Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEW PROSPECT - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2014-02-12of City Collins Current Planning PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Fax: 970-224-6134 DATE: July 20, 2012 TO: Pavement Mgmt. FINAL PLAN COMMENT SHEET PROJECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard FDP120011 New Prospect Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: August 15, 2012 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference ® No Problems ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or Accela) Name (please CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax k9ov. com/de velopmentreview October 31, 2012 Terence Hoaglund Vignette Studios P.O. Box 1889 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: New Prospect, FDP120011, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970.221.6567, mvirata(ci)-fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: The drive approaches for the two private drives intersecting the south side of Ellis Street and Apex Drive appear to be built as a standard street intersection as evident by the reference of LCUASS detail 708. These drive approaches need to be concrete to the property line and be built with the Standard Drive Approach (LCUASS Detail 707). Note #3 on Sheet C-010 does indicate the use of concrete to the right-of-way, but combining this with 708 instead of 707 seems confusing. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: More information is needed on the construction plan set for the two inlets proposed in proposed driveways. Please have details provided on the construction plan set showing cross sectional views for both the inlets and the driveways, how the inlet grate matches these driveway grades, etc. It may be worth looking into having the inlets be placed behind the gutter. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Were additional variance requests intended to be submitted beyond those granted during the PDP? If so, I did not receive a copy with this submittal. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970.221.6567, mvirata cDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Can the possibility be explored of widening Ellis Street out to 36 feet in width approaching Prospect Road? The wider width would help create an approach onto Prospect Road that would better allow a three lane cross-section to function (with right -in, left -out, and right -out maneuvers). The intent would be that the 36 feet would extend for a short distance past the intersection such that vehicles at the intersection We've had the 30 feet local street cross section widened out to 36 feet or larger at arterial intersections in development such as Pinnacle Townhomes (with Robertson Street at 39 feet), Lemay Avenue Estates, Sidehill and Observatory Village. It appears that since additional right-of-way occurs on the west side of Ellis Street, it may not be as impactive to accommodate this widening. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Please provide access ramps that allow for a crossing for the Ellis Street/Apex Drive street turn (no striped crosswalk), perhaps this could occur with the extension of the trail from Tract C out to this street turn (realizing that it appears an electric transformer may be planned for this area, which may be of concern). Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Please label "(Private Drive)" on all sheets for the Sprocket Drive and Ellis Street loop south of Apex Drive. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: The site and construction plans need to specify signs being added to the entrances of the Sprocket Drive and Ellis Street loop indicating that each street is privately owned and maintained. Please provide a detail of these signs on the construction plan set, examples of these are with the existing Council Tree Avenue in Front Range Village and the under construction Choice Center Drive in Choice Center. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Please verify whether driveover curb is intended to be used in public right-of-way. A driveover curb detail didn't appear to be provided in the details sheet. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: What are the agreements that will be required for the work that occurs offsite of the property onto City owned land to the south? (Is it unusual for a private storm sewer line to be placed in City owned property?) Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: The engineer will need to verify whether a 404 permit is needed from the Army Corps. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Please remove "P.D.P." at the end of "New Prospect P.D.P." on the title of the plat. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: In addition to the previous comment, on the plat, there needs to be a Tract created to designate the Sprocket Drive and Ellis Street loop (with then dedication of pertinent easements to the City for utility, drainage, access, and emergency access easement). Currently the plat appears to show these as public right-of-way, dedicated to the City, which would be problematic. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Please add a Notice the City has created regarding the use of private drives on the plat. A paper copy will be provided for the proper illustration, the text of the note is as follows: "ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES." Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: The plat language has since been updated and will need to be modified to the updated version. An electronic version of this can be sent, or a hard copy provided. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Are there lots that are prohibited from having basements, and if so, can these lots be called out specifically on the plat as not being allowed to have basements? This would ensure that the information is known at time of record searches with the plat being recorded at Larimer County. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224.6143, lex fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012 10/22/2012: Keeping active until time of Development Agreement; otherwise resolved. 08/15/2012: Environmental Planning staff will be place a hold on the building permits for these lots to ensure that the design standards proposed are upheld. Number: 69 Created: 2/19/2010 Unresolved [2/19/101 For lots 23-25, address how Sections 3.4.1(1) & (L) of the Land use Code are being met. Of major importance will be how the three homes fit into the landscape. Design guidelines addressing bulk, massing and colors shall be developed. For the public hearing a draft of proposed guidelines shall be developed. Landscape improvements shall also be depicted within the design guidelines. I Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224.6143, lex a)-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012 10/22/2012: This letter will need to be provided before a DCP can be issued. 