HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTORYBOOK 2ND FILING - PDP - 49-98B - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this
project, please feel free to call me at 221-6341.
Yours Truly,
Steve Olt
City Planner
cc: Katie Moore
Gary Mackey
Current Planning File #49-988
Page 11
Stormwater:
1. There are lots of details that can be cleaned up with the Final Compliance
submittal and review.
2. The storm sewer must meet the required separations between water services,
sanitary sewer services, and street trees. It must be at least 7' - 8' from the
trees and the applicant should work with ELCO Water District and Boxelder
Sanitation District for their requirements.
Transportation Planning:
1. The bicycle/pedestrian trail from Maid Marian Court to Mountain Vista Drive, at
the southeast corner of the development, should be built with the first phase
of development. Also, construction of the bicycle/pedestrian trail from
Sherwood Forest Court to the north property line, at the northeast corner of
the development, is the responsibility of the developer.
2. Bicycle lanes must be striped on Little John Lane.
Light & Power:
1. This is a very tight site for all of the utilities involved and it is essential that a
utility coordination meeting be scheduled and held soon.
2. Gas and electric services must maintain a minimum of 3' lateral separation and
they cannot cross each other.
3. As shown on the, utility plans, Light & Power cannot get power to Lots 62 & 63.
This completes staff (and outside reviewing agencies) review and comments at this
time. Additional comments and red -lined plans may be forthcoming. Another round of
staff review is determined to be necessary. This proposal is subject to the 90-day
revision re -submittal requirement (from the date of this comment letter, being
February 18, 2005) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be
sure and return all of your red -lined plans when you re -submit. The number of copies of
each document to re -submit is shown on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet.
Page 10
Engineering:
1. Mountain Vista Drive is identified on the City's Master Street Plan as a 2-
lane arterial street, requiring a total width of 84' of ROW, not 115' as shown
on the Site Plan. This is a repeat comment from the staff comment letter of
October 29, 2004.
2. There may be a need for a right -turn lane from westbound Mountain Vista Drive
into Little John Lane at some time in the future. Provisions to allow for its
construction at a later date should be made now.
3. The scanability of the plans is a big issue. Nothing can be behind the text on the
plans.
4. How do the ADA ramps work on the enlarged curve radii? The developer can do
a regular street corner radius by taking them down to 20'.
5. Easements are needed for the silt fences and they should be shown on the
plans.
6. There are still some street design issues. A follow-up meeting is needed.
7. The cover over the storm pipe is a bit short. A minimum of 3' from the top of
the pipe to the top of asphalt is required.
8. The driveway locations should be shown on the overall utility plan. There appear
to be a number of conflicts with locating utilities.
9. A Chesapeake Drive extension to the east property line of Storybook, 2"d Filing
is definitely a potential new street. These plans must show the interim and
ultimate street location and design. A barrier should be placed on the street
alignment, to the back side of the sidewalk along the east side of Deep Woods
Lane, to prevent automobiles from driving east of Deep Woods Lane at this
time.
10. These plans are showing new grading on the private park site in the "original"
Storybook PDP. Revisions to that grading plan are needed.
11. What is the grading for the sidewalk along the north side of the detention
pond? Which way does it slope and drain?
Page 9
Number: 76 Created: 2/17/2005
[2/17/05] At final, more detailed comments may follow.
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
Number. 73 Created: 2/17/2005
[2/17/05] 1. The Grading and Erosion Control
Notes on plan sheet 2 are incorrect, please delete and replace with the current,
correct City of Fort Collins notes.
1. The submittal is incomplete, please provide all the plans, details, calculations, etc.
required and resubmit.
If you have any questions, please call Bob Zakely at 224-6063.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill
Topic: Modification Request
Number: 71 Created: 2/15/2005
[2/15/05] The sidewalk connection out to the sidewalk to be constructed on Mountain
Vista Drive (around the drainage pond) needs to be designed and constructed with this
project. While the easement is showing up in the plan set, the sidewalk is not shown.
