Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-11-03nnin DATE: H LI PROJECT ._. COMMENTSHEET DEPARTMENT: C&Lq PROJECT: � ,��.;��. Cr' .�K� hvae-v- PLANNER: --- All comments must be received by: ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below) FOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK - PLAN REVIEW MARCH 5, 1996 WATER STRUCTURE DETAILS • PLAN VIEW OF WEIR STRUCTURE(?), WHERE IS THIS AT? IS IT LOCATED AT PT 2 BETWEEN LAKES I AND 2? • IN SECTION A OF THE ABOVE DETAIL A NOTE INDICATES THAT THE CAP SHOULD BE MADE OF 4 INCH STONE, BUT POINTS TO THE SIDE. THIS NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED AND THE TOP AND SIDES IDENTIFIED AS TO MATERIALS. • ON THIS SHEET THERE IS A DETAIL IN THE MIDDLE THAT SHOWS A 6 INCH DUCTILE PIPE, WHAT IS THIS AND WHERE ON THE SITE IS IT TO BE LOCATED, THIS DETAIL NEEDS A LABEL >� �Cc Date: � Signatures � c CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS: ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 281 NORTH COLLEGE P.O.BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (303)221-6750 14. Will the City take over the park and/or trail in Fossil Creek Meadows? It is Staff's understanding that the City may take over the trail only and incorporate it into their trail system. 15. More details are needed regarding who is doing what with the trails. Transportation Planning (Tom Reiff & Kathleen Reavis) 16. The potential left turn into the park from Fossil Creek Parkway needs further consideration. 17. Is the access to the park from South Lemay Avenue to be a full movement intersection? If so, a left turn lane onto northbound Lemay Avenue may be needed. This would require widening of the entrance. 18. The meandering sidewalks through the main parking lot on the east side of the park are not the best solution to pedestrian movement. 19. The bicycle parking needs to be better distributed and placed. 20. Show the ultimate realignment of South Lemay Avenue on the Site Plan. 21. There is a proposed bicycle/pedestrian (Lemay Trail) underpass at South Lemav Avenue. When and how will it be built? Is it part of the park plan or is it part of the Fossil Creek Trail system? 22. How the surface street bicycle/pedestrian crossings on South Lemay Avenue are going to be done is not yet addressed. 23. How will emergency access through the site be provided? It may be necessary to design a pathway to accommodate emergency vehicles. 24. What intersections will be signalized? Stormwater Utility (Basil Hamdan) 25. The driveway from Fossil Creek Parkway into the park is right along the buffer zone for Fossil Creek. An erosion buffer is needed. 26. Delineate the erosion buffer zones on the utility plans. 27. The SWMM Modeling, as submitted, is not adequate. 28. There are new flows in Fossil Creek that must be taken into account. 29. The standard drainage, grading, and erosion control information must be provided for review. The information previously submitted constitutes about 50% of the standard. Therefore, the comments from City staff reflect about 50%. Natural Resources (Doug Moore 8s Kim Kreimeverl 30. The plans do not have the required natural habitat buffers labeled. A 100' setback from Fossil Creek is required. 31. The existing wetlands on -site are jurisdictional. 32. Is the intersection point for the access from Fossil Creek Parkway into the park already set? The driveway probably should be moved further south to provide adequate separation from Fossil Creek. 33. A Nationwide 404 Permit will be required for any disturbance of the existing wetlands. A mitigation plan for the wetland is required by the Feds. 34. The plan does not comply with Section 3.4.1(E)(3) of the LUC pertaining to the average setback from the required natural area buffer. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments could be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the new development review process and schedule there is a 90-day plan revision resubmittal time -frame (from the applicant to the City) mandated by the City. The 90-day turnaround period begins on the date of this comment letter (January 17, 2001) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. In this case, a resubmittal must be made no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 17, 2001. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to a public hearing before an Administrative Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Please contact me at 221-6341 if you have questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. Sincerely, 4kLv� � ' � Steve Olt Project Planner xc: Engineering Zoning Stormwater Utility Light & Power Poudre Fire Authority Transportation Planning Traffic Operations Natural Resources Advance Planning Parks Planning J-R Engineering Project File #44-00 Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning Citv of Fort Collins January 31, 2001 BHA Design c/o Roger Sherman 4803 Innovation Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Roger, The previous comment letter (dated January 17, 2001) regarding the Fossil Creek Community Park - Project Development Plan (PDP) did not include comments provided on the Current Planning Department's standard Project Comment Sheets from Forestry, Engineering Pavement, Transfort, Transportation Planning, Engineering, and Stormwater because I had not received them yet. I hopefully now have received comments from all departments or reviewing agencies that intend to respond. The following additional comments have been offered: 1. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 2. Rick Richter of the Engineering Pavement Department stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 3. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort stated that future transit service is proposed in the 2020 Transit Plan in the Structure Plan. A reserved location for a future transit stop site should be coordinated with pedestrian access for directness into the park and the street oversizing program. 4. A copy of the comments received from Tom Reiff of the Transportation Planning Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Tom, at 416-2040, if you have questions about his comments. 3`sl forth College A� cnue. I'O. Bos 380 • Fort Collins, CO 80-22-0580 • (970) 221-G750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 5. A copy of the comments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Marc, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his comments. 6. A copy of the comments received from Basil Hamdan of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -lined plans and reports that are being for -warded to the applicant. Please contact Basil, at 224-6035 if you have questions about his comments. This hopefully completes staff and reviewing agency comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming if they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the new development review process and schedule there is a 90-day plan revision resubmittal time -frame (from the applicant to the City) mandated by the City. The 90-day turnaround period begins on the date of the comment letter (January 17, 2001) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. In this case, a resubmittal must be made no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 17, 2001. Due to the substantive nature of some of these comments your resubmittal must be made no more than 90 days from the date of this comment letter. A resubmittal must be made no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 1, 2001. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to a public hearing before an Administrative Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Please contact me at 221-6341 if you have questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. 4teveSinrely, Olt Project Planner REVISION COMMENT SHEET r DATE: April 25, 2001 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #44-00 Fossil Creek Community Park — PDP Type I PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: type date due ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Comments: I . Grading Plan needs to be signed and sealed by a P.E. - The grading plan done by bha will need to signed and sealed by a P.E., provide the appropriate title/information/revision blocks as well as City and District Approval Blocks as required on standard utility plan documents. 2. Add Natural Resources to the utility plan approval block. 3. Will the Lemay improvements be completed prior to the construction of the Park? The maintenance driveway would have to be extended in the interim. 4. Drainage and erosion control plan sheets are difficult to read and won't be very reproducible. - This is especially the case with the contour numbers. Please make the set more clear. 5. Shouldn't the underpass at Lemay be designed at this time (or the entire Lemay Avenue roadway realignment?) — What is the status on the Lemay Avenue design? Without having the design finalized at this time, does it leave to chance that the driveway approach to Lemay and grading along the east property will not tie into the roadway properly? In addition, isn't it possible that the underpass design might not work or be more difficult to construct to meet ADA with the onsite grading already established? 6. Distinguish on the plant the improvements that were previously approved. - A portion of the trail improvements shown on the plan set were previously approved as part of the Huntington Hills 7th P.U.D. This (as well as any previously approved improvements) should be delineated on the plan set, referencing the approved project utility plans. 