The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS RESIDENCES, 4TH FILING - FDP - FDP130052 - CORRESPONDENCE -Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/26/2014: The dimensioning is shown, but no lines are shown which makes it difficult to decipher. Hasa layer gotten turned off? 01/15/2014: Sht 27: Please add some dimensions to the painted splitter island to guide the placement of the yellow side lines (labeled as A) in the roadway. Dimension the distance between the ends of the splitter island at the Rbt and at the X-walk. Dimension one side of those yellow side stripe ends from a base point such as the curb face, flowline, street centerline, etc.. All of this is due to the City isn't installing much development striping anymore therefore we've found we need to provide some minimal design info for outside contractors on these mini-Rbt characteristics. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/26/2014: There are still issues. See redlines. 01/15/2014: There are line over text issues on the grading plans. All elevations must be clearly read. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/26/2014: There are still issues. See redlines. 01/15/2014: Please make sure that all text reads from the bottom and/or right sides of the sheet. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/26/2014 08/26/2014: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Please provide elevations for both the NAVD88 & NGVD29 (Unadjusted) datums, state the project datum, and provide an equation to get from NAVD88 to NGVD29 Unadjusted, i.e. NAVD88 = NGVD29 Unadjusted + Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 08/26/2014 08/26/2014: The coordinates on sheet 12 need to be tied to the boundary. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/26/2014: No plans were provided for review. 01/15/2014: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/26/2014: There are still issues. See redlines. 01/15/2014: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. Please mask all text within hatching. See redlines. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/26/2014: Please provide an updated commitment as available. 01/15/2014: Is the July 30, 2013 title commitment the most recent? Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 08/26/2014 08/26/2014: Are there any Lienholders for this property? If so, please add a signature block. If not, please add a note stating there are none. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 08/26/2014 O8/26/2014: Is the 30' U,D&EAE supposed to include AE? Are these private or public? Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/26/2014: We'll need street name signs on top of the new yield sign 01/15/2014: Sheet 27: Please add signage at the Roundabout (Rbt) for the new extension of Avondale. Signage for the new approach should match existing signage for the other approaches. Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam @fcgov.com Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: The porous pavement sections require an under -drain with an outfall. Please show on the plans and in the details. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: Retaining walls higher than 4 feet from bottom of footing to top of wall require a building permit and a structural design. The east wall looks to be taller than 4 feet and possibly the south walls as well. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: Please label TOW and BOW for the retaining walls along the south property line. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: Please provide all details needed for the porous pavement sections. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: Some of the slopes are steeper than 4 to 1. These need to be landscaped so erosion and maintenance is not a concern. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: The porous pavement sections cannot have more than twice the area of the porous pavers draining onto it. Please verify this is being met. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: Please include the bio-swale soil specification on the utility plans. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: Please include the LID plans within the utility plan set. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: Drainage easements are required for the limits of the porous pavement areas and the bio-swales in addition to all other drainage infrastructure. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: Please provide details for the existing pond outlet modifications that are proposed. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: Reminder that the HOA agreement is required before signing of mylars. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/26/2014: Please mask all text within hatching. See redlines. 01/15/2014: No plans were provided for review. Provide locations of streetlights, stop signs and utilities and provide the separation distances between trees in LUC 3.2.1 K. There are currently trees shown within 8 feet of driveways that need to be adjusted. Provide at least 20 feet separtion between trees and stop signs. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/27/2014 08/27/2014: Previous comment number 4 from 1/15/14 is continued. Proposed street light locations are shown along Avondale but the 40 foot separation for canopy shade trees or 15 foot separation for ornamental trees is not met. Adjust canopy shade trees to 40 feet from the lights and explore if an ornamental such as Chanticleer Pear might be used closer to the lights to provide greater street tree density. 1 /15/2014: Provide locations of streetlights, stop signs and utilities and provide the separation distances between trees in LUC 3.2.1 K. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/27/2014 O8/27/2014: Explore placing additional street trees between the sidewalk and curb in these locations. As part of the evaluation along Avondale as mentioned in number 2 and 3 below also explore the placement of an ornamental tree such as Chanticleer pear at 15 feet from the proposed street light locations. 