HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.33 MINING STOCK PKWY.0093-2020-BRES (12)Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8 Column9
Burlingame Phase III - COA Permit Comment Response 1 - Engineering - 12-11-2020
* The following matrix is the combined COA Permit Comments per the Permit drawings dated 06-19-2020. The comments are organized per department review and contain the original comment information along with design team
response and the design team member responsible for the response.
Engineering Comments - PJM Reviewer - 359 Design
File Page Parties Notes Design Team Member Design Team Response Date Complete
E-P1.1 40.Drainage Narrative.20200619
(1).pdf
1 Drainage Can you include a brief description of the
overall drainage of Phase III? As if this were a
stand alone document so readers can better
understand overall drainage plan. It appears
that there are two Major Basins, A and B with
Sopris Engineering The report has been
updated to provide
additional background to
the original master
drainage study to include E-P1.2 40.Drainage Narrative.20200619
(1).pdf
1 Drainage Include the Phase II Master Drainage Report in
the next submittal round.
Sopris Engineering A copy of the Phase II
Master Drainage Report
has been provided
E-P1.3 40.Drainage Narrative.20200619
(1).pdf
3 Drainage, Civil Which culvert is newly proposed? Identify Park
3 on the civil sheets, C7.01
Sopris Engineering The culvert that was
added to the design is
referred to as Culvert
31B2 and is located
witihn Park 3. It conveys
flows under the proposed
trail and althought this
culvert was required for
the Phse II improvements
it did not get identified in
the drainage analysis or
plans. Park 3 has been
identified on plans.
E-P1.4 40.Drainage Narrative.20200619
(1).pdf
6 Drainage, Civil Clearly identify the Harmony Pond Design
Point in the civil sheet, C7.01.
Sopris Engineering C.7.01 was re-formatted
to capture the location of
the Harmony Pond
Design Point
E-P1.5 40.Drainage Narrative.20200619
(1).pdf
9 Drainage These cells were cut off in the report. Please
revise the print window so colors descriptions
are visible.
Sopris Engineering The runoff coefficient
spreadsheet was only
used to determine
updated runoff
coefficients and therefore
the remaining inputs were
not necesssary.
E-P1.6 40.Drainage Narrative.20200619
(1).pdf
9 Drainage The acre column for each basin is blank.
Please add these values to the table.
Sopris Engineering The runoff coefficient
spreadsheet was only
used to determine
updated runoff
coefficients and therefore
the remaining inputs were
not necesssary.
E-P1.7 40.Drainage Narrative.20200619
(1).pdf
9 Drainage Did the remaining columns for this table get cut
off? Peak runoff values are not shown.
Sopris Engineering The runoff coefficient
spreadsheet was only
used to determine
updated runoff
coefficients and therefore
the remaining inputs were
not necesssary.
E-P1.8 40.Drainage Narrative.20200619
(1).pdf
19 Drainage Where are these calculations for Basin A?
Does Basin A not drain to Harmony Pond?
Sopris Engineering The stormwater model
was updated to include
the remaining
improvements within
Pond 2 and Harmony
Pond. Pond 2 drainage
basins and associated
infrastructure are
identified with an "A"
suffix and Harmony Pond
drainage basins and
associated infrastructure
are identified with a "B"
suffix. This information
was added to the
drainage narrative for
further clarification.
E-P1.9 40.Geotech Soils - All
Sections.20200619.pdf
2 Geotech Confirm that HP Geotech has reviewed the
final plans. Is additional field exploration
needed? Will those results impact the design?
Sopris Engineering The project is currently in
the process of retaining a
Geotech Engineer for E-P1.10 40.Geotech Soils - All
Sections.20200619.pdf
5 Geotech Are excavation stabilization plans required for
construction?If so, provide COA Engineering
Standard compliant plans for review.
Sopris Engineering The contractor has
determined that
significant stabilization
will not be needed and
therefore Engineered
Standard compliant plans
should not be required.