7. Compare improvements to obligation in the Huntington Hills 7th DA. - I would strongly suggest the Parks Department review the Development Agreement for Huntington Hills 7th Filing with regards to obligations for construction as well as reimbursements between the City, Andover, and MSP. The Huntington Hills Developer is currently obligated to construct several pedestrian path improvements. Details need to be worked out if the City (Parks) wants to construct the improvements ahead of the timeframes specified that Huntington Hills 7th developer is required to do in the D.A. 8. Driveway details are needed for the driveways out to the public streets. -Provide these details on the utility plan set. Date: May 22, 2001 Signature: _ PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS ❑ Plat 0 Site 9 Utility 23 Landscape 0 Drainage Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS 9. In general, plan set is lacking. - Provide spot elevations on the grading plan, call out proposed improvements (bridges, sidewalk/trail widths, curb and gutter type, etc.) which were shown in more detail on the site plan. 10. Site design needs to be coordinated with P.F.A. - 16' of emergency access easement is apparently being proposed. Is this ok with P.F.A.? The sidewalk/trail width must be adequate and support emergency vehicle loading if these are needed by P.F.A I t . Emergency access easement needs to be dedicated for the fire lane. — This easement needs to connect to public right-of-way, as such the emergency access easement should continue through the parking lot areas out to Lemay and Fossil Creek Parkway. 12. The landscaping being shown on the utility plan should be removed or noted as for reference only as the Landscape Plan is the document that enforces landscaping requirements. 13. Additional comments may be made with further information provided. Development Review Comments — Page 2 R WISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: April 25, 2001 TO: Tech Svs PROJECT: #44-00 Fossil Creek Community Park — PDP — Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: May 16, 2001 No Comment ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Dat& Site _ Drainage Report Signatu&)cr _ Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape Citv of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning Citv of Fort Collins May 24, 2001 BHA Design c/o Roger Sherman 4803 Innovation Drive Fort Collins. CO. 80525 Dear Roger, Staff has reviewed your revision documentation for the Fossil Creek Community Park - Project Development Plan (PDP) that was submitted to the City on April 25, 2001, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Company (Excel Energies) stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 2. A copy of the comments received from Jenny Nuckols of the Zoning Department is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Jenny, at 221-6760, if you have questions about her comments. (Please understand that several comments are coming from a Fort Collins resident/user's position and are more of a suggestive nature.) 3. A copy of a comment letter received from Terry Farrill of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Terry at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have questions about his comments. 4. Tom Reiff of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. Walkways through the parking lots should be aligned to directly cross the drive aisles. b. Design of the Fossil Creek trail underpass should be designed with the overall Site Plan. '_N I '\01111 PU. Box �80 • Port Collins, CO 8052"_'-0580 • (1)70) 221-(1 50 • FAX (970) 416-2020 C. Coordinate with the Poudre Fire Authority to ensure that the emergency access path is built to accommodate their support equipment. Please contact Tom, at 416-2040, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Michael Chavez of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. A fire lane is required. It shall be visible by painting and signage and shall remain unobstructed. b. Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 600' along an approved roadway. No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a hydrant. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Please contact Michael, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 6. Pete Wray of the Advance Planning Department indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 7. Comments received from Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments. 8. Steve Olt of the Current Planning Department offered the following comments: a. Site lighting: The proposed Types "A" and "B" are specific to the ballfields and tennis courts (respectively) that require higher levels of lighting with a truer rendition. However, why do Types "C" and "D" have to be Metal Halide sources? The lower wattages are fine but, as stated in Section 3.2.4(D)(5) of the Land Use Code (LUC), a High Pressure Sodium light source can provide adequate illumination with low contrast and brightness and is a permitted light source (as well as being the City's recommended light source for areas such as parking lots and pedestrian ways). Metal Halide general gives a brighter, whiter light. Is this too much? JREngineering, Ltd. 4812 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 282-4335 • FAX (970) 282-4340 September 18, 1996 Ms. Sheri