The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSHENANDOAH P.U.D., FIRST FILING - FINAL - 47-95A - CORRESPONDENCE - (10)I ,� PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 15, 1996 DEPT: Forestry PROJECT: #47-95A Shenandoah PUD 1 st Filing Final PLANNER: Steve Olt All comments,received by: Monday, November 11, 1996 G '5 1Q 4 c.l •C Date: Signature CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY DATE: October 25, 1996 DEPT: Forestry PROJECT: #47-95A Shenandoah P.U.D., 1 st Filing -Final PLANNER: Steve Olt All comments must be received by: Monday, _November 4; 1996 Sorry for any inconveimence , but the attached page 2 of 3 Landscape Plan is an addition to the original routing you've allready received. E4-1h5 Tr - a S Af-'6's{ Tc> tGA, "�-%,1f- e�4 w1 14 t�+^7 IM•eCA14�t 'A*_e`ls 0le.{-q:1ej 1. CA.1<,-� CJ C S l �7 H S �-- 1 ti c- IG S A l c.. k i- L o c- a i' 1 v" j `-1 00 U. It SCA C. (pw, OuA J4- <Ct.l e,�nj -7Ntt•a�-C� A� Howe. Ow.�6�ra c.sso�lq�loy 411 I" CIv*�:i"�p` PeAANe-1,.ve4--, -S � AIx4 1 v ✓• � cS, C., � @ lA c.� 1 � �+, to ... kA; is ' _ P cr.✓. ed 9" 1 G. eN'NOV-a tf vNt ga. A- l G'f syZ4-40 N. �z--el� Date: Signature CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ PLAT ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE 0 UTILITY Water Ui..ities Stormwater • Water • Wastewater Water Conservation Standards for Landscapi City of Fort Collins COMMENT SHEET Project Name: , a[�B �/ti P u Date of Review: (O� Reviewed By: Laurie D'Audney, Utility Education Specialist, 221-6877 I have reviewed this landscape plan and it does not comply with the standards marked below. Landscape Plan Requirements 1. The landscape plan shall contain a general note calling for the review and approval by the City of Fort Collins of any required landscape irrigation system, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 2. The landscape plan shall include the total area (in square feet) for each landscape category. Landscape categories are distinguished by their water requirements and intended maintenance level. Examples of possible categories include, but are not limited to, high water turfgrass, low water turfgrass, low water planting beds, moderate water planting beds, and non -plant areas (paved areas, etc.). Plants and Design ❑ 3. To the extent practical, plants with similar water requirements shall be grouped together on the same irrigation zones. (more) P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO S0522-0580 • (970) 221-6681 Project Name: Date of Review: Reviewed By: Water Utilities Stormwater • Water • Wastewater Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes COMMENT SHEET Poo io13a1`16 Laurie D'Audney, Utility Education Specialist, 221-6877 I have reviewed this landscape plan and it does not comply with the standards marked below. Landscape Plan Requirements ❑ 1. The landscape plan shall contain a general note calling for the review and approval by the City of Fort Collins of any required landscape irrigation system, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 2. The landscape plan shall include the total area (in square feet) for each landscape category. Landscape categories are distinguished by their water requirements and intended maintenance level. Examples of possible categories include, but are not limited to, high water turfgrass, low water turfgrass, low water planting beds, moderate water planting beds, and non -plant areas (paved areas, etc.). l �u ,ii� Plants and Design ❑ 3. To the extent practical, plants with similar water requirements shall be grouped together on the same irrigation zones. (more) P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 8052-2-0580 • (970) 221-6681 47-95A Shenandoah PUD, First Filing Final The site shall be accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with Uniform Building Code Section 3103 and UBC Appendix Section 3106. Provide a designated and marked "accessible route of travel" between all the buildings on the site and building exits and entrances and the public way (public sidewalk). Accessible routes shall comply with ANSI A 1 17.1-1992 with running slopes no greater than 1:20 and cross slopes no steeper than 1:50. Where routes cross lanes for vehicle traffic they shall be designated and marked as a cross walk. Provide parking and signs per Appendix Section 3107. Parking and access aisles shall comply with ANSI AI 17.1-1992 with slopes no greater than 1:50 in any direction. Day care establishments require approval by the Larimer County Health Department at the time of building permit application. Please contact Jim Devore at 970.498.6775 for submittal information. Commercial building must comply with the requirements of the Fort Collins Nonresidential Energy Code. Residential buildings must comply with the Fort Collins Residential Energy Code. Sharon Getz Building Inspection 970.221,6760 10.24.96 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 25, 1996 DEPT: Zoning PROJECT: #47-95A Shenandoah P.U.D., 1 st Filing -Final PLANNER: Steve Olt All comments must be received by: Monday, November 4, 1996 Sorry for aninconveinience , but the attached page 2 of 3 Landscape Plan is an addition to the original routing you've allready received. .I `v 2 7 Z (-/74 v 't- C i-w �S- D L) (0 Lc Jg Date: /0 3 Signature G a 4 C ope� CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTILITY R TCI TCI of Fort Collins 1201 University Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 October 23, 1996 City of Fort Collins Planning Dept. Attn.: Mr. Steve OR , Subj.: Shenandoah P.U.D. 1st Filing TCI of Fort Collins has found the following problems with, and would like to make the following comments in regards to Shenandoah P.U.D. 1st Filing: 1. The 9' frontage easements at lots 1,2,3,6,7, and along Triangle Drive through tract B is not continuous. 