HomeMy WebLinkAboutMASON ST. NORTH, MAJOR AMEND. - FDP - 4-97C - CORRESPONDENCE - (12)6aFINAL PLAN
REVISION
City of Fort Collins COMMENT SHEET
Current Planning
DATE: March 31, 2004 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #4-97C Mason Street North (Major Amendment to
Martinez P.U.D.) Final Plan
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
April 28, 2004 zYv\
Note -.Please identify your redlines for future reference
1.60%.&J0igA C0.56.
2. � s G—� _&vz_- Div
,3 OF- /V66!�JS Tv 3r: �02� REC.D'84flPR
r "9 �c 7� T� 7 X4 c r ,rp�
Name (please print)
9t CK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_Site Drainage Report _Other
_Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape
2-53
Number: 181 Created: 4/27/2004
[4/27/041 Please correct the master utility plan notes to reflect
the information provided on the master utility plan.
See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues
related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-
6750.
Yo s Truly,
Steve Olt
City Planner
Page 9
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 18 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/27/041 Repeat comment
Previous Comment: Show all water and sewer lines on the landscape
plans and provide the required landscape/utility separation
distances.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger
Buffington
Topic: utility plans
Number: 162 Created: 12/6/2001
[4/27/041
Repeat comment: If hydrant restrained, show restrained length on
the plans and provide restrained length calculations.
The thrust block on the fire hydrant on Mason Court will not have
undistriburbed earth behind it; therefore, restrain all joints
between hydrant and the 12xl2x8 tee on the east side of Mason Court.
Can hydrant be placed on east side of Mason Court?
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: utility plans
Number: 19 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/27/041 Repeat comment
Previous comment: Maintain 10 feet of separation between water mains
and their associated appurtenances and all other underground
utilities.
Number: 21 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/27/04) Repeat Comment
Previous Comment: Clearly define all abandonment's and relocations
of existing water/sewer lines (include note to coordinate
abandonment's with city utilities).
Number: 22 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/27/04] Repeat Comment
Previous Comment: Provide fire flow calculations for this project as
well as the existing fire flow required for Martinez PUD.
Number: 149 Created: 11/30/2001
(4/27/041
Show all proposed water and sewer services on the overall utility
plans ( including proposed irrigation taps).
Number: 180 Created: 4/27/2004
[4/27/041 Electric lines may not pass between the curb stops and
meter pits. Maintain a 4' minimum separation between curb
stop/meter pit and electric mains.
Page 8
of the pipe before plan approval is recommended to be sure that the
pipe is still in good condition. City camera crews may be able to
assist you in accomplishing this.
Number: 185 Created: 4/30/2004
The drainage report needs to reference the current Old Town Drainage
Master Plan. Any updates within the new master plan need to be
incorporated into the current design for the site.
Number: 186 Created: 4/30/2004
Please add a water quality summary table to the water quality pond
grading plan.
Number: 187 Created: 4/30/2004
Please design and show the outfall for the existing 48-inch storm
sewer that will be put back into service. The outlet needs to
direct the flow to the water quality pond.
Number: 188 Created: 4/30/2004
Please see comments about flow turning around west building on the
plans and in the report. There does not seem to be enough capacity
in the drive for the flow.
Number: 189 Created: 4/30/2004
Please revise water quality volume calculation. See drainage
report.
Number: 190 Created: 4/30/2004
Please discuss in the text of the report how the water quality pond
operates with the existing outlet structure.
Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford
Topic: Traffic
Number: 191 Created: 4/30/2004
[4/30/041 ( If Eric has commented already, disregard mine.)
The eastern most parking access on Mason Crt. Needs sight distance
easements, if in the middle of a curve is the best/only choice.
Number: 192 Created: 4/3042004
[4/30/041 Maybe too late for this question, but why is Mason Crt a
public cul-de-sac ? Any public access or parking to the park. Why
do we want this stub street since the remaing development street
seems to be private.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Topic: General
Number: 179 Created: 4/27/2004
[4/27/04] Project looks good to go! No comments.
Page 7
0
Number: 173 Created: 4/26/2004
[4/26/04] Please review the current scanning requirements in LCUASS
Appendix E for plans and revise font sizes/shading/etc. accordingly.
Please call Technical Services at 221-6605 if you have questions.
Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Topic: General
Number: 183 Created: 4/28/2004
(4/28/04] Lighting requirement for parking is 1.Ofc.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 182 Created: 4/28/2004
[4/28/04] Have there been any changes to original (8/13/01)
landscape plan? Could affect lighting and security.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Number: 15 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/30/041 Please also provide a drainage easement (alignment in
this case due to property being owned by the City) for the full
extent of the water quality pond within the park.