Wamhoff, Civil Engineer Engineering Department Development Review Division City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Comments to Fossil Creek Community Park, Lakes Dear Sheri: 4935 North 30th Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80919 (719) 593-2593 • FAX (719) 528-6613 6110 Greenwood Plaza Blvd. Englewood, Colorado 80111 (303) 740-9393 • FAX (303) 721-9019 JR Engineering, Ltd. is pleased to submit the revised Utility Plans and Drainage Report for the above referenced project These plans and report have been revised based on the City's review comments of March 4, 1996. Engineering l . Plan view of weir structure(?). Where is this? Is it located at PT 2 between Lakes I and 2? Weirs are located at Design Points 2 & 3. A note has been added to the plan view detail to clari& the locations. (.See Sheet 6 of 6.) 2. In Section A of the above detail a note indicates that the cap should be made of 4 inch stone, but points to the side. This needs to be clarified and the top and sides identified as to materials. Section A was referring to benches that would be near the path above the weirs. These benches have been eliminated. 3. On this sheet, there is a detail in the middle that shows a 6 inch ductile pipe. What is this and where on the site is it to be located? This detail needs a label. This is an equalizing/drain pipe. It will be located between the lakes. Notes have been X V901806ACOMMENTS. W PD yL 1�9 Recycled b. The Final Landscape Plan should show the lower level plantings (shrubs, flowers, ornamental grasses, ground covers, etc.), especially where they are critical to screening of areas such as parking lots. C. Adequate bicycle racks in appropriate locations do not appear to be shown on the Site Plans. d. Additional comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Steve, at 221-6341, if you have questions about these comments. 9. A copy of the comments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Marc, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his comments. 10. A copy of the comments received from Wes Lamarque of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -lined plans and reports that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Wes, at 221-6681, if you have questions about his comments. 11. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort indicated that the proposed transit stop location as shown on the Site Plan, being central to the park, is good. Transit service is planned according to the City's 2020 Transit Plan (in the City Structure Plan). 12. AT&T Broadband (cable TV) indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review meeting on May 16, 2001: Transportation Planning (Tom Reiffl 13. The pedestrian crossing on Lemay Avenue needs a pedestrian signal. 14. Adequate design for the pedestrian underpass at Lemay Avenue needs to be provided. 15. Is the 8' wide pathway in the park wide enough to accommodate Poudre Fire Authority service vehicles? 16. The pedestrian connections through the parking lots should be continuous and direct. Stormwater Utility (Wes Lamaroue) 17. Enlarge the drainage plan to 1" = 50' for legibility reasons. 18. The utility plans are not showing curb cuts for the parking lots. 19. More work is needed on the drainage report and plans. The hydrologic model does not include off -site drainage. 20. This development proposal is not ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. Natural Resources (Doug Moore) 21. He is still checking to determine if the plan complies with Section 3.4.1(E)(3) of the LUC pertaining to the 80% average setback from the required natural area buffer. 22. Wetland mitigation is required. This completes the comments that have been received to date. Additional comments may be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the development review process and schedule there is a 90-day plan revision resubmittal time -frame (from the applicant to the City) mandated by the City. The 90-day turnaround period begins on the date of this comment letter (May 24, 2001) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. In this case, a resubmittal must be made no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 22, 2001. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to a public hearing before an Administrative Hearing Officer (or the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision if any modifications of standards are necessary). Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Please contact me at 221-6341 if you have questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. Sincerely, *evlt Project Planner xc: Engineering Zoning Stormwater Utility Poudre Fire Authority Transportation Planning Traffic Operations Natural Resources Parks Planning J-R Engineering Project File #44-00 DATE: June 20, 2001 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #44-00 Fossil Creek Community Park — PDP Type I PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: July 18, 2001 ❑ No Problems * Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Comments: 1. Now that the plans are calling out a pedestrian bridge, is a design of the ped bridge needed from Stormwater and Natural Resources? No vertical alignment is shown, the plans don't call out any detail of the bridge, etc. 2. Will the final plat show dedication of the necessary easements on the plat or will these be by separate document? 