2. There is no rear easement for lot 7, nor a side easement along the west boundary. 3. Lot 8 along Triangle Drive does not have a street frontage easement on the south boLdary of this lot. 4. TCI will need an easement at the rear of lot 36 extended to run the entire length of the rear lot, so that we can service lot 37. 5. TCI will need an easement along the rear of lot 32 so that Lot 31 can be serviced. 6. TCI would like to see Tract D be changed to read "ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT." 7. TCI will need Tracts B and C changed to read "ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT," or side lot easements along the west boundary of lot 7 (see No.2), along the east boundary of lot 1, and a 9' frontage utility easement along Triangle Drive running through tract B. 8. Lots 106 through 111 does not have a typical 9' street frontage easement. 9. TCI,will need the 6' easement at the rear of lot 65 extended through the rear of lot 64, and along the side of lot 63 to intersect the street frontage easement. i 10. The Northing arrow on the plat does not correspond with the latitudes and departures of the bearings, nor the vicinity map's northing arrow. Thank You, Rusty Guyton Construction Technician i Heritage Cablevislon of 1201 University Avenue Delaware, Inc. Fort Collins, CO 80521 dba TCI of Fort Collins (970) 493-7400 FAX (970) 493-4958 M Equal Opportunity Employer OCT. -25' 09 (FRI) 09:11 124 W W 'LIA FT. CL TEL:919702V- 11 P. 001 PROJECT COMN ENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: October 15, 1996 DEPT: U S West PROJECT: #47-95A Shenandoah PUD 1st Filing Final PLANNER: Steve Olt All comments must be received by: Monday, November 11,1996 The November 29,1995 comments still apply. The plat must have on it a statement "U S WEST will not be responsible for any surface restoration due to construction by U S WEST within their casement as shown on this plat." The U S WEST easement an the plat needs to be clarified, to state U S WEST, pedestrian access and bicycle easement It may not be described as a general utility easement Also, the plat shows a general utility easement with U S WEST included in the definition. U S WEST can be omitted from the definition of the separate, general utility easement. Sheet one of the plat shows a 6' utility easement at the rear of all lots. Sheet two contradicts this by not showing rear easements on lot 65 for access to lot 64, on lot 32 for access to lot 31, and on lot 36 for access to lot 37. The utility plans appear to call for grading and detention on the existing U S WEST easement along College Avenue. Our conduit structure cannon be lowered in place. Any relocation of existing telephone facilities required by these plans will be paid for by the developer. Susan M. Peterson Capacity Provisioning Field Engineer 970Y224-7473 smpew10uswest.com Date: J- Signature jx&:� CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE 0 PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS S1 SITE LANDSCAPE UTILrry Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have any questions or require additional information. Respectfully, Mr. Ten W. Farrill, Systems Engineer xc: Michael D. DiTullio, District Manager South Fort Collins Sanitation District October 23, 1996 Mr. Steve Olt, Planner City of Ft. Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins. CO 80522-0580 RE: Shenandoah P.U.D., First Filing Dear W. Olt, The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed the above mentioned project and submit the following comments; All utility crossings are to be identified on the profiles for the sanitary sewer and storm sewer. An overall utility development plan, on one sheet, is to be submitted for review. The proposed grade above the centerline of the sanitary sewer along U.S 287 is to be shown from the existing manhole to MH B8. The water line and the sanitary sewer line B8 are to be reversed to avoid lowering the water line. All water lines that are required to be lowered are to be profiled Standard District details are to be included. The profile for the pond 1 outlet pipe appears to be numbered incorrectly, 5055 is missing, on sheet 28 of 34. The sanitary sewer line is to be identified The District will require the water line in Triangle Drive to be connected to the existing 14 inch water line in U.S. 287. The District will require another review