Number: 90 Created: 9/5/2001
(4/30/041 Please provide more information regarding the Howes
Street Outfall overflow. If the inlets were completely plugged and
the total 491 cfs were to spill , where would the flow go and what
would the water elevation be? If the buildings F.F. elevation were
slightly higher than the crest on Cherry Street, which they are
close now, than this issue might be a lot simpler to resolve.
Floodproofing the buildings is also another option.
Also, please provide a statement on the plans stating how the City
will be held harmless in the event any flooding does occur within
the development. This area was never planned to have structures
located on it and the drainage easement has been reduced to 40 feet.
A meeting may be warranted.
Please provide an emergency overflow swale for the Howes Street
Outfall at Cherry Street and provide calculations to show that no
buildings will be inundated.
Number: 113 Created: 11/20/2001
[4/30/041 Please explain where the identifiers came from. They are
not in our inventory.
Please provide identifier for benchmarks. (repeat comment)
Topic: Drainage
Number: 184 Created: 4/30/2004
The previously abandoned 48-inch storm sewer will need to be
certified as if it were a new storm drain. This will be done with
the rest of the drainage certification for the site. An inspection
Page 6
Number: 62 Created: 9/5/2001
[4/26/041 Under -walk drains were added to all driveways except the
driveway on the northwest of the court, and it has the most water
draining over the sidewalk. Please revise.
Original comment:
Drainage is not allowed over public sidewalks (7.7.4 and 9.4.11 A &
B, LCUASS). Please use under -walk pans as shown in detail 7-31.
Number: 135 Created: 11/23/2001
[4/26/041 The north bike lane stripe is missing, and more
information regarding striping should be shown to address the
addition of the median and changes to the left turn lane west of the
median.
Original comment:
Please show striping on Cherry Street. (repeat)
Topic: sheet 6
Number: 138 Created: 11/23/2001
(4/26/041 Street cuts need to be made to the edge of the bike lane,
the edge of a car lane, or the middle of a car lane. Where is the
proposed cut in relation to any of these?
Original comment:
Please show .the street cut to be made on Cherry.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 36 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/26/041 Repeat:
Please see plan for additional comments
Number: 41 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/26/041 Repeat:
Please show all ramps.
Number: 128 Created: 11/23/2001
[4/26/041 Repeat:
Please note that for the certain portion of building A that crosses
over the electric easement, that the easement has been vacated above
a certain elevation and that portion of the building is permissible
there.
Number: 156 Created: 12/5/2001
(4/26/041 Repeat:
Please use phantom lines for existing features so that a
differentiation can be made between what is existing and what is
proposed. (This applies to all sheets)
Page 5
M
1.
Number: 119 Created: 11/23/2001
[4/26/04] Please re -word this limitation as redlined.
Original comment:
Please include a legal description of the height limitation on the
Light and Power easement as it passes underneath the building.
Number: 121 Created: 11/23/2001
(4/26/041 I believe the RR signature line on the plat was not
required only if new easements crossing the RR easement were removed
from the plat.
Original comment:
Please provide a line for the Railroad to sign on.
Number: 170 Created: 4/26/2004
[4/26/041 Please include the triangular area of what was formerly
Parks' property within this plat. This was a condition of approval
of the project and must be met.
Number: 171 Created: 4/26/2004
[4/26/041 Additional language is needed regarding Tract A's
maintenance and ownership. I thought this had been worked out years
ago, but cannot find a copy of what had been agreed upon. Please
contact Parks/Real Estate/City Attorney (Carrie Daggett) regarding
this topic.
Number: 172 Created: 4/26/2004
[4/26/04] Please provide signature lines for the gas company and
light and power.
Topic: Sheet 3
Number: 56 Created: 9/5/2001
[4/26/041 There are still existing items being shown with dark
lineweights making them look to be proposed instead of existing (ie
the sidewalk on Cherry). Please revise.
Original comment:
Please use phantom lines for existing features/buildings adjacent to
site.
Number: 61 Created: 9/5/2001
[4/26/041 The easements shown still do not meet requirements.
Drivers at driveways/intersections should be able to look left and
right and see vehicles at the distance required in LCUASS. Please
revise.
Original comment:
Please calculate sight distance easements needed using figure 7-16
(LCUASS) and show on the plat and utility plans and site and
landscape plans.
Page 4
calculation of sight distance easements. The 110' shown is
inadequate.
Number: 122 Created: 11/23/2001
[4/26/041 The building outlines/envelopes should include all
arcades and second -floor balconies/overhangs/eaves/etc, and should
match on both the site and landscape plans. They still don't appear
to match.