3. Are access ramps being proposed for the connections into the park from the main driveway to Lemay out to the crosswalks? 4. How does future grading for parking lot expansion work? As it appears that the grading currently shown on the plan set does not show the future grading with the parking lot expansion, this will need to be reviewed in the future, perhaps as part of a minor amendment process for the expansion. 5. The beading plan needs to show that the onsite grades will tie into the existmg/interim improvements associated with Lemay Avenue. The grading plan implies that grading will occur at this time to create a low spot for the future underpass. Should a low spot be created at this time without the underpass? Date: July 24, 2001 Signature: — PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISION, ❑ Plat 21 Site 21 Utility 2 Landscape ❑ Drainadfc- Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS .m Project Comments Sheet ` Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: July 11, 2001 PROJECT: FOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK PDP - TYPE 1 444-00 All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: July 18, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Dept: Engineering rd Issue Contact: Marc Virata Shouldn't the underpass at Lemay be designed at this time? Without having the design finalized at this time, does it leave to chance that the design might not work or be more difficult to construct with the onsite grading already established? 7/11 - Sheet 6 shows on a note that the exact location of the underpass has not been determined but on sheet 12 the grading and appearance of a wingwall seems to imply a location has been specified and will be constructed. Sheet 18 has the note that this is to be built in the future... how will grading be done in an "interim" basis so as to not cause a drainage problem? Issue Contact: Marc Virata Distinguish on the plant the improvements that were previously approved. -A portion of the trail improvements shown on the plan set were previously approved as part of the Huntington Hills 7th P.U.D. This (as well as any previosuly approved improvements) should be delineated on the plan set, referencing the approved project utility plans. 1 of 2 �YiC l(/R2G� T7� 1��� 6 Issue Contact Marc Virata Compare improvements to obligation in the Huntington Hills 7th DA. I would strongly suggest the Parks Department review the Development Agreement for Huntington Hills 7th Filing with regards to obligations for construction as well as reimbursements between the City, Andover, and MSP. The Huntington Hills Developer is currently obligated to construct several pedestrian path improvements. Details need to be worked out if the City (Parks) wants to construct the improvements ahead of the timeframes specified that Huntington Hills 7th developer is required to do in the D.A. 7/11 Are the improvements proposed on the northwest corner of the site being coordinated with the multi -family developer? 21 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Now that the plans are calling out a pedestrian bridge, is a design of the ped bridge needed from Stormwater and Natural Resources? No vertical alignment is shown, the plans don't call out any detail of the bridge, etc. 22 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Will the final plat show dedication of the necessary easements on the plat or will these be by separate document? 23 Issue Contact. Marc Virata Are access ramps being proposed for the connections into the park from the main driveway to Lemay out to the crosswalks? 24 Issue Contact: Marc Virata How does future grading for parking lot expansion work? Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape 2 of 2 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: August 8, 2001 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #44-00 Fossil Creek Community Park PDP (Type I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: August 29, 2001 , x� No Comment [a Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** Ccoscf� Gc`-�,/"•,�9c CrCU&C--5 4 "l r� T-" vF 1 `� / S . E4SCL"&P l 1, C,a ti Li6l be-. 10C-Qj«l. at site _ Drainage Report _ Odier _ Utility _ Redline Utility — Landscape 6zProject Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Port Collins Current Planning DATE: August 21, 2001 PROJECT: FOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK PDP - TYPE 1 #44-00 All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: August 29, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Dept: Engineering 5 Issue Contact Marc Virata Distinguish on the plant the improvements that were previously approved. -A portion of the trail improvements shown on the plan set were previously approved as part of the Huntington Hills 7th P.U.D. This (as well as any previosuly approved improvements) should be delineated on the plan set, referencing the approved project utility plans. 