due to the number and nature of the above comments. PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: 1/-1 5 l (�-7 6 DEPT: Stormwater PROJECT: PLANNER ;;�eve G �t All comments inusf6e received by - [I No Problems 01 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) 1. The basins contributing to the existing 48" RCP are limited to the capacity of the culvert. Please delineate the historic basin contributing to the culvert. All areas within the historic basin are entitled to a release through the culvert. The allowable developed release rate for areas draining to the culvert should be the pipe capacity divided by the contributing area. The development of the First Filing should not exceed this rate. This comment is similar to Comment #1 of the previous comments. 2. The peak flow summary shows conveyance elements 10 and 30 with storage and a stage equal to the pipe size. These type of results means that the elements are surcharged and acting as a detention ponds. The peak flows to these elements will be limited to the capacity of the pipe. Storage at these elements does not reflect the intent of the pipes, and reduces the peak flows. Please modify the pipe elements to include overflow channels. 3. The subbasin parameters used in the model are not standard values used by the City. Please use the following values to update the model. impervious n = .016 pervious n = .25 surface stor. imperv. = .1 surface stor. perv. = .3 max. infiltration = .51 min. infiltration = .50 decay rate = .0018 CHECK IFYOU WISH TO RECEIVE e• ❑ PLAT �G Sher; wti� tia Ff COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE S7`Pue O/� 13 LANDSCAPE 12. The program used for the storm sewer analyses is not the typical program used and accepted by the City. Please provide further information on the assumptions and calculations used in the program. UDSewer is the conventional program accepted by the City and the UDFCD. The results presented with this program should be verified with UDSewer. RESPONSE: Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional review comments. 6. Basin 10 is shown draining off -site to the north. The area of basin 10 does not drain to the north historically, so an off -site drainage easement is needed. RESPONSE: 7. The emergency overflow spillway should not be constructed to spill onto private property. Provide an emergency overflow structure that will spill back into the outfall _ pipe in case of the orifice clogging. RESPONSE: 8. There are several locations where lot grading will cause cross -lot drainage. Cross -lot drainage should be minimized. For cases where cross -lot drainage can not be avoided, the grading shall direct upstream lot drainage to side lot swales of the downstream lots. Side lot drainage easements are needed for all lots accepting upstream drainage. RESPONSE: 9. The proposed grading on the north side of Triangle.Drive shows steep slopes. The proposed slopes should not exceed 4:1. Please call out the location of any proposed retaining walls. RESPONSE: 10. Approval from the Louden Ditch Co. is needed for the relocating of the ditch. Written verification of the ditch flows and the flows diverted to Benson Lake are also needed. RESPONSE: 11. The culvert analysis for the existing 48" culvert used an inlet invert different from the invert shown on the plans. Please verify the inverts of this culvert and recalculate the capacity of the culvert. The plans shows this culvert as CMP, the pipe appears to be RCP. Please verify the pipe type. RESPONSE: 1. More information is needed on the undetained flows to the existing 48" culvert under College Ave. The existing and proposed basins contributing to this culvert need to be defined, along with the corresponding Q2 and Q 100. The maximum irrigation flow should also be included in the total flow to the culvert. The report discusses the capacity of the culvert, but the report never discusses the actual flows and the contributing (on -site and off -site) areas to the culvert. The capacity of the existing culvert can not be fully utilized with developed flows from the First Filing. There should be additional capacity for the development of the remainder of the contributing area. On -site detention may be required, if the capacity of the culvert is exceeded. RESPONSE: 2. More information is needed on the Benson Lake inlet swale. The existing condition of the swale should be verified on both sides of College Ave. The capacity of the swale should not be exceeded. Please provide swale cross -sections for both sides of College Ave. Unstable slopes in the swale will need to be stabilized. There is a depression below the inlet inverts of the culvert. The invert of the channel and the culvert will need to be stabilized. RESPONSE: I The inlets at the intersection of Triangle and College need to be sump inlets. There should be no drainage entering Hwy 287 from Triangle. Please revise the street profile for Triangle Drive. RESPONSE: 4. The existing off -site basin south of Ridgewood Ifills 2nd Filing drains across proposed lots in Shenandoah. The proposed development must safely pass