Original comment:
The building outlines/footprints don't seem to match from the Site
plan to the landscape plan.
Topic: Median
Number: 174 Created: 4/26/2004
[4/26/041 Why is the median placed off -center in the street?
Looking at the striping on the street, it appears to be evenly
spaced, as it should be, and the median should be placed in the
middle of the street, not shifted south. Please double-check the
striping shown on the plan, and provide for corrections if needed.
Where is the north bike lane? How will the striping need to be
changed to provide for the median and the changes in the left turn
lane west of the median?
Number: 175 Created: 4/26/2004
[4/26/041 The sections are mislabeled. A -A is really B-B and vice
versa.
Number: 176 Created: 4/26/2004
[4/26/041 The opening in the median should be 8' wide with curbs on
each side. The median hardscape should be designed per LCUASS 8-05.
What are the radii of the median noses? If they do not meet
standards (which they don't appear to), then please revise.
Number: 177 Created: 4/26/2004
[4/26/041 Please provide a minimum 4' long flat pad in the middle
of the refuge per stds.
Number: 178 Created: 4/26/2004
[4/26/041 There are several locations where the lip is labeled as
the flowline and vice versa. Please revise.
Topic: Plat
Number: 46 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/26/041 Repeat:
These easements do not match what is shown on the site plan. Please
coordinate.
Number: 47 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/26/041 Repeat:
Please see plat for additional comments.
Page 3
Topic: Grading
Number: 75 Created: 9/5/2001
[4/30/041 In speaking with Craig Foreman of Parks Planning, he
requires another onsite meeting with the engineer, having the
extents of the drainage improvements staked out, in order to
determine whether what is proposed is acceptable. He also corrected
my previous statement regarding the need for an easement on parks
property, and that an easement (rather than simply legals and
sketches for a Notice of Facility Location) is needed and must go to
City Council for approval.
Original comment:
Offsite grading/other work performed on Parks' land requires their
approval. Please provide a letter from the Parks department stating
their approval of what is shown on their property.
Number: 139 Created: 11/23/2001
[4/26/041 It is unclear how tall the retaining walls will be.
Please label top of wall elevations. If retaining walls are >6'
high, building permits are required for them. Please apply for
these through Building and Zoning
Original comment:
Please provide a detail of the retaining wall.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 37 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/26/041 Repeat:
Please match with other plans/plat.
Number: 38 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/26/04] The sight distance easement restriction language needs to
be added to the landscape plan, and any landscaping not meeting
requirements in these easements needs to be revised.
Original comment:
Landscaping in median in bulb of cul-de-sac needs to meet Sight
distance easement restrictions. Please see the attached form for
restrictions and include these restrictions on both the landscape
plan and the plat.
Number: 39 Created: 9/4/2001
[4/26/041 Your engineer needs to calculate the sight distance
easements required per LCUASS, then these easements should be shown
on all plans, including the restriction language on the plat and the
landscape plan. The little cars and lines shown on the plans meet
no standard that I can find in LCUASS.
Original comment:
Further sight distance easement areas should be identified for the
next submittal. Please note that landscaping in these areas needs
to meet the restrictions as well. See LCUASS Drawing 7-16 for
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins.Z{ iwi?7
qr6'�arc.
Wolff -Lyon Architects Date: 05/05/2004 -F '60*
777 Pearl Street, Suite 210
Boulder, CO. 80302 " V6�ba-!4;'
Staff has reviewed your submittal for MASON STREET NORTH (MAJO
AMEND. TO MARTINEZ PUD) AND FINAL PLAN, and we offer the following
comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Topic: Cover sheet
Number: 169 Created: 4/26/2004
[4/26/041 Please correct the private drive cross-section to show
that the whole width of the parking area is in a public access
easement.
Topic: General
Number: 54
Created: 9/5/2001
[4/26/041 Repeat:
All sheets: Please see sheet for any additional comments.
Number: 74 Created: 9/5/2001
[4/26/041 Please provide copies of completed RR agreements to the
City prior to Mylars.
Original comment:
Any work done within the RR ROW/easement requires approval by the
railroad. Please provide a letter of intent from the Railroad
regarding these improvements (grading, landscaping, pedestrian
crossing, etc.).
Number: 141 Created: 11/23/2001
[4/26/04] Standards have reverted to the use of D-10 from the
stormwater manual for under -walk drains. Please use this detail
(copy attached to plans).
Original comment:
Please provide the under -walk drain detail from LCUASS.
Number: 152 Created: 11/30/2001
[4/26/041 The utility plan checklist should be re -checked and
resubmitted with every round.
Original comment:
Please refer to the redlined utility plan checklist for further
comments.
Page 1