Please revise. Thanks.
Topic: Transportation Planning
Number: 21 Created: 10/26/2004
[2/15/05] Repeat question.
[10/26/04] Does the applicant plan to stripe bike lanes on Little John Lane when the
asphalt work that is currently going on is completed? This street is a planned collector
(with parking) and should have 6 foot bike lanes.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols
Topic: Ut//ity P/ans
Number: 14 Created: 10/22/2004
[2/4/05]
[10/22/04] Please note building height on elevations
The following comments and concerns were expressed at staff review on February 16,
2005 (next page):
Page 8
Number: 32 Created: 10/27/2004
[2/16/051
[10/27/04] When locating utilities in the street, please remember the cover
requirement: at least 2' of cover between the top of pipe and scarified subgrade
(approx 3' to the top of asphalt for the road).
Number: 82 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/051
Please call out all driveway locations on the utility plans - this needs to be done to make
sure there are no conflicts with the utilities. Currently there are a number of
conflicts.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: 1>ra& oe
Number: 27 Created: 10/27/2004
[2/15/05] A determination of the sewer's location can be made at the utility
coordination meeting.
[10/27/04] The storm sewer can not be located in the parkway underneath all the
street trees. Please relocate the storm sewer to the street with at least 5 feet of
separation from the edge of gutter.
Number: 30 Created: 10/27/2004
[2/15/05] The spot elevations are unclear where they are located and there still are
unclear areas pertaining to grading.
[10/27/04] Please combine grading plans and provide more clearly the flow patterns.
Number: 31 Created: 10/27/2004
[2/15/051 REPEAT COMMENT
[10/27/04] Please coordinate the landscape plans with the utility plans, specifically
the storm sewer.
Number: 72 Created: 2/17/2005
[2/17/05] A permanent slope easement is required for the off -site property to the
north where permanent grading is proposed.
Number: 74 Created: 2/17/2005
[2/17/05] Please clarify stage storage table in the drainage report. The volumes are
not consistent at the same stage.
Number:75 1Created: 2/17/2005
[2/17/051 Please clarify the size of basin 1 and revise any calculations if needed.
Page 7
Original comment #61 has disappeared, so here it is again:
When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest lane (SFL), they should use at
least 30' to the west of SFL to transition to meet the grades on SFL. [resolved part of
comment omitted] Please see redlines for more information.
Number: 81 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05] The ADA ramp detail works when the curb return radius is 20' and the
ROW radius is 15'. At the knuckles where the curb return radius is 26.5', please
either show how the ramps will work, and possibly dedicate additional ROW to
accommodate them, or change the radius to 20'.
Number: 87 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05] With the current design of Deep Woods, cross pans at Chesapeake and
Friar Tuck will be required.due to the bypass flows that will not be caught by the inlets
because the inlets are not installed at low points in the road.
Number: 88 Created: 2/18/2005
(2/18/05] Provide station equations where plans from the 2nd filing tie to plans from
the 1st filing, and where the different street designs within the 2nd filing connect.
Number: 90 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05] Please label and show all PC's and PT's on the plan view as well as the profile
view. (see utility plan checklist for other items)
Number: 91 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05] A segment of Deep Woods lane shows the flowlines above the centerline of
the road.
Number: 92 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05] The flowline values on the cross -sections for Mountain Vista do not match
the flowline values on the plan and profile sheets. It appears that the values on the
cross -sections work to attain the appropriate cross -slopes, so perhaps the plan and
profile sheets should be changed to match the cross-section numbers.
Topic: Utility P/dw
Number: 25 Created. 10/26/2004
[2/16/051
[10/26/04] Please provide additional information regarding the pond along Mountain
Vista. Will the sidewalks be graded toward or away from the street along this pond?
If they're graded toward the pond, please show how they will transition to join walks
that are graded toward the street at the ends of the pond.
