information on this — curve and tangent information. Also some additional curve and radii information is needed, it is noted on this sheet. It was necessary to insert a slight shift into the alignment of Redwood St., just south of the end of the existing street pavement, in order to transition the street centerline from the existing off -center location to a centered location within the right-of-way for the southward extension of the new construction. The centerline geometry of the shift, as well as that for the remainder of the new construction is shown on the Horizontal Control Plan for the project. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need centerline and tangent information for Suniga Road — it is not currently shown on the Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE. Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 3 of 19 horizontal control plan or the profile sheets. Centerline geometry for Suniga Rd. has been added to the Horizontal Control Plan for the project. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need to have the property lines turned on on many of the sheets. Example the grading sheet. I can't tell what is Old Town North property and what is this property. The layer(s) including property lines and easements have been turned on, as necessary, on the various drawing sheets. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Grading and drainage work is shown on Old Town North property. It appears that easements exist to allow for this. But you need to contact the property owner and coordinate this with them so that they are aware of what is being proposed. We have been in ongoing contact with the owners and consultants for the Old Town North development and have been coordinating with them to ensure that our design is compatible with theirs. They are aware of the need for the drainage swale, at least until the NECCO improvements are constructed, and they are making provision for the swale in the design of their project. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02109/2015: Redwood Grading plan — The note regarding saw cutting at the south end needs to indicate 'Sawcut a minimum of 2 feet and connect to existing Redwood St.' The note regarding saw cutting at the north end needs to be different since the existing street surface here is concrete. It needs to state 'If the existing concrete edge is not acceptable to the Engineering Inspector full concrete panels will need to be removed to create an acceptable edge' The note regarding saw cutting at the south end of the existing pavement has been modified to require that an inspection of the existing pavement be conducted, in the presence of a City inspector, to determine the condition of the existing concrete pavement, and to further require that full panels of the existing concrete be removed and replaced if they are not in an acceptable condition from which to extend the new street construction. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The culvert under Redwood — What happens when a sidewalk needs to be installed on the east side of the road? Is this to be extended to a point behind the sidewalk? The eastern extent of the proposed Dry Creek culvert under Redwood St. is limited by the adjacent property owner's denial of our request that he grant an easement to accommodate further extension of the culvert and the discharge channel from the culvert. Thus, all work associated with the culvert is designed Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE: Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 4 of 19 to be located within the existing Redwood St. fight -of -way, When the adjacent property is developed, and if that development precedes completion of the NECCO detention pond and outfall, the developer of the adjacent property will have to extend the culvert and relocate the discharge channel, in order to make room for construction of a sidewalk along the east side of Redwood St. A note to that effect has been added to the drawings. If the NECCO works are completed prior to development of the adjacent property, the Dry Creek culvert and discharge channel will become obsolete, and can be removed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Is the drainage work on the east side of Redwood within an existing easement? If so label and identify the easement, if not an off -site easement is needed. The drainage improvements along the east side of Redwood St. are within the existing right-of-way. The project drawings have been revised to show and label the full extent of the right-of-way boundaries. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Sheet 9 needs a signature block. A signature block has been added to Sheet 9. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: At both Blondel/ Suniga and Osiander/ Redwood intersection some temporary asphalt will be needed on those street stubs to accommodate the pedestrian crossings of these street. It can be a temporary patch —just label it as such so when the project that builds these roads complains about the grades it is clear it was only temporary and they have to redo it. A call -out has been added to the drawings showing those intersections indicating the requirement for temporary asphalt infill between the gutter pan extensions for the minor streets to accommodate the crosswalks, including the instruction that the temporary asphalt is to be removed and replaced when those streets are constructed. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The water main at the Suniga/ Redwood intersection needs to be extended east past the edge of pavement so the intersection will not have to be redone to extend this in the future. The drawings have been revised to indicate the need to extend the new water main along Suniga Rd. beyond the east edge of Redwood St. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Sleeving for future signalization needs to be installed at all 3 legs of the Sunigal Redwood intersection. Sleeving requirements have been provided by the Traffic Operations Division and the drawings have been Ms. Sheri Langenbeiger RE. Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 5 of 19 updated to require that two 2" and two 3" schedule 40 condiuits be installed at all three legs of the Suniga and Redwood intersection. Comment Number: 16 02/09/2015: Suniga profile — Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 - What is the proposed slope at the west end be to existing ground? The proposed slope is 4:1. This has been noted on the P&P drawing for this section of Suniga Rd. - Need to provide PCRI PR station and elevation information. This information has been added to the intersection detail sheets, and stationing has been added to the street P&P drawings. - The Aspen Heights plans show different the Blue Spruce/ Suniga intersection grades and slope across the cross pan. As proposed the Aspen Heights plans will need to be revised. The drawings have been revised to show consistent grading of the cross pan at this intersection. - The Blondel grades don't match the approved design plans for Blondel. Either need to match the approved plans or provide a design that shows how this design ties to the end of the existing street. Grading of the intersection of Blonde St. and Suniga Rd. has been designed to be compatible with the profile of Suniga Rd. A note has been added to the drawings, and it has been brought to the attention of the consultants for the Old Town North development, that the design for the future northward extension of Blondel St. will have to be compatible with the intersection grades established by the current project. - Notes regarding 30% plans — Since the 30% plans did not provide flowline profiles the note should identify that it is the future flowline projected from the 30% plans. References to the 30% Plans have been removed to avoid confusion. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. Curb return profile information has been added to the intersection detail drawings. - Need profiles of the median edges. Supplementary sheets have been added to the project drawings to accommodate Suniga Rd. median flow line profiles. - Sag vertical curves at the flowline in a sump situation are not allowed. The flowline curves just east of the intersection need to be adjusted to show how they will work at .5% into the inlets. The sag VC along the centerline does not meet minimum curve length for the delta. Since this could impact the grades and elevations into the intersection this curve needs to be adjusted and shown as how it can meet standards. The flowline profiles in the vicinity of sump inlets have been revised to eliminate sag vertical curves, and to ensure that flowline gradients are maintained at not less than 0.5% into the inlets. The sag VC along the center line east of Redwood St. has been revised to meet minimum standards and it has been confirmed that the functionality of the east leg of the Suniga / Redwood intersection has not been adversely impacted. - The crest VC to east of Redwood doesn't meet minimum length requirements either, but you can leave it as it is — just add the following note to the plans. "Vertical Curve lengths (for future) don't meet standards but match 30% design" plans. Final design plans meeting standards to be completed prior to construction of this portion of the roadway (by others). The suggested note has been added to the drawings. Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE. Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 6 of 19 Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02109/2015: What are you proposing for the temporary curb? Is it regular curb, but just considered temporary or is it something else? Need to show where it is to start and stop and identify the type. The temporary curb across the east leg of the Suniga / Redwood intersection is proposed to be a standard, concrete, barrier curb and gutter section, that will extend from the north PC of the future northeast curb to the south PT of the future southeast curb return. The extent of the curb, and the fact that it is to be removed when Suniga Rd is extended to the east, has been noted on the drawings. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: The power pole in the NW comer of Suniga Road and Redwood Street. How big is this pole and the pad that holds it? What are PRPA restrictions for grading around this pole? How does the pole impact the sidewalk location and ramp grades? A blown up detail of this area needs to be provided to make sure the clearances are met and truly determine where the ramps are to be located. An exhibit has been prepared showing a blow-up of the vicinity of the northwest quadrant of the intersection, including the spatial relationship of existing power pole and the proposed street and sidewalk improvements. The size and location of the power pole necessitates a minor realignment of the sidewalk so that it passes behind the pole, and a minor separation of the handicap ramps, such that one is located on either side of the pole. The overall configuration of the sidewalk and handicap ramps remains consistent with LCUASS Std Drawing 1606(a). A copy of the exhibit is included with this resubmittal. Comment Number: 19 02/09/2015: Redwood profile Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 -What are the existing grades and slopes being tied into at the south end? At the north end? Per the lines shown the south flowlines don't appear to tie together. The drawings have been revised to indicate the existing profile grades at the north and south tie-in points of Redwood St. - Need to provide PCR/ PR station and elevation information. PCR / PR information has been shown on the intersection detail drawings, and corresponding stationing and labeling has also been shown on the P&P drawings. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. Curb return profile information has been added to the intersection detail drawings. - Have a couple of slopes that doesn't meet minimum slope requirements. Profile gradients have been revised to meet minimum standards in all cases. - Have several locations where exceeding the maximum grade break allowed. Grade breaks have been revised to meet the maximum grade break allowed. - Need to see a design for Osiander to know that this all ties together. The existing Osiander design doesn't tie into the Redwood profile. We have been communicating and coordinating with the consultants for the Old Town North development to ensure that the street profiles and intersection grades / elevations are consistent between the two February 6, 2015 Suniga Road and Redwood Street design plans The plans need to be named: Utility for Lupine to C eatan Str ga RofromBtue Spruce to Redwood Street and Redwood Street from Greeley and NEWT will need to sign the utility plans. Need turning templates to show that the median noses don't extend into the travel paths or need to be adjusted. Many of our median noses are not symmetrical to accommodate the turning movements. This can be exhibits Blondel/and 'Bluneed Spruce and Suniga Road/to be on these plans. all lefts at these two intersections Suniga R Redwood. Show WB-67 with min 4 feet between the opposing tracks. New Vine Drive needs to be changed to Suniga Road throughout the plans. Redwood Drive is shown shifting to the west. I need information on this — curve and tangent information. Also some additional curve and radii information is needed, it is noted on this sheet. Need centerline and tangent information for Suniga Road — it is not currently shown on the horizontal control plan or the profile sheets. Need to have the property lines turned on on many of the sheets. Example the grading sheet. I can't tell what is Old Town North property and what is this property. Grading and drainage work is shown on Old Town North property. It appears that easements exist to allow for this. But you need to contact the property owner and coordinate this with them so that they are aware of what is being proposed. Redwood Grading plan — The note regarding saw cutting at the south end needs to indicate `Sawcut a minimum of 2 feet and connect to existing Redwood St.' The note regarding saw cutting at the north end needs to be different since the existing street surface here is concrete. It needs to state `If the existing concrete edge is not acceptable to the Engineering Inspector full concrete panels will need to be removed to create an acceptable edge' The culvert under Redwood — What happens when a sidewalk needs to be installed on the east side of the road? Is this to be extended to a point behind the sidewalk? Is the drainage work on the east side of Redwood within an existing easement? If so label and identify the easement, if not an off -site easement is needed. Sheet 9 needs a signature block At both BlondeU Suniga and Osiand / Redwood intersection some temorary sings of these will be needed on those street stub o accommodate the pedestrian cros Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE., Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 7 of 19 designs. - The Suniga/ Redwood intersection doesn't need to be concrete. The intersection was originally specified as concrete due to the limited cover over the outfall pipe from the interim detention basin. However, since this pipe is a temporary installation, it is acknowledged that the intersection pavement can be asphalt, as throughout the remainder of the street. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: 1 provided a copy of the median curb design that was used and included on the Waterfleld Third Filing plans and the one that is going to be used on Timberline. Either one of these can be used. The existing detail needs to be changed on both the landscape and utility plans. The curb and gutter detail for the Suniga Rd. median has been revised to match that utilized in the Waterfleld Third Filing project. This design uses a curb and gutter section that can be poured monolithically. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02109/2015: The plans show the underdrain tying into the interim drainage pipe. Another solution is needed since this is a temporary interim pipe and will be removed or filled in the future. The design of the median underdrain has been revised to show the drain tying into the ultimate drain piping serving the inlets at the Suniga / Redwood intersection. The piping east of the median (beneath the intersection pavement) has been specked as solid pipe. A flap gate has been specified in the drain at the east end of the median, to prevent any surcharge in the storm drain piping from backing up into the median drain and saturating the median landscaping. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Cleanouts for the underdrain need to be provided every approximately every 100 feet and need to be shown on the plans. I have provided a copy of the underdrain detail and an example of a plan that shows the underdrain locations. Cleanouts have been shown in the median underdrain at 100 feet centers. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02109/2015: Utility and Landscape Plan - Need to show how the concrete nose of the median is to be provided per detail 801. A cross-reference to Std. Detail 801 has been included in the utility and landscape plans regarding the noses of the median. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need street x-sections for Suniga and Redwood. Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE. Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments Feb►uary 27, 2015 Page 8 of 19 Cross sections, at 50-foot intervals throughout the length of Suniga Rd. and Redwood St, have been added to the project drawings. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Need addition elevations and information on the intersection details (see plans). Also need a detail for the future Suniga/ Redwood when the road goes through to see how it will work then. Further spot elevations have been added to the intersection detail drawings, as requested, and the detail of the Suniga / Redwood intersection has been expanded to show how the future east leg of the intersection and the eastward extension of Suniga Rd. is compatible with the portion of the intersection that is to be constructed as part of the Aspen Heights project. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02109/2015: For the storm line that runs under the sidewalk. Need notes on this sheet indicating that maintenance hole covers that are in the sidewalk shall have smooth flush lids that meet ADA standards or if possible the MH rotated and placed outside of the sidewalk area. Notes have been added to the project drawings requiring that manhole covers that are located within the sidewalk along the south side of Suniga Rd. be equipped with smooth flush lids that are in compliance with ADA standards. The note also instructs the contractor to rotate the cone of the manhole to locate the access hatch outside the limits of the sidewalk wherever possible. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02109/2015: Detail 709 has been replaced with a more current design. The updated detail needs to be used is (D-106). The updated detail (D-108) has been inserted into the project drawings in place of Std. Detail 709. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Additional details needed: 801— modify as needed for this situation, and 2201. Std. Details 801 and 2201 have been added to the project drawings. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Grading sheets - Will need the power easement owners signature on the sheets showing grades and improvements under the easement. A signature block has been added for PRPA on the drawings that show work within their easement along the west side of Redwood St. Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE. Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 9 of 19 Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Landscape Plans — sight distance triangles — I talked with Traffic Operations regarding the sight triangles and they would like these calculated using the current ASHTO standards. This should shorten the sight distances. To do so I will need a variance request that outlines what you've done (assumptions) and the distances that you came up with. This should be done by Larry since it needs to be done by a PE. Once we have a plan with the new distances Joe will review the plans with Clark to verify plant heights and identify and concerns. The sight distance triangles have been recalculated in accordance with the guidance provided in the most recent edition of the AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The revised sight distance triangles have been submitted independently to and accepted by the City, and these have been incorporated into the Landscape Plan for Suniga Rd. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: If you could send me a PDF copy of sheet 101 need to route that to the Parks department so they can review the proposed irrigation tap and sleeve locations for the median. A PDF copy of Sheet 10 has been submitted. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: It looks as though the intent was for street lights along Sungia Road to be placed in the median. I don't believe that will occur. Based upon discussions with City staff, it is our understanding that street light locations and related wiring will be determined by Fort Collins Utilities staff, at a later date, and that, for now, no street lighting will be shown on these drawings. If sleeving is required, the City should provide appropriate requirements prior to installation of curb & gutter and street pavement. Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 02/09/2015 02/09/2015: Traffic Operation has marked up the signing and stripping plans in my redlined set with their comments. Signage and striping revisions have been made to the drawings in accordance with the redlined comments received from the City. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-Mi, tbuchanan(a fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 02/03/2015: Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE. Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 10 of 19 The placement of ornamental trees in a 2 foot 9 inch wide landscape area (shown in section A on sheet L 7.0) where the median narrows appears to be inadequate for long term growth and survival of the proposed ornamental trees. Forestry asks that that ornamental tree not be planted in landscape areas less than 4 feet on this project to insure adequate growth and survival. Alternative plant choices of appropriate shrubs and grasses should be explored to provide landscape effect in these narrow areas in place of the ornamental trees. Due to the newly calculated AASHTO sight triangles, the ornamental trees were removed not only for the median width in these areas but also to maintain open sight lines. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02103/2015: Tree species suggested changes: Specify the Texas Red oak as Shumard Oak. Change the Prairie Rose Crabapple to Red Barron Crabapple Texas Red Oak has been replaced with Shumard Oak; please see sheets 10 & 11 for greater detail. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02103/2015: Please add this landscape note if it does not already appear on the plans. The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six inches by tilling discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand square feet of landscape area. This note has been added to the sheet set, please reference sheet 12 of 12 for greater detail. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02103/2015: Please include these notes under a separate heading labeled Tree Notes on sheet L.10.0. Eliminate duplication of the following notes in other areas on the plan. 1. A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other City property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. 2. Contact the City Forester to inspect all tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Ms. Sheri Langenbe►ger RE: Aspen Heights — Off site Improvements Response to City Review Comments Febmary 27, 2015 Page 11 of 19 3. Street tree shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape contractor. 4. The developer shall replace all dead and dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be established of an approved species and of acceptable le condition prior to acceptance. 5. Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utility standards, separation between trees, street signs and street lights. Street trees shall be centered in the middle of the parkway. Quantities shown on plan must be installed unless a reduction occurs to meet separation standards. These notes have been added to the sheet set, areas of duplication have been omitted. Please reference sheet 12 of 12 for these changes. Comment Number: 5 02/03/2015: Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 Please include the following note in larger print in a box with a bold line on all landscape sheets. A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any street trees are planted in parkways between the sidewalk and Curb. Street tree locations and numbers may change to meet actual utility/tree separation standards. Landscape contractor must obtain approval of street tare location after utility locates. Street trees must be inspected and approved before planting. Failure to obtain this permit is a violation of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. This note has been added to all landscape sheets. Please reference sheets 2-8 for the addition of the notes. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02103/2015: Add the following notes under separate heading labeled "Inspections and Warranty" on sheet L 10.0. 1. Landscaping shown on these plans shall be secured prior to installation with a letter of credit, escrow, or performance submitted to the Zoning Department for 125% of the value of the landscaping and installation. Release upon approval by the City of Fort Collins of the final maintenance inspection. 2. Meetings: a. Landscape contractor shall hold pre -construction meeting with a representative of the City of Fort Collins Parks Division and Forestry Division prior to work. Contact the City Forester to arrange attendance at the pre -constitution meeting. b. Arrange for a minimum of two inspections during installation with a City of Fort Collins Parks Division and Forestry Division representative. c. A final installation installation inspection shall be scheduled by the Developer and Landscape Contractor Ms. Sheri Lengenberger RE: Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 12 of 19 at the end of the two year maintenance period. Upon completion of all punch list items at this meeting a two year maintenance warrantee period will begin. d. The Developer shall be responsible for complete maintenance of the medians for two full growing seasons from the date of approved final inspection. Maintenance shall be provided by a professional landscape maintenance business. Regular maintenance shall be providing to keep all landscaping and plantings healthy and attractive. Under no circumstances shall weed growth be allowed to establish and mature. Irrigation shall be regularly monitored to insure landscape plants are receiving the appropriated amount of water. e. A final maintenance inspect ion shall be scheduled by the developer/landscaper with City of Fort Collins Forestry and Parks Division representatives. Punch list items will be provided to the developer and must be addressed. The City of Fort Collins will take over maintenance after approval of final maintenance inspection. f. Provide final as -built drawings to the City of Fort Collins Parks Department prior to gaining approval of for the final maintenance inspection and release. These notes have been added to the sheet set, please reference sheet 12 of 12 for greater detail. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218.2932, ischlamQ_fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2015 01/20/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan (With Corrected Redlines), Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions (Recalculated based on the changes to the plans) please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com An Erosion Control Report and Erosion Control Plan, as well as an Escrow / Security Calculation have been prepared and are included with this resubmittal. Contact: Shane Boyle, 970-221. M, sboyle@fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please call out separation distances for all crossing in the storm profiles. Vertical separation distances have been shown on the drawings at each location where a utility pipe crosses a storm main. Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE. Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 13 of 19 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please add a narrative to the Drainage Report indicating which storm sewer pipes are permanent and which will be abandoned once the NECCO outfall is constructed. For clarity, it may also be helpful to add that information to the storm sewer P&P sheets as callouts. A narrative has been added to the Drainage Report to clarify which of the storm pipes are permanent and which are temporary and will be abandoned once the NECCO detention basin and outfall are constructed. The temporary storm pipes have also been identified on the drawings. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Per City Drainage Criteria, detention and water quality are required as part of the development for the adjacent roadways. Per the NECCO design, this detention and water quality is accounted for in the regional NECCO pond. Please revise all proposed storm sewer routing to convey runoff from Basins OS4, OS8, OS9, OS11, OS12, OS13 and OS14 to the regional pond and include these basins in the interim detention volume calculations. In discussions with Stormwater Division staff, it was clarified that the runoff from only a small portion of the off -site streets can be collected and directed to the interim detention basin, and that this situation will exist even once the permanent NECCO detention basin is constructed. This is due to the fact that the surface of Suniga Rd., east of approximately the east boundary of Phase 4 of the Aspen Heights development and the surface of Redwood St., south of approximately the south boundary of Phase 2 of the Aspen Heights development, is at a lower elevation than the design water surface elevation of the detention basins. Thus, runoff from these lower surfaces can only be collected and directed into the Lake Canal, in the interim, and into the NECCO outfall pipe, once that infrastructure is constructed. The fact that this runoff is undetained is compensated for, in the interim, by the fact that the interim detention basin is considerably oversized compared to the detention capacity necessary to serve the Aspen Heights development, and the release rate from the interim detention basin is sized to match the rate of runoff from only the Aspen Heights site under predevelopment conditions. Consequently, the runoff from Aspen Heights is "over detained", which compensates for the street runoff that is released without benefit of detention or water quality enhancement. It was agreed that this compensation is acceptable. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/1112015: Minimum pipe slopes are not being met with this design. Please revise accordingly or provide information in the Drainage Report as to why the minimum slopes cannot be met. The design of the storm drain piping has been revised to ensure that minimum pipe slopes are provided. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02111/2015: If, after revising the storm sewer layout per Comment 4, a sump condition exists as shown for MH510 in the existing design, please investigate the use of a sump and soft bottom instead of a concrete manhole base for this manhole, in order to avoid long-term standing water in the manhole. In discussions with Stormwater Division staff, it was clarified that a soft bottom manhole would not be practical in this instance, since the invert of the manhole is below the water table. Thus, a soft bottom Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE. Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 14 of 19 manhole would allow groundwater to flow into the system, rather than encouraging captured runoff to flow out of the system. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Inlet calculations in the Drainage Report do not match the plans for Inlets 504 and 509. Please review and revise accordingly. The Drainage Report has been revised to ensure that inlet calculations in the Report match the plans for the identified inlets. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please show existing contours on the Swale Plan & Profile. With the revised storm sewer layout per Comment 4, is this swale needed? The Swale P&P drawing has been updated to show existing contours and the tie-in of proposed contours to the existing contours. The swale will be required until such time as the NECCO detention pond and outfall are constructed. Until that time, runoff from the area west and southwest of the Aspen Heights site (remnant flows that previously drained to Dry Creek) will be conveyed, via the swale, to the culvert beneath Redwood St. and ultimately into the Lake Canal. Once the NECCO detention basin and the upstream extensions of the portions of the NECCO storm mains being constructed along the north and south sides of Suniga Rd. as part of the Aspen Heights project are completed, the interim flows being conveyed by the swale will be intercepted and conveyed to the NECCO detention basin, and the swale, along with the culvert beneath Redwood St and the Lake Canal outfall, will no longer be necessary and can be eliminated. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: It does not appear the storm sewer pipe on the north side of Suniga Road has been profiled in this plan set. Please add profile to the revised plan set. Is it possible to move this inlet and pipe segment to align with the existing manhole approximately 40' downstream of the proposed tie-in location? A profile of the pipe connecting the inlet on the north side of Suniga Rd. to the storm main along the north side of Suniga Rd. has been added to the drawings. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Can the proposed 24" stubout and manhole at Sta 19+25 and inlet and manhole at Sta 17+00 be moved to line up with the proposed bends and manholes added at these locations? Also, please remove the bend at Sta 12+00. Bends are not a preferred alternative to changes in alignment, especially in storm sewer as small as the proposed 36". The 24" stubout and manhole at Sta. 19+25 is to serve a future inlet that is to be installed in conjunction with the completion of Biondel St., by others. The manhole and stub are being installed at this time to avoid the need to disrupt the sidewalk and possibly some of the Suniga Rd. pavement to install these elements in the future. In discussions with Stormwater Division staff, it was agreed that the locations of the manholes further downstream would be left unchanged, but that the bends in the storm main alignment would be eliminated in favor of deflecting the pipe joints to follow the curvature of the street. The required deflection Ms. Sheri Langenbe►ger RE: Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 15 of 19 at the pipe joints, necessary to follow the street curvature, is well within the manufacturer's limits. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please daylight Pipe 447 into the proposed detention pond. As designed, there is not outlet for the water captured in this system. Pond grading to the ultimate condition in this area may be required in this location. In discussions with Stormwater Division staff, it was clarified that daylighting of Pipe 447 is not practical at this time, since the invert of Pipe 447 is below the water table. Once the NECCO detention basin is constructed, likely with a clay liner, drainage of Pipe 447 into the NECCO detention basin will be feasible. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: What is the purpose of the sidewalk chase and rundown at Road Sta 31+25? If there is drainage that needs to be captured and conveyed to the pond in this location, please add an inlet and pipe connection to the proposed outfall pipe. The sidewalk chase and rundown are interim facilities, intended to allow capture of runoff from the north side of Suniga St. until such time as the inlet further upstream (connected to the NECCO storm main along the north side of Suniga St., which will not be functional until the NECCO detention basin is completed). Once the NECCO improvements are complete, this curb cut and rundown will no longer be needed. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Offsite construction easements will be required for any work outside the right-of-way in Basin OS10 and at the Lake Canal outfall. All of the storm drain improvements, including the Lake Canal outfall, will be constructed within the Redwood St. right-of-way. No easements are required. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: What do the proposed contours at Osiander Street and Redwood Street tie into? Please show existing grading so that tie-in locations can be adequately established. The drawings have been updated to show the tie-in of proposed and existing contours in the vicinity of Osiander St. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please call out slope grades at the Lake Canal outfall and proposed detention pond. 4:1 is the maximum allowable side slope in these areas. The drawings have been updated to label the slope grades at the Lake Canal outfall. Due to a constricted workspace, resulting from the unwillingness of the adjacent property owner to grant an easement, some of the slopes are steeper than 4:1, while not exceeding a slope of 3:1. In these areas, the slopes will be reinforced or armored to prevent erosion. A note has been added to the drawings setting out the requirement for reinforcement or armoring of the slope, where necessary. Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE: Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 16 of 19 Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02111/2015: Please show the extents and label width of the proposed spillway. Will downstream scour protection be warranted? If not, please address in the Drainage Report. The drawings have been updated to show the extent of the detention basin spillway and to label the proposed improvements. Downstream scour protection will not be warranted, as the slope of the proposed spillway is a gradual 2.5%. This has been described in detail in the Drainage Report. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please fix label sizing issues on the Detention Pond Revisions Sheet. Label sizing has been remedied on the revised drawings. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/11/2015 02/11/2015: Please see redlined plans for erosion control comments and additional minor stormwater comments. Review comments expressed via redlines on the project drawings have been addressed and are reflected in the drawings included with this resubmittal. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounbt@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide the following information in the EXACT format shown below. If your project is started on NAVD88 datum: 1) PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 BENCHMARK #1 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: OR, if project has already been surveyed in NAVD29 Unadjusted datum: 2) PROJECT DATUM: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED (OLD CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) BENCHMARK #1 wl DESCRIPTION street. It can be a temporary patch — just label it as such so when the project that builds these roads complains about the grades it it is clear it was only temporary and they have to redo it. The water main at the Suniga/ Redwood intersection needs to be extended east past the edge of pavement so the intersection will not have to be redone to extend this in the future. Sleeving for future signalization needs to be installed at all 3 legs of the Suniga/ Redwood intersection. Suniga profile - - What is the proposed slope at the west end tie to existing ground? - Need to provide PCR/ PR station and elevation information. - The Aspen Heights plans show different the Blue Spruce/ Suniga intersection grades and slope across the cross pan. As proposed the Aspen Heights plans will need to be revised. - The Blondel grades don't match the approved design plans for Blondel. Either need to match the approved plans or provide a design that shows how this design ties to the end of the existing street. - Notes regarding 30% plans — Since the 30% plans did not provide flowline profiles the note should identify that it is the future flowline projected from the 30% plans. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. - Need profiles of the median edges. - Sag vertical curves at the flowline in a sump situation are not allowed. The flowline curves just east of the intersection need to be adjusted to show how they will work at .5% into the inlets. The sag VC along the centerline does not meet minimum curve length for the delta. Since this could impact the grades and elevations into the intersection this curve needs to be adjusted and shown as how it can meet standards. - The crest VC to east of Redwood doesn't meet minimum length requirements either, but you can leave it as it is —just add the following note to the plans. Vertical Curve lengths (for future) don't meet standards but match 30% design plans. Final design plans meeting standards to be completed prior to construction of this portion of the roadway (by others). What are you proposing for the temporary curb? Is it regular curb, but just considered temporary or is it something else? Need to show where it is to start and stop and identify the type. The power pole in the NW corner of Suniga Road and Redwood Street. How big is this pole and the pad that holds it? What are PRPA restrictions for grading around this pole? How does the pole impact the sidewalk location and ramp grades? A blown up detail of Ms. Sheri Langenbefger RE: Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 17 of 19 ELEVATION: BENCHMARK #2 w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: If using NGVD29 UNADJUSTED the following equation statement will be needed. NOTE: IF NAVD 88 DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NAVD88 = NGVD29 UNADJUSTED + X.XX' Surveying for design and construction of the Aspen Heights development was initiated with NAVD29 as the datum. Accordingly, Option 2 above has been adopted. Benchmark information, in the format prescribed above, has been added to the drawings. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: The titles in the sheet index do not match the titles on the marked sheets. See redlines. Revisions have been made to the drawings to ensure consistency between the drawing titles and the sheet index. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: Please change Vine Drive & New Vine Drive to Suniga Road, and Redwood to Redwood Street. See redlines. Street name labeling has been revised throughout the drawing set, as requested. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Appropriate edits have been made to the drawings to address the identified issues. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines. Appropriate edits have been made to the drawings to address the identified issues. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up on all sheets. See redlines. Appropriate edits have been made to the drawings to address the identified issues. Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE. Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 18 of 19 Comment Number: 7 02/0312015: There are cut off text issues. See redlines. Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 Appropriate edits have been made to the drawings to address the identified issues. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02/03/2015: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Appropriate edits have been made to the drawings to address the identified issues. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/03/2015 02103/2015: Please correct the matchline sheet references. See redlines. The matchline sheet references have been reviewed and corrected as necessary. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: Please reduce the text size to fit in the symbols as marked on sheet 31. See redlines. Text size adjustments have been made, as necessary. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: Please change Vine Drive & New Vine Drive to Suniga Road. See redlines. Street labels have been revised, as requested. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02104/2015: Please correct the matchline sheet references. They are all off by one sheet, except for sheet L6.0. The match line sheet references have been corrected. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/04/2015 02/04/2015: The lighter text & linework marked is not acceptable. It will not scan or reproduce. Please darken it up on all sheets. See redlines. Text and line work weights have been revised, as requested. Ms. Sheri Langenberger RE., Aspen Heights — Off -site Improvements Response to City Review Comments February 27, 2015 Page 19 of 19 I trust that the explanations provided above and the corresponding revisions that have been made to the project drawings will be sufficient and satisfactory, and we look forward to approval of the drawings so that we may move forward with implementation of the improvements depicted on the drawings. If you have questions or comments, please call immediately so that we may clarify or address any outstanding items. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, Owen Consulting Group, Inc. Larry C. Owen, P.E. street. It can be a temporary patch —just label it as such so when the project that builds these roads complains about the grades it it is clear it was only temporary and they have to redo it. The water main at the Suniga/ Redwood intersection needs to be extended east past the edge of pavement so the intersection will not have to be redone to extend this in the future. Sleeving for future signalization needs to be installed at all 3 legs of the Suniga/ Redwood intersection. Suniga profile - - What is the proposed slope at the west end tie to existing ground? - Need to provide PCR/ PR station and elevation information. - The Aspen Heights plans show different the Blue Spruce/ Suniga intersection grades and slope across the cross pan. As proposed the Aspen Heights plans will need to be revised. t - The Blondel grades don't match the approved design plans for Blondel. Either need to match the approved plans or provide a design that shows how this design ties to the end of the existing street. - Notes regarding 30% plans — Since the 30% plans did not provide flowline profiles the note should identify that it is the future flowline projected from the 30% plans. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. - Need profiles of the median edges. - Sag vertical curves at the flowline in a sump situation are not allowed. The flowline curves just east of the intersection need to be adjusted to show how they will work at .5% into the inlets. The sag VC along the centerline does not meet minimum curve length for the delta. Since this could impact the grades and elevations into the intersection this curve needs to be adjusted and shown as how it can meet standards. - The crest VC to east of Redwood doesn't meet minimum length requirements either, but you can leave it as it is —just add the following note to the plans. Vertical Curve lengths (for future) don't meet standards but match 30% design plans. Final design plans meeting standards to be completed prior to construction of this portion of the roadway (by others). What are you proposing for the temporary curb? Is it regular curb, but just considered temporary or is it something else? Need to show where it is to start and stop and identify the type. The power pole in the NW corner of Suniga Road and Redwood Street. How big is this pole and the pad that holds it? What are PRPA restrictions for grading around this pole? How does the pole impact the sidewalk location and ramp grades? A blown up detail of this area needs to be provided to make sure the clearances are met and truly determine where the ramps are to be located. Redwood profile - What are the existing grades and slopes being tied into at the south end? At the north end? Per the lines shown the south flowlines don't appear to tie together. - Need to provide PCR/ PR station and elevation information. - Need to provide curb return profiles. This can either be on the profile sheets or on the details as long as the information is all there. - Have a couple of slopes that doesn't meet minimum slope requirements. - Have several locations where exceeding the maximum grade break allowed. - Need to see a design for Osiander to know that this all ties together. The existing Osiander design doesn't tie into the Redwood profile. - The Suniga/ Redwood intersection doesn't need to be concrete. I provided a copy of the median curb design that was used and included on the Waterfield Third Filing plans and the one that is going to be used on Timberline. Either one of these can be used. The existing detail needs to be changed on both the landscape and utility plans. The plans show the underdrain tying into the interim drainage pipe. Another solution is needed since this is a temporary interim pipe and will be removed or filled in the future. Cleanouts for the underdrain need to be provided every approximately every 100 feet and need to be shown on the plans. I have provided a copy of the underdrain detail and an example of a plan that shows the underdrain locations. Utility and Landscape Plan - Need to show how the concrete nose of the median is to be provided per detail 801. Need street x-sections for Suniga and Redwood. Need addition elevations and information on the intersection details (see plans). Also need a detail for the future Suniga/ Redwood when the road goes through to see how it will work then. For the storm line that runs under the sidewalk. Need notes on this sheet indicating that maintenance hole covers that are in the sidewalk shall have smooth flush lids that meet ADA standards or if possible the MH rotated and placed outside of the sidewalk area. Detail 709 has been replaced with a more current design. The updated detail needs to be used is (D-10B). Additional details needed: 801 — modify as needed for this situation. and 2201. i _ t Grading sheets - Will need the power easement owners signature on the sheets showing grades and improvements under the easement. Landscape Plans — sight distance triangles — I talked with Traffic Operations regarding the sight triangles and they would like these calculated using the current ASHTO standards. This