existing off -site flow. The proposed lots along the west property line will need side lot swales and side lot drainage easements to pass upstream drainage. RESPONSE: 5. The drainage design of Shenandoah should be coordinated with the design of future filings of Ridgewood Hills. Opportunities for providing upstream development with an outfall option should be considered. RESPONSE: .w PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: //- S - 9 DEPT: Stormwater PROJECT: Pv D P • Stcve o it - All comments musfbe received by. ❑ No Problems E2 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) A written response for each of the following comments must be submitted, with the redlined plans and report, at time of project resubmittal. The responses must note any revisions or clarifications completed in result of these comments. If responses are not submitted with the resubmittal, the project will be returned to the applicant without further review. This procedure will help the review process become more efficient and effective. Thank you. Note: The report containing the requested SWMM model was received on November 1, 1996. This report was not fully reviewed with the previously submitted report and plans. Comments from the review of the SWMM will be provided by November 15, 1996. Date:' CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT tvu,,., hCff COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE Sfeve O l- ❑ LANDSCAPE 0 UTILTI'Y Colorado ca,J sow-,, Shenandoah Pud -final submittal plan review (page 4 of 4) November 12, 1996 Utility Plans - In general 26. Lots 58 thru 63 could be a part of Phase 1 if you would like since all the street work and services will be provided with Phase 1. Showing them a part of phase 1 does not mean that they have to be built with phase 1. Cover Sheet 27. Correct General notes as indicated and add the following note: THE CITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OR INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AS A RESULT OF GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE, WHETHER RESULTING FROM GROUNDWATER FLOODING, STRUCTURAL DAMAGE OR OTHER DAMAGE UNLESS SUCH DAMAGE OR INJURIES ARE SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE CITY'S FAILURE TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN ITS WATER, WASTEWATER AND/OR STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT. 28. The street x-sections should be revised as needed. Overall Utility Plan 29. Access Drives off of Triangle Drive - a radius entrance will be allowed with a maximum 15 foot radius and concrete to the property line. 30. All the frontage along a lot needs to be built in order for the lot to acquire a building permit. The current phasing does not reflect this for lot 94. 31. In what phase does the pond out along College Ave get built? 32. Show the temporary turnaround at the end of Triangle Drive. Grading and Erosion Control Plan 33. We do not want a swale between the walk and the curb along College. If the Swale is needed it should be placed behind the walk. Street trees should be placed between the walk and the curb. Triangle Drive Plan and Profile 34. All the access drives need to show concrete to the property line and the radii should be a maximum of 15 feet. 35. Need to provide a temporary turn around easement at the end of Triangle Drive. This can be done on the Plat or can be done by separate document. Where this road goes also needs to be addressed (as was mention before). It now appears to be running into a future detention pond. A off -site grading easement also appears to be needed. Provide information on how the temporary turnaround is to be built. Is curb and gutter to be built now or after the turnaround is removed? Egyptian Drive Plan and Profile 36. Minimum slope on cross pans is 6.0%. The two across Egyptian are not this. Plan and Profile - General 37. There are some extreme grade breaks at the intersections in the curb returns. 38. Spot elevations need to be provide along the medians, if they are provided. Details 39. Make changes as shown on the plans to the details. 40. Provide a midblock detached walk pedestrian ramp detail. We do not have a standard one at this time so you will need to create one. Shenandoah Pud - final submittal plan review (page 3 of 4) November 12, 1996 14. A raised median needs to be provided in College Ave for the left turn into Triangle Drive. This is needed due to the conflicts in the left turns and the need to control the turns. A neighborhood meeting might need to be held to let the Victoria Estates people know that their access will be limited to a right -in right -out at this time. My calculations show that 140 feet of storage, 485 feet of decel and 220 feet of taper is needed. Triangle Drive 15. If a planted median is desired additional Row needs to be dedicate to accommodate it. The median needs to be within the row and not a separate tract. 16. The south curb line needs to be moved over to accommodate east bound double lefts and a right turn. 17. With the dedication of additional Row on College Ave the 2.0% for 125 feet from the intersecting Row will probably not be met with the current design. 