Page 6
Number: 58 Created: 10/29/2004
[2/16/05] At all the intersections with Little John, the north flowlines at the PC are
about 6" higher than was approved for the first filing. What happened?' Were the
streets not built as originally planned? If so, we should have received as-builts and
approved of the changes.
[10/29/04] At the intersection of Friar Tuck and Little John, the shown grades do not
match the original plans and are off by almost a foot in spots. What is going on?
Number: 59 Created: 10/29/2004
[2/16/05] Show how the proposed Chesapeake design ties into what is already built.
[10/29/04] Chesapeake Drive design does not match the approved design - why not?
Isn't part of Chesapeake already built?
Number: 60 Created: 10/29/2004
[2/16/051
[10/29/04] Chesapeake Drive has a temporary turnaround at the end - please note
that the easement for this will have to be vacated in Phase 2.
Number: 61 Created: 10/29/2004
[2/16/05]
[10/29/04] When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest Lane (SFL), they
should use at least 30' to the west of SFL to transition to meet the grades on SFL.
With the current design, a vehicle traveling south on SFL would bump up and down at
each intersection, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. SFL should have normal
cross -slopes for its full length. Please see redlines for more information.
Number: 62 Created: 10/29/2004
[2/18/05] Please show sidewalks, and label that for 2' from the back of walk, the
grade shall remain shallow (2%) before dropping off, and that the 4:1 shown is a
maximum slope.
[10/29/04] Please provide data and dimensions for the Mountain Vista Drive cross -
sections.
Number: 80 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/051
The spot elevations required at intersections are not all shown at all intersections, and
spot elevations should be shown where the transitions to begin the flattening of the
crown begin.
Page 5
Number: 93 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/051 The phase line between lots 70 and 69 - how will that work with a shared
driveway being split down the middle?
Number: 94 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05] Please show both of the temporary turnaround easements needed for the
phases on the phasing plan and dedicate the easements on the plat.
Topic: P/ot
Number: 83 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05] Please curve the utility easements to parallel the ROW at street corners.
Number: 84 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05) Please clarify who will own the private access easements.
Topic: Street Design
Number: 33 Created: 10/27/2004
[2/16/051 In some areas, the cross -slope minimums/maximums are not being met.
Please revise.
[10/27/04] Cross -slopes on new streets need to be between 2-3%, not between 2-4%.
Number: 54 Created: 10/29/2004
[2/16/05]
[10/29/04] The minimum flowline grade on any street is 0.5%.
Number: 55 Created: 10/29/2004
[2/16/051
[10/29/041 Certain vertical curve lengths do not meet the minimums required in
Figures 7-17 and 7-18. Please revise.
Number: 56 Created: 10/29/2004
[2/16/05] At low points on flowlines, when the grades hit 0.5%, they should continue
at that grade straight into the inlet, with a 1% grade break at the inlet.
[10/29/04] For grade changes less than 1%, gutter flowlines should not have vertical
curves, but should use [a series of ]grade breaks.
Number: 57 Created: 10/29/2004
[2/16/051
[10/29/041 Minimum allowable grade around curb returns is 0.5%, but minimum
desirable grade is 1%. Please revise where possible.
Page 4
Number:79 ' Created:2/17/2005
[2/17/05] Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy indicated that the developer will need to
coordinate closely with all utilities to meet clearance requirements between water,
sanitary sewer, electric, gas, telephone, and cable TV.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Topic: 6ww4vl
Number: 10 Created: 10/21/2004
[2/16/05] It will be fine to dedicate the ROW for a 4-lane arterial on Mountain Vista,
and leave the street design also for a 4-lane arterial along the property frontage as
shown.
[10/21/04] Mountain Vista Drive appears as a 2-lane arterial on the Master Street
Plan, requiring a total ROW of 84'. This amount, plus 12' of ROW for a right turn lane
from Mountain Vista to Little John (if a RTL is needed), is the amount that should be
dedicated on the plat.