6 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Compare improvements to obligation in the Huntington Hills 7th DA. I would strongly suggest the Parks Department review the Development Agreement for Huntington Hills 7th Filing with regards to obligations for construction as well as reimbursements between the City, Andover, and MSP. The Huntington Hills Developer is currently obligated to construct several pedestrian path improvements. Details need to be worked out if the City (Parks) wants to construct the improvements ahead of the timeframes specified that Huntington Hills 7th developer is required to do in the D.A. 7/11 Are the improvements proposed on the northwest corner of the site being coordinated with the multi -family developer? 21 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Now that the plans are calling out a pedestrian bridge, is a design of the ped bridge needed from Stormwater and Natural Resources? No vertical alignment is shown, the plans don't call out any detail of the bridge, etc. 1 of 2 22 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Will the final plat show dedication of the necessary easements on the plat or will these be by separate document? 23 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Are access ramps being proposed for the connections into the park from the main driveway to Lemay out to the crosswalks? 24 Issue Contact: Marc Virata How does future grading for parking lot expansion work? 38 Issue Contact: Marc Virata How does the grading plan tie into interim/existing Lemay? Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape Project Comments Sheet 6 desist Selected Departments Citv of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: August 22, 2001 PROJECT: FOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK PDP - TYPE 1 444-00 All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: August 29, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Dept: Engineering 23 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Are access ramps being proposed for the connections into the park from the main driveway to Lemay out to the crosswalks? 38 Issue Contact: Marc Virata How does the grading plan tie into interim/existing Lemay? 49 Issue Contact: Marc Virata The plat is incomplete. Utility/Drainage/waterline easements (or areas) are not delineated. Ownership information is not included. (Internal, need to verify who the undersigned is and if we assign responsibilities to departments.) Label the emergency access area. Are lots being created along the southeast boundary of the site? 50 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Clarify if easements by separate document is still the case on Sheet 2 of the utility plan. 51 Issue Contact. Marc Virata Is Stormwater/Natural Resources okay with the future design of the ped bridge? 1 of 2 Ms. Sheri Wamhoff September 18, 1996 Page 2 added to the plan sheet and a label on the detail sheet. (See Sheets 2 of 6 and 6 of 6.) Parks and Recreation No pink rip -rap. Notes have been added to the plan and detail sheets stating that no pink rip -rap is to be used ( See sheets 2 of 6, 4 of 6, and 5 of 6.) Stormwater Please provide details of the time of concentrations used to develop the reservoir inflow hydrographs. All supporting calculations and assumptions are needed. Please provide supporting documentation of the parameters (slope, overland flow length, channel flow length) used to calculate the time of concentrations. Existing and proposed grading plans could be used as supporting information. This information has been added to the report and plans. 2. There appears to be details of drainage facilities (pipe profiles, swale cross -sections) discussed within the report, but are not shown on the plans. Please provide profiles for all proposed storm sewers and cross -sections for all proposed swales. Please show further details of the emergency overflow swales. Profiles for all pipes are shown on Sheet 5 of 6. Cross sections of all proposed swales are shown on Sheet 4 of 6. Details of the emergency overflow swales have been added to Sheet 4of6. 3. Please provide a drainage plan, summarizing all drainage information. The plan should include off -site flows, 100-year reservoir releases, and the 100-year water surface elevation for each reservoir. Please provide a drainage summary table. This information has been provided on the revised plans. 4. Please supply calculations to verify that the rip -rap specifications comply with the drainage criteria. Please include rip -rap specifications for each proposed location of rip -rap. The calculations have been added to the report. Information concerning the specific X.A901806ACOMMEN"IS.WPD 52 Issue Contact: Marc Virata The grading plan (again) does not label existing contours to make the plan set clear. The utility plan grading sheets need to be better labeled. 