Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.230 E Hopkins Ave.0089.2018 (14).ACBKP.O. Box 3901 Eagle, Colorado 81631 YARNELL CONSULTING & CIVIL DESIGN, LLC (970) 323-7008  8/14/2019 229 Midland Ave. Basalt, Colorado 81621 Engineering1_0089.2018.Acbk_230 E Hopkins Page 1 of 3 PJ Murray City of Aspen Engineering Department 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 101 Aspen, Colorado 81611 PJ.Murray@CityOfAspen.com Subject: Engineering1_0089.2018.ACBK_230 E Hopkins Comment Responses PJ: Thank you for your thorough review of our project. Please find your comments and the associated responses listed below for the above-referenced project. 1. Sheet C5. Street light shall be relocated to the west of the wing. Include COA light pole base detail in the civil sheets. YCCD Response: Per your email on August 12, the light shall be relocated to the area between the ramps. The relocation is reflected on all sheets and the standard detail sheet is on C9.1. The height requirement is on the Detailed Grading Plan Sheet C5.1. 2. Sheet C5.1. Call out tie in points to ensure alley grading conveys drainage to Monarch Street. YCCD Response: Additional spot elevations have been added to the drawing. 3. Sheet C5.1. High point between ramps need to be 3” minimum. YCCD Response: This sort of detail is more appropriate in the city’s standard detail but a note has been added to satisfy the comment. 4. Sheet C5.2. It seems this is called out as a drywell in the drainage report. Please revise so the drainage report, detail sheet and this sheet refer to this infrastructure consistently as a pump vault or drain basin. YCCD Response: The language within the report has been revised to “drain basin.” 5. Sheet C5.2. Since WQCV treatment is provided in the green roofs, provide a detail. YCCD Response: As previously discussed, treatment is not being provided in the green roof. Alternatively, all treatment is within the planter along the east side of the structure. At no place in the drainage report are we saying treatment is anywhere except the planter. Per our discussion, you are going to refer to the landscape details to satisfy any questions you have regarding the design. Note 6 has been added to Sheet C5.2 so the question does not arise again. 6. Sheet C5.2. Call out pipe slope and diameter to connect planter to pump vault. YCCD Response: The pipe size has been added. However, the pipe size and slope information are on Sheet C6.2 with reference to the detail on Sheet C9.1. No slopes are shown on Sheet C5.2 as this will over-complicate the intent of this drawing which is to delineate drainage basins. 08/14/2019 P.O. Box 3901 Eagle, Colorado 81631 YARNELL CONSULTING & CIVIL DESIGN, LLC (970) 323-7008  8/14/2019 229 Midland Ave. Basalt, Colorado 81621 Engineering1_0089.2018.Acbk_230 E Hopkins Page 2 of 3 7. Sheet C6.1. 4” service lines are reviewed like a main line, provide the following: a. A profile of the water line, show required restraints and the connection to the building b. Fire flow calcs that show a 2” line fails to provide adequate pressures YCCD Response: The fire flow calculations and tables provided Kubed Fire Suppression indicate a 2-inch water service fails to provide the required fire flow. This information is being included in the resubmittal. A 4-inch is necessary for this building. A profile showing the requested information is shown on Sheet C6.1. 8. Sheet C9.1. This drywell does not meet COA URMP standards for a 2 chamber drywell which provides WQCV treatment. Is this drywell meant to treat for water quality or is all treatment in the planter along Monarch? Drywell minimum depth per the URMP is 10’. Revise drywell design to comply with URMP. YCCD Response: All WQCV treatment is proposed in the planter. Per our discussions, this is not intended to be a drywell that conforms with city standards; therefore, we have revised the labeling to refer to it as a drain basin. 9. Sheet C9.1. Clarify that the break shown on the detail represents vertical and horizontal break in the scale and that the 3.5’ vertical dimension is a minimum requirement for bury depth on the pipe. YCCD Response: A label has been added to the sheet accordingly. 10. Drainage Report. Please note a thorough maintenance plan will be required at time of CO for the property. It will need to include a description of how drainage works on the property, how to maintenance the infrastructure, and how to know when the system is not working properly. This document will be for the owner / HOA / property manager so it shall be easy to understand. YCCD Response: This will be prepared and submitted at a later date. 11. Drainage Report. The hydraulic calcs in Appendix B still call out soil type B. Were the calculations updated when the geotech found the soils to be Type A? YCCD Response: The calculations were all updated for the resubmittal in February. Refer to page 24 of the “Drainage Package” PDF. We do not see anywhere in Appendix B of the February package that states soils are Type B. Furthermore, Section 1.2 of the report explains the discrepancy between the URMP and the site-specific geotechnical investigation. 12. Sheet C9.1. Per sheet C5.2, it looks like there are three inverts to the pump vault. Show all three pipes. YCCD Response: This is not typical practice as this is a section view, plus all the pipes come in at the same elevation. The others are omitted for drawing clarity. But to satisfy the comment, they have been added. 08/14/2019 P.O. Box 3901 Eagle, Colorado 81631 YARNELL CONSULTING & CIVIL DESIGN, LLC (970) 323-7008  8/14/2019 229 Midland Ave. Basalt, Colorado 81621 Engineering1_0089.2018.Acbk_230 E Hopkins Page 3 of 3 13. Sheet C9.2. The landscape media in the planters must meet URMP standards for bio- retention gardens to provide treatment for the WQCV. Include a note. YCCD Response: Note 7 has been added to the detail on Sheet C9.2. 14. Sheet C9.2. How will the 8” gravel buffer be maintained in the winter? The gravel will be impacted during snow removal. Pervious pavers may be a more permanent solution. YCCD Response: Per our discussion, the material proposed in this area is cobble – two to three inches in size – set one inch below the adjacent sidewalk. This should not impact the city’s snow removal operations. Furthermore, it is private property as the right-of-way limit is the back of walk; therefore, city equipment should not be operating over the cobbles. References to “gravel” on the drawings have been replaced with “cobble.” Sincerely, Justin J. Yarnell, PE Colorado PE Number 47241 08/14/2019