E-P1.11 40.Geotech Soils - All
Sections.20200619.pdf
8 Geotech Were site specific perc tests performed at
infiltration locations in the final design?
Sopris Engineering Similar to the Phase II
work individual perc tests
will be performed during
construction at the
discretion of the
geotechnical engineer.
E-P1.12 80.Survey.20200619 (1).pdf [1] 19120.02 ISP-ISP SHEET 1 Survey Call out error of closure less than 1/15,000 per
COA Survey Checklist.
Sopris Engineering The error closure has
been updated
E-P1.13 80.Survey.20200619 (1).pdf [2] 19120.02 ISP-ISP SHEET 2 Survey Label roadways Sopris Engineering Roads have been labeled
on Sheet 2
E-P1.14 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 6 Civil Is this ramp an ADA ramp that was not labeled
and did not get a detail on the following
sheets?
Sopris Engineering This is not an ADA ramp
as it leads to a non-
compliant ADA trail.
E-P1.15 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 6 Civil Submit the civil sheets from the master plan for
record keeping with this permit.
Sopris Engineering Phase II 100%
Implementation
Documents have been
provided
E-P1.16 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 6 Civil Are wings on the ADA ramps not shown in the
design because curb is not proposed on the
parking area side? (this condition is seen
throughout the design)
Sopris Engineering That is correct and
consistent with Phase II
approach (tried to remain
consistent)
E-P1.17 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 6 Civil Label elevations on proposed grading contours. Sopris Engineering Contour labels have been
added for the proposed
grading within Lots 3 and
4 and Park 3
E-P1.18 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 8 Civil Show full width truncated domes for
compliance with COA Engineering Standards
on all ADA ramps.
Sopris Engineering Full width truncated
domes set 6" back from
the flowline have been
provided for all formal
street crossing locations
E-P1.19 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 8 Civil Call out 3" high curb height between wings (ie
at apex of the corner).
Sopris Engineering A 3" high curb is provided
at this curb return.
Please re. to Ramp #3
detail page C.3.03
E-P1.20 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 8 Civil Is this street light proposed to be relocated?
Clarify. Call out that all street lights in this plan
shall have a base 4" above surrounding grade.
Sopris Engineering This street light will be
relocated and the
concrete base will be set
4" min. above adjacent
grade. The plans have
been updated
accordingly.
E-P1.21 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 8 Civil How can this ramp be adjusted to better
comply with ramp detail for option 1 for bi-
direction ramps, detail # ENG 202C in the
Engineering Standards? Is the radius the
driving factor?
Sopris Engineering Further review and
coordination with
Engineering has occurred
to improve the design of
this curb return and
associated ADA ramps.
A 3" high curb has also
been integrated. Please
re. to updated detail for
Ramp #4 sheet C.3.03
E-P1.22 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 9 Civil Detectable warning pad shall be located 6-8"
from the flowline per the COA Engineering
Standards Detail 202G.
Sopris Engineering The plans have been
updated to reflect proper
placement of the
truncated domes.
E-P1.23 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 9 Civil Call out elevation of the proposed light pole
bases.
Sopris Engineering Call outs have been
provided that indicated
street light pole bases are
to be set 4" above the
adjacent grades. It
should be noted that
there are only a handful
of proposed street lights
which are located near
pedestrian crosswalks.
The remaining lights are
small bollard lights for
pathway lighting. Notes
have been added to the
plans to identify the
differences and to re.
Landscape plans for
specific light information.
The legend on the Civil
Cover Sheet also
provides clarification of
the different types of
lights.
E-P1.24 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 11 Civil Plan view above calls out detail A on C10.02.
revise for consistency.
Sopris Engineering The plans have been
updated to reference the
correct detail
E-P1.25 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 13 Civil Between stations 15+25 and 15+50 the storm
pipe goes from existing to proposed. Can you
differentiate in line type on the cross sections
and on the plan view. Sheet C4.01 calls out
existing storm, not proposed.