53 Issue Contact: Marc Virata The proposed contours on site do not tie into the existing contours near Lemay Avenue. It appears in cases that 4 feet of grading difference between existing and proposed will result. Signature Date CHECK RE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape 2 of Ms. Sheri Wamhoff September 18, 1996 Page 3 locations has been added to he plans. 5. Provide more details of the proposed bridge crossings. The 100-year water surface elevation and the elevation of the bridge should be shown. Please show, on the grading plan, further details of the grading surrounding these overflow swales. Detail Son Sheet 5 of 6 shows a profile of the channel beneath the bridges. The hydraulic grade line for the 100-year storm and the bridge elevation are included on the profile. The bridge channel detail on Sheet 4 of 6 shows the grading around the bridge and the channel. Spot elevations are also included. 6. The plans for Huntington Hills 4th filing show a storm sewer at the location of swale B. Was this pipe constructed? Please verify the location of drainage outfall from the 4th filing. This pipe was constructed as part of Filing 4 at the location shown on the revised plans. Please show the location of the future outfall swale from Lake # 1 to Fossil Creek. Will the outfall swale be constructed in Phase 2? The proposed outfall swale to Fossil Creek is shown on Sheet 2 of 6. The swale has been constructed. The plans for the Huntington Hills 5th Filing shows water quality wetland areas at the outfall for the 5th Filing. Will these be removed with the construction of the lakes? These water quality wetland areas were not constructed. They have been replaced by the stilling basins at eh outfall locations as shown on the revised plans. 9. Please discuss the details of these areas and how they will be coordinated with the grading of the lakes. See Item 8. 10. Please verify that the Parks and Recreation Dept. approves of the rip -rap protection, or do they want to use an alternative approach. Craig Foreman with the Parks and Recreation Department has been coordinated with throughout the design portion of this project. X:\901806\COMMENTS. W PD Ms. Sheri Wamhoff September 18, 1996 Page 4 11. Please show all proposed contours tying into existing off -site contours. Will there be any grading on private property? Please show contours for the existing lots of the 4th filing. This information has been added to the revised plans. 12. The grading of swales B, C, and D should tie to the existing swales and lot contours. Please show all existing storm sewer outfalls. Noted. 13. Certification of all drainage and reservoir facilities will be required prior to acceptance by the City. Drainage and reservoir facilities will be certified as soon as the construction is completed. 14. Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional review comments. Discussion concerning the review comments on the redlined plans and report can be found next to the review comments. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at (970) 282-4335. Thank you. Sincerely, JR Engineering, Ltd. David W. Klockeman, Project Manager X:A901806ACOMMENTS. W PD PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: December 20, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #44-00 Fossil Creek Community Park PDP — (LUC) PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: January 17, 2001 ❑ No Problems ICJ Problems or Concems (see below or attached) General Comments: Based on Section 3.3.1 of the LUC, shouldn't this project be platted because of the construction of building structures? Is emergency access be provided to allow emergency services to get from Fossil Creek Parkway to Lemay Avenue? If provided, an emergency access easement should be dedicated. The use of radius style driveways out to Lemay and Fossil Creek Parkway is not allowed in the Land Use Code and requires a modification in accordance with section 3.6.2(L)(2)(e). This modification would be supported out to Lemay Avenue because Lemay is an arterial street, if the applicant wishes to pursue it, and would most likely be approved out to Fossil Creek Parkway. Where does the sidewalk/trail lead to or end proceeding north of the site? It is shown ending as an "arrow". Are the obligations for sidewalk/trail construction understood between the park site and Huntington Hills 7t'9 Utility Plan Comments: ■ The information is not complete enough on the utility plan for a PDP submittal. More detail is needed on the grading plan, spot elevations, how the driveways tie into the public streets, etc. • The utility plan should show the approved Fossil Creek Parkway design, (as approved with the Huntington Hills 7t' Filing) and how this project ties into the approved design. • Can the