Number: 12 Created: 10/21/2004
[2/16/05]
[10/21/04] Please review the sconability requirements for all plans found in Appendix
E of LCUASS. The plans will need to meet these standards prior to the City accepting
them for filing.
Number: 65 Created: 10/29/2004
[2/16/051
[10/29/04] Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional comments.
Number: 85 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05] Please show the potential future street connection (and sidewalks) of
Chesapeake from Deep Woods to the property line.
Number: 86 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05]_For grading revisions to_the_park,and_revisions to the_segment_of
Chesapeake previously approved with the 1st filing, please provide revisions to the 1st
filing utility plan set (bubble out, number, and note changes for revisions).
Topic: Phasing
Number: 64 Created:10/29/2004
[2/16/05] Same comment as below, except Sherwood Forest Lane is now Deep Woods.
[10/29/04] Please provide a temporary turnaround on Sherwood Forest Lane for Phase
1.
Page 3
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 35 Created: 10/27/2004
[2/17/05] There are still 2 lots that do not comply with Section 3.5.2(E)(1) of the
Land Use Code. They are the single-family detached homes on Lots 53 & 68.
[10/27/04] A note on the Site Plan, associated with the TYP. BLDG. ENVELOPE
DETAIL, states that "All lots comply with Sub -Section (1) of Section 3.5.2 (E) of the
Building Code. First of all, Section 3.5.2(E) is in the City's Land Use Code (LUC),
second, Lots 1,10, 11, 20, 21,30, 31, 40, 46, 47, and 53 do not comply with this section
of the LUC. The garage doors for the buildings on all of these lots face directly on
public streets without being recessed at all as required in Section 3.5.2(E)(1) of the
LUC.
Topic: Traffic
Number: 77 Created: 2/17/2005
[2/17/05] Eric Bracke, the City's Traffic Engineer, indicated that he has reviewed
the recently submitted transportation impact study (TIS) for the Storybook
development. He has sent comments regarding the TIS back to Martina Wilkensen for
revisions. In general, the traffic projections used for the Vine/Lemay intersection
(regarding Adequate Public Facilities) were too low and did not account for all of the
other approved developments in that area.
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 47 Created: 10/27/2004
[2/17/05] As a reminder.
[10/27/04] Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy indicated that no trees may be planted
within 4' of gas mains or services to the homes.
Number: 48 Created: 10/27/2004
[2/17/05] As a reminder.
[10/27/04] Mike Scheid of East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) indicated
that his comments have been made on red -lined utility plans that are being forwarded
to the applicant.
Number: 78 Created: 2/17/2005
[2/17/05] Don Kapperman of Comcast Cable TV indicated that there are no problems
with the rear lot easements on the subdivision plat map. Comcast will need to
coordinate with the developer or the builder to make sure that the pre -wire line
coming out of the house has a common ground wire to bond to.
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Stewart & Associates Date: 02/18/2005
c/o Jack Blake
103 South Meldrum Street
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
Staff has reviewed your submittal for STORYBOOK, 2ND FILING, POP - TYPE I
(LUC), and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Deportment: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Plat
Number: 45 Created: 10/27/2004
[2/17/05] As a reminder.
(10/27/04] Carl Jenkins of the Post Office indicated that he has no concerns with
the development plans as submitted.
Number: 46 Created: 10/27/2004
[2/17/05] As a reminder.
[10/27/04] Dennis Greenwalt of Comcast Cable TV offered the following comments:
a. Comcast Cable sees no problems with the subdivision plat for this project.
b. Comcast Cable would like to ask the developer to allow them to go in a joint trench
with telephone to place their facilities to service this area. They would prefer a
rear lot trench for this development.
Number: 95 Created: 2/18/2005
[2/18/05] The Technical Services Deportment offered the following comments:
a. The outside boundary and legal description on the subdivision plat do close.
b. The last curve in the legal description has a radius of 15'; the map shows a 9.5'
radius.
c. What is the distance of the right-of-way on Sherwood Forest Court?
Page 1