should shorten the sight distances. To do so I will need a variance request that outlines what you've done (assumptions) and the distances that you came up with. This should be done by Larry since it needs to be done by a PE. Once we have a plan with the new distances Joe will review the plans with Clark to verify plant heights and identify and concerns. If you could send me a PDF copy of sheet 10 I need to route that to the Parks department so they can review the proposed irrigation tap and sleeve locations for the median. It looks as though the intent was for street lights along Sungia Road to be placed in the median. I don't believe that will occur. Traffic Operation has marked up the signing and stripping plans in my redlined set with their comments. Grading sheets - Will need the power easement owners signature on the sheets showing grades and improvements under the easement. Landscape Plans — sight distance triangles — I talked with Traffic Operations regarding the sight triangles and they would like these calculated using the current ASHTO standards. This should shorten the sight distances. To do so I will need a variance request that outlines what you've done (assumptions) and the distances that you came up with. This should be done by Larry since it needs to be done by a PE. Once we have a plan with the new distances Joe will review the plans with Clark to verify plant heights and identify and concerns. If you could send me a PDF copy of sheet 10 I need to route that to the Parks department so they can review the proposed irrigation tap and sleeve locations for the median. It looks as though the intent was for street lights along Sungia Road to be placed in the median. I don't believe that will occur. Traffic Operation has marked up the signing and stripping plans in my redlined set with their comments. March 7, 2015 Suniga Road and Redwood Street design plans Please have Greeley and NEWT sign the utility plan mylars before they are submitted to the City for signature. Please provide the updated turning templates with the distance between the turning movements labeled and the revised median design at Suniga and Blue Spruce intersection. Need turning templates to show that the median noses don't extend into the travel paths or need to be adjusted. Many of our median noses are not symmetrical to accommodate the turning movements. This can be exhibits and don't need to be on these plans. For all lefts at these two intersections Suniga Road/ Blondel/ Blue Spruce and Suniga Road/ Redwood. Show WB-67 with min 4 feet between the opposing tracks. A couple of the curves on the Horizontal Control Plan still need to be labeled. The curves on the median where the transitions into the turn lanes occur and the median noses at Suniga and Blue Spruce since they will change from what is shown. Need centerline and tangent information for Suniga Road it is not currently shown on the horizontal control plan or the profile sheets. There are a few remaining spots where New Vine Drive needs to be changed to Suniga Road throughout the plans. The note at the north end needs the reference to saw cut 2 feet removed still. Redwood Grading plan — The note regarding saw cutting at the south end needs to indicate `Sawcut a minimum of 2 feet and connect to existing Redwood St.' The note regarding saw cutting at the north end needs to be different since the existing street surface here is concrete. It needs to state `If the existing concrete edge is not acceptable to the Engineering Inspector full concrete panels will need to be removed to create an acceptable edge' An easement has not been labeled. Need to know if an easement exists where the drainage goes beyond the right-of-way. Is the drainage work on the east side of Redwood within an existing easement? If so label and identify the easement, if not an off -site easement is needed. Why does the temporary curb start before the inlet? The plans don't show that the inlet will be a different grade in the future and will need to be rebuilt, so I don't see why the temporary curb can't start north of the inlet at the PCR. In this way the inlet can be constructed per standards. What are you proposing for the temporary curb? Is it regular curb, but just considered temporary or is it something else? Need to show where it is to start and stop and identify the type. There is a 2 foot minimum from the pole to the sidewalk, so the sidewalk around the pole will need to move back a bit. I have drawn on the plans how it will work. The power pole in the NW corner of Suniga Road and Redwood Street. How big is this pole and the pad that holds it? What -are PRPA restrictions for grading around this pole? How does . . - n the pole impact the sidewalk location and ramp grades? A blown up detail of this area needs to be provided to make sure the clearances are met and truly determine where the ramps are to be located. This has been shown on the landscape plan but not the utility plan. Utility and Landscape Plan - Need to show how the concrete nose of the median is to be provided per detail 801. Need street x-sections for Suniga and Redwood. Suniga Cross Sections - Suniga is a primary road and the minimum cross slope shall carry through the intersections. There are several cross sections in which the cross slopes are not meeting the 2.0% minimum cross slope. - On 3 of the cross sections you are showing the sidewalk slope exceeding the ADA maximum cross slope of 2.0% I really hope this is just an error and that the sidewalk was not designed with a 4.8% cross slope. - Why does the sidewalk on the north side of the road switch back and forth from sloping toward the street and then sloping toward the pond? - Need to show that there is a 1 foot approximately flat area behind the sidewalk as per the standards and details and that the slopes do not start right at the back edge of the sidewalk. - The flowline grades and locations need to be provided as they were on the example I gave you. Redwood Cross Sections - The flowline grades and locations need to be provided as they were on the example I gave you. - Where Osiander will tie in - Redwood needs to retain the 2.0% minimum cross slope. Also need to show that there is a cross pan in this section. - Section10+00 This doesn't look right. The cross section shows that the east side of the road is higher(by a foot or more) but the flowline slopes show that the east side would actually be slightly lower than the west. Need addition elevations and information on the intersection details (see plans). Also need a detail for the future Suniga/ Redwood when the road goes through to see how it will work then. Intersection Details - - The flowline slopes at the ramps need to meet ADA standards. A few that will need to be revised. - On the intersections with the medians, show the crown line location and where the high elevation spot on the median is. - Quite a few locations where the flowline slopes shown on the intersection details do not match the slope information on the profiles. - Can't check several of the intersection detail information because the PCR information is not labeled on the Redwood profiles and the Blondel and Osiander designs have not been submitted. - Have a few locations where the slopes arrows show flows going one direction, but the elevations provided show it should go the other way.