access off Fossil Creek Parkway be moved further south to help accommodate potential southbound left -turn lane movements into the site, as it appears the bridge over Fossil Creek is a constriction and will not allow for the center turn lane? • The access out to Lemay Avenue should be coordinated with Street Oversizing's realignment of Lemay Avenue to ensure that the location of temporary or permanent access to the roadway. Revise the General Notes as attached. Landscaping Plan Comments: The landscaping along Lemay should be situated to avoid potential sight distance easements, especially with the location of the southern driveway along the Lemay Avenue curve. (additional comments may be made with a more complete PDP submittal) Date: January 24, 2001 Signatur- _ PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISION% 0 Plat 2 Site Q Utility Rl Landscape 0 Drainag Report 0 NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS PROJECT jarA COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: December 20, 2000 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #44-00 FOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK PDP — TYPE 1 (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: January 17, 2001 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference - c'Meiyr��C Gr��55eosr �-7T fuc�lv5 stye G)�,✓zwt�� Off` ��'`�OsS�� CiPz fFwra% .- shot//d y6c�.v u`'v'ovzU /bsSr� C.cse�.f-�f't:vAy �c�s, y% 0-7 - If P�� !•' �J/ SV1"r r� C(( OD !p !ao -e T/IAZ.srT Lt7cdl%.D•ri O�j LE.til�y�r ��2/— D.0 ZG�zC7 Pc<9 J S ova o �o©eo.�9T� yi/ Te�vrrfl�rr �- F177-1 L©c.� r pa/ Of /SUS 5 T TI ���+7/L� S��CKrvG �4si %Cif �je,l�lv6"7 - SHd//�� �9vc �P��✓Z� O.Pa�ivG fv/c �E•-r.�y S-v ��v�r,��.zoy Signature - C / / / />9 Kw6 Ovice ? d .;, , C-eeEt t CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other �- -Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Plannin- City of Fort Collins January 17, 2001 BHA Design c/o Roger Sherman 4803 Innovation Drive Fort Collins. CO. 80525 Dear Roger, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Fossil Creek Community Park - Project Development Plan (PDP) that was submitted to the City on December 20, 2000, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. Gary Huett of Public Service Company (Excel Energies) stated that thev have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 2. Doug Martine of Light & Power stated that a copy of their comments from the April 10, 2000 conceptual review meeting is being provided to the applicant with this comment letter. Street trees along South Lemay Avenue need to be placed a minimum of 40' (horizontally) from street lights. 3. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Broadband (cable television) stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 4. Peter Wray of the Advance Planning Department stated that it is not clear how the Fossil Creek Regional Trail integrates with this plan. Otherwise, it is a good plan. 5. A copy of the comments received from Jenny Nuckols of the Zoning Department is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Jenny, at 22 1-6760, if you have questions about her comments. ],til G)rlh (ollogc:Acrnuc P.O. Boz �RII •Fort Collins, C ) &05'_2-( 5 ) • (070) 221-0 0 • FAX (97/0) 416-2020 6. Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, stated that she has no comments at this time. regarding the City's irrigation and water conservation standards. 7. The Water/Wastewater Department stated that this park site will be served by the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. Please contact them directly for their water and sanitary sewer service requirements. 8. Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review meeting on January 17, 2001: Engineering (Marc Virata) 9. The condition of the utility plans constitute, generally, a 50% submittal. Therefore, the Engineering Department comments are general in nature. 10. On the utility plans, the private drives are shown as "radius style". Section 3.6.2(L)(2)(e) of the Land Use Code (LUC)states: "The connection of a private drive with a public street shall be made with a driveway cut using a "New Driveway Approach" in accordance with city street standards." A request for a modification to this standard must be submitted to the City for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. A Code change to this standard may be taken to City Council this spring (2001); therefore, Staff will help the applicant write this modification request. 11. The approved design for Fossil Creek Parkway, along the west side of the park, should be shown on the utility plans. Please contact Matt Baker, at 224-6108, for this information. 12. The traffic study has some problems. The driveway from the west parking lot on -site to Fossil Creek Parkway may have to move further south to allow for a left turn lane into the park. If this is to happen, can the existing wetlands be mitigated? 13. South Lemay Avenue is part of the City's 2020 Transit Plan.