08/15/2012: In order to ensure compliance with Section 3.4.1(0) of the Land Use Code, please provide a copy of the ACOE permit for the work adjacent to Spring Creek or written verification that a permit is not required. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012 10/22/2012: Comment kept active until the Development Agreement. 08/15/2012: A bond will be required for the plantings within the buffer zones on the project at the time of CO and will be documented in the Development Agreement. I can provide you with examples of other bonds, if that is helpful. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012 10/22/2012: Comment kept active until the Development Agreement. 08115/2012: A weed management plan will also be required with the involvement of a Certified Pesticide Applicator, specifically in the Rangeland category. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012 08/15/2012: Please provide a copy of these redlines back to staff and indicate how this comment was addressed. Number: 78 Created: 2/19/2010 Unresolved [2/19/10] Add notes to Plat per redlines regarding conservation measures and buffer zones. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, tbuchanan(a)-fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 08/14/2012: Contact the City Forester for a final review of existing trees in an on site meeting to confirm if any mitigation is required. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224-6152, dmartine()-fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/25/2012 07/25/2012: The developer will need to coordinate and pre -determine the electric meter locations with Light & Power Engineering (970)221-6700. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/16/2012 10/16/2012: A copy of the landscape plan showing planned streetlights was sent to Vignette Studios on 10-16-12. The streetlights need to be shown on the landscape plan, and street trees adjusted to provide 40 feet of clearance between lights and trees (15 feet if the tree is an ornamental type). Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wlamargue(aD-fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Please see the attached Erosion Control Checklist for the requirements needed on the Erosion Control Plan & Report. Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: 1. Please make all the changes called out in the red -lined notes on the plat, the landscape plan (Sheets 4/5 of 5), the drainage basin exhibit (Sheet 7 of 18), the grading plan (Sheet 8 of 18), the floodplain plan (Sheet 18 Of 18), and the drainage report. 2. Please add a fencing detail of breakaway fencing, to the storm drainage detail sheet. A copy of the detail drawing will be sent to John Gooch, the developer's engineer. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: The detention pond needs to meet the Detention Pond Landscape Standards as well as the landscape requirements of the Environmental Planner due to the pond's proximity to Spring Creek. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Please revise the storm sewer profiles as to what is public or private. See redlines. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Please add temporary erosion control over the rip -rap section for protection until vegetation is established. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012 08/17/2012: Please revise the water quality outlet structure detail to show 1 column and revise corresponding hole diameter. The City recommends only 1 column per row so larger diameter holes can be used to minimize clogging. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, jcount&_fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 08/14/2012: Please remove the bearings & distances from sheet 4 & 5. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, jcountv(cilfcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 Comment Number: 8 08/14/2012: There are line over text issues. Comment Number: 9 08/14/2012: There are text over text issues. Comment Number: 10 08/14/2012: Please mask the text in Tract F, if possible. Topic: Site Plan Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 08/14/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 08/14/2012: What are the "s" shown under the lot numbers? Please add a note in the legend for this. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 08/14/2012: Please change Ellis Drive to Ellis Street. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 08/14/2012: The typical lot detail for Lots 1-2 & 18-25 is very busy & confusing. It would be easier to read if it were at a larger scale. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 08/14/2012: Please correct the easement widths on sheet 2. These should match the subdivision plat. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 08/14/2012: Please change the 51' ROW to Varies, for Ellis Street & Apex Drive. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221.6854, rbuffington(c0cgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012 10/29/2012: The detail shows a conflict between the existing 30" sewer and the proposed 8". It appears that the 8" sewer is coming into the side of the 30" as it nears the MH. The small angle between the two pipes is a key factor in the problem. 08/14/2012: Provide a detail on the proposed MH to be constructed over the 30" sewer near Lots 9 & 10. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970.416-2355, pbarnes fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 10/18/2012: 1 agree that the setback issue has been resolved. However, the 'building setbacks' information on Sheet 1 of 5 states "see typicals on Sheet 2". However, the typicals on Sheet 2 no longer show any dimensions. Please add the dimensions. 07/27/2012: Site plan sheet 2 of 5 indicates that the front building setback for lots 18 � 22 will be 104. The code requires a 156 minimum front setback. The proposed 10� setback will require a modification. The jypical Loth details on the same sheet show similar non -complying setbacks for other lots. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012 10/18/2012: The applicant's comment letter in the latest re -submittal states that the note has been corrected. However, the wording of note 19 is the same as the wording from the previous submittal. Therefore, it still needs to be corrected. 07/27/2012: Note #19 on site plan sheet 1 of 5 is confusing. It states that lots 1-25 can be duplexes or detached single family, but goes on to state that there can be only one unit per lot. I assume the term 6uniQ means dwelling unit, and if so, that means there can6t be any duplexes on those lots since that would be 2 units on a lot. If by 6uniQ they mean 6building6, then that6s the term they should use instead. If 6uniQ means 6building6, then Note #20 becomes confusing in that it.would mean that 2 single-family dwellings could be on lot 26 and on lot 27.