1. Along Drive Triangle at the north most portion of the project. 2. Along the north side of Avondale in parkway areas to the west and east of where the currently proposed 5 street trees are shown. 3. Along the south side of Avondale in the parkway to the east of the last proposed street tree. Comment Number: 10 08/27/2014: Comment Originated: 08/27/2014 At the temporary turn around would there be a benefit of adding a group of upright form spruce, pine or juniper along the side of unit 6 to block headlights from cars that are negotiating a turnaround at this location? Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: FIRE LANE Please provide further details for the "Emergency Access Only with Gate" portion of the EAE on the north end of the property. Prior discussions covered roll over curbs, gate design, and surfacing materials however I'm not finding this information provided on the current set of plans. I will need this information (including gate design) added to the plans. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, Ischlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/09/2014 01/09/2014: Minor Redlines on Erosion Control Plans. Erosion control Report and Escrow are required. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the 01/15/2014: Please provide cross -sections for the to be constructed Avondale Road along the property at 50 foot intervals. Of particular interest is the cross slope at the eastern end of the property as the crown of the roadway appears to transition out and would need to be looked at closer with review of the cross sections. If ultimately agreed to, mill limits would need to be indicated on the plans showing how much asphalt would need to be removed by future development with the extension of the roadway to the east (and the corresponding escrow that would be needed). Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/27/2014: Please ensure that the existing access ramp at the northern end of Triangle Drive abutting the property is also modified and provides truncated dome detection in accordance with LCUASS drawing 1607. 01/15/2014: The response letter indicates that a note was added to the drawings to indicate the rebuilding of the existing access ramp at the north end of the site along Triangle Drive for ADA and current City code compliance. I'm not finding this on the drawings, can it be pointed out? It should be pointed out on the horizontal control plan on Sheet 12. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/27/2014: The detail added appeared to be Stormwater detail D-6. Please remove this detail and ensure LCUASS Detail 701 and 702 are added for both vertical and driveover curb. 01/15/2014: Please add the City's driveover curb detail to the details sheet. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/27/2014: Under the premise that Planning/Zoning is okay with the future landscape shown on Sheet 6 without irrigated turf past the turnaround, I'm okay with not installing the sidewalk to the property boundary. This detail should reflect the extension of the sidewalk though, so it's understood that this would need to occur. There still needs to be some indication as to what is to be installed in between the sidewalk and the curb within the turnaround in the interim. Is the entire turnaround built in asphalt, including in between the sidewalk and the driveover curb, with the sidewalk built in concrete in between? 01/15/2014: Please relocate the tree on the north side of Avondale Road that is at the eastern boundary of the site just east of the temporary turnaround. It should not be in the path of the future extension of the sidewalk. In general I'm trying to recall again why the sidewalk on the north side of Avondale cannot be extended to eastern boundary of the property as was done on the south side? The extension of the sidewalk by future development would be disruptive to the property and irrigation would need to be retrofitted to provide irrigation that does not irrigate on the sidewalk. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/27/2014 08/27/2014: The site plan needs to depict the emergency access gate as being separate a minimum of 2 feet from the sidewalk and that it swings open onto private property, not onto right-of-way. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-63619 tuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 01/15/2014: Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 Fort Collins � _ Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax tcgov. com/developmentreview August 27, 2014 David Kasprazak The Frederickson Group, LLC 1269 N. Cleveland Loveland, CO 80537 RE: Ridgewood Hills Residences 4th Filing, FDP130052, Round Number 2 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@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: On sheet 32 please revised the use of an inlet detail from Denver to the appropriate City of Fort Collins detail(s). Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 01/15/2014: The cover sheet indicates the creation of LID sheets under separate cover. I would prefer that if these sheets need to be approved and filed with the City that they are included as part of this set. (Or alternatively, if okay with Stormwater, these sheets can be indicated as part the planning set.) Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/15/2014 08/27/2014: The added cross -sections should label the cross -slopes. I still need to obtain verification from the cross -slopes as to what portion of road can remain and meet City standards, vs. what would need to be milled out with the extension of Avondale. As submitted, I would indicate that with STA 6+50 having the last cross slope shown to be at 2%, and our patching requirements having that street repair is perpendicular to the flowline, we would require that the removal of asphalt to extend the street start at the edge of the proposed inlet along the left flowline, resulting on a local street potion frontage of 10 feet on the north side, and 25 feet on the south side (35 feet of local street frontage that would need to paid for in total.)