Sopris Engineering The road sections have
been updated to better
reflect existing storm &
utility pipes vs. proposed
storm and utility pipes.
E-P1.26 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 19 Civil COA C&G flowline standard is .75% - .35% is
shown on this profile. Revise to comply with
this standard.
Sopris Engineering The flowline of this curb
return has been updated
to ensure a min. 0.75%
longitudinal slope is being
maintained.
E-P1.27 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 20 Civil Infiltration BMPs are not recommend above
water service lines. Is RG5 no infiltration? How
is bury depth on this service line impacted by
the RG? Can the service line be shifted so it is
not below the RG?
Sopris Engineering This rain garden has
been removed to avoid
this conflict. Water
quality treatment for the
tributary area will be
provided within RG 4B.
This revision has been
noted in the revised
draiange letter.
12/28/2020
E-P1.28 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 20 Civil Confirm 10' separation between inlet and water
service line.
Sopris Engineering Water services were
reviewed and adjusted
where necessary to
provide a min. 10-ft
separation from
inlets/manhole/sdry wells
E-P1.29 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 22 Civil Direction during design was to vary from bury
depth standards. Provide a formal variance to
go in the permit folder - once variance for all
buildings with this conditions is acceptable.
Sopris Engineering A formal variance letter is
included with the
resubmittal docs.
E-P1.30 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 28 Civil Add to note 8 that relocation of shallow utilities
shall comply with separation distances called
out in Table 3 of Section 3.2 in the Engineering
Standards. Note 12 shall also comply with
separation distances in Table 3.
Sopris Engineering Note 8 has been revised
to reference the
separation requirements
as summarized within
Table 3 of Section 3.2.
Note 12 was removed
and replaced with Note 9
which references the
same separation
requirement table in the
Engineering Design
Standards
E-P1.31 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 29 Civil No written comment in file Sopris Engineering NA
E-P1.32 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 29 Civil 12" HDPE does not meet COA standards for
storm infrastructure in the ROW. Revise for 15"
RCP.
Sopris Engineering Phase II design included
HDPE for all onsite storm
pipes and that these
pipes could remain the
same material as the
connect to the City's
system.
E-P1.33 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 29 Civil This sheet shows RG 27B1 (with a red bubble
around it in the comment markups) and this
27B1 - is one denoting the basin and one the
label of the rain garden?
Sopris Engineering Rain Garden 27B1 was
added to the design to
account for the grading
revisions for the offsite
swale. In order to size
this rain garden basin
27B1 was split into two
separeate basins. Basin
27B1.1 is tributary to RG
27B1. There is also a
downstream culvert that
conveys flows from basin
27B1 and therefore this
culvert was identified with
the 27B1.
E-P1.34 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 30 Civil Water service line to building E15 shall be 10'
horizontally separated from the drywell to
prevent freezing of the service line per COA
standards.
Sopris Engineering Water service to Building
15 has been revised to
provide 10-ft min.
separation between the
dry well.
E-P1.35 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 30 Civil COA storm pipe standard is 15" RCP in the
ROW - submit a variance for 12" HDPE to be
used in the ROW.
Sopris Engineering Phase II design included
HDPE for all onsite storm
pipes and under the
Phase II design it was
determined to be
acceptable to have these
onsite pipes to remain the
HDPE to the point of
connection with the City
of Aspen storm system
running within the ROW.
E-P1.36 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 30 Civil Foundation drains are not permitted to tie
directly into storm drywells, they can daylight
then route to the drywell or connect to inlets.
Revise connection.
Sopris Engineering The foundation drain
design for P11 carport
buildings has been
revised and now
connects to a dry well
specific to the foundation
drain system
E-P1.37 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 31 Civil COA standard separation from storm to water
is water 2' above storm lines. Is there concern
for freezing with such shallow storm lines
throughout the design?URMP recommends
bury depth on storm lines to be 7'. If the storm
lines can be deeper, water could be routed
above.
Sopris Engineering Required separation of 2-
ft is provided everywhere.
A variance to the 7-ft bury
depth for storm pipes was
granted with the Phase II
approvals.
E-P1.38 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 31 Civil COA standard separation between storm and
sanitary is 2'. Revise design to comply with this
standard.
Sopris Engineering The design has been
revised to comply with
this standard
E-P1.39 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 31 Civil What is a dry hydrant? Sopris Engineering Dry hydrant is a fire
department connection
that is not directly
connected to a water
distribution system.
E-P1.40 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 36 Civil Foundation drain needs to daylight before
connecting to the storm drywell.
Sopris Engineering The foundation drain
design has been updated
and no longer connects to
any storm dry wells
E-P1.41 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 37 Civil Clarify if this is a foundation drywell next to an
inlet.
Sopris Engineering The previous set of plans
included pipe network
symbols ("D") at all storm
inlets and manholes that
caused some confusion.
The only foundation drain
specifc dry wells
proposed with the
foundation drain design
are south of Building 15
and now one near P11
parking carport to resolve
connecting this
foundation drain to the
storm dry well.
E-P1.42 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 38 Civil Is this a foundation drywell next to an inlet?
Clarify this area.
Sopris Engineering No, the previous
foundation drain plans
had "D" placed over all
storm manholes and
inlets which was caused
by software labeling style.
The plans have been
updated to remove the
"D" and there are only
two foundation dry well
specific structures
proposed. One to serve
Building 15 and one to
serve P11 carports
E-P1.43 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 39 Civil Is this type of inlet existing on site? The
existing inlets have received many complaints
from the residence of Burlingame
(safety of children playing near them), is there
opportunity to install new inlets?
Sopris Engineering The majority of the larger
inlets with cast iron grates
are already installed. The
remaining inlets are
primairily smaller
nyloplast type inlets
E-P1.44 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 40 Civil It appears this a foundation drain specific
drywell, clearly note this is a foundation drain
drywell.
Foundation drains are permitted to connection
to stormwater inlets (structures designed for
conveyance of water) but not stormwater
drywells (stormwater storage infrastructure)
unless it daylights first, like to a rain garden.
Sopris Engineering Correct, this is a dry well
specific to Building 15's
foundation drain system.
The plans have been
updated to clarify this.
E-P1.45 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 40 Civil Foundation drain is not permitted to tie directly
to a stormwater treatment drywell. Revise
design.
Sopris Engineering The foundation drain
design has been updated
and no longer connects to
any storm dry wells
E-P1.46 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 43 Civil Was capacity for the valley pans and ribbon
curbs calculated in MDR?
Sopris Engineering Yes, all street capacities
were confirmed at all
proposed inlets with the
Phase II MDR. Please
re. to Volume 1 for
Harmany Pond and
Volume 2 for Pond 2.
The updated storm water
model also provides
output that indicates no
issues with gutter
capacities for the 5-y or
100-year storm events.
E-P1.47 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 44 Civil The service line is owned by the property
owner, please note: This penetration detail can
create future complications
if/when access is needed due to the difficulty of
accessing the building penetration.
Sopris Engineering Noted
E-P1.48 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 44 Civil,
Architectural
Confirm that proper design consideration was
taken for the 4" service lines running through
the crawlspaces of buildings to the rear
mechanical rooms. Was restraint and the
weight of the pipe considered?
BG Buildingworks The water service lines
are to be be routed below
grade under the
crawlspace slab and then
stub up to the water entry
rooms. With this
approach the pipes will
not hang from the level 1
floors.
E-P1.49 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 47 Civil Call out 1" diameter perforations. Sopris Engineering The plans have been
updated accordingly
E-P1.50 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 47 Civil Who is notified by the high water alarm on the
drywell systems?
Sopris Engineering No pumps are proposed
within the dry wells. The
plans have been revised
accordingly
E-P1.51 90.Civil Plans.20200619 (1).pdf 48 Civil Rain garden media shall comply with URMP
section 8.5.3.1.
Sopris Engineering The plans have been
updated
12/28/2020