18. The state does not allow any additional water above historic to flow onto the State Highway. And based on the existing topography no water was flowing onto the highway and this needs to be maintain. Might not be able to guarantee that without a sump condition at this intersection. This needs to be looked at. 19. The maximum slope on any road is 8.0% . This is being exceeded here the design needs to be reworked so this can be met. 20. There is also a sight distance problem at the intersection of Triangle Drive and Strassburg Drive a stopping sight distance of 275 feet is not being met. In talking with Transportation the stop control at this intersection will be on Strassburg Drive and the private access drive. 21. The curves are not designed for the speed of a collector. ............................................................................................................ Additional Comments on the Plans: Plat- 22. The Ditch Co will need to sign the plat. 23. See comments on the Utility Plans regarding the ROW width of Triangle Drive and Strassburg Drive. 24. The walk should be placed in the ROW along Hwy.. 287, therefor the easements along 287 do not need to be pedestrian access and bicycle easements. An easement is still needed on the North end where the walk transitions from behind the wetlands to within the ROW. 25. Medians if they exist need to be within the ROW, but are to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Site Plan - Take a look at utility plan comments to have an idea of areas that will be affected. (Continued on next page) Shenandoah Pud - final submittal plan review (page 2 of 4) November 12, 1996 5. What happens to Triangle Drive when it goes onto the Ridgewood hills property? There overall plan doesn't account for this it appears it just goes into the detention pond. Will this be worked out? This is a good connection and needed. 6. Twelve (12) feet of Row needs to be dedicated off -site to the North, a distance adequate to accommodate the right turn lane requirements. 7. Seventy two (72) feet of half Row needs to be dedicated on College (287) North of Triangle Drive ( this is the 60 foot half width plus 12 feet for right turn lane). 8. Triangle Road should have a x-section that has 4 lanes (two lefts and a right exiting the site and a lane entering), and bike lanes. If a median is desired it can be provided additional Row will just need to be provided for it. A double left should be designed at this intersection and one of the lefts stripped out until it is needed. For the traffic volume 240 feet of storage and 130 feet of taper is needed. May want to talk to Transportation about this since this is an unopposed intersection. 9. Sidewalk needs to be placed along the back of the Row. 10. The ODP shows Strassburg as a collector street. In conversations with Mike Herzig and Eric Bracke Strassburg can be designed as a connector street (new standards - 57 feet ROW and 36 feet pavement) IF: A connector is also provided to the south to Avondale Road (ie. Triangle Drive into Ridgewood Hills also at 57 feet row and 36 feet of pavement) instead of a collector street(old standards - 68 feet ROW and 50 feet pavement). Currently a connection is shown on the Shenandoah plans, but is not accounted for on the Ridgewood Hills plans. Therefore the Developers of Ridgewood Hills and Shenandoah need to work together to determine the x-section and Row needed on Strassburg. 11. A raised median needs to be provided in College Ave for the left turn into Triangle Drive. This is needed due to the conflicts in the left turns and the need to control the turns. A neighborhood meeting might need to be held to let the Victoria Estates people know that their access will be limited to a right -in right -out at this time. 12. The Strassburg Triangle intersection additional pavement needs to be provided on Strassburg. On the east side of the median a minimum of 24 feet is needed, this would provide for a right turn lane, and a left turn lane. This may vary based on what the cross section of Strassburg ends up being. 13. We want to see some sort of traffic Vs to verify the location of the day cares driveway in relation to the intersection. (Continued on next page) PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 15, 1996 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: #47-95A Shenandoah PUD 1 st Filing Final PLANNER: Steve Olt All comments must be received by: Monday, November 11, 1996 Shenandoah Pud - final submittal plan review (page 1 of 4) November 12, 1996 The Following items need to be addressed/ provided and reviewed by City staff for acceptability prior to this project proceeding to a Final P and Z hearing: 1. The Plat will needed to be updated to reflect the changes on the plans. 2. The Site Plan will need to be updated to reflect the changes on the plans. 3. Provide a signing and stripping plan for Triangle Drive and Strassburg. 4. A plan and profile of College Ave is needed. This should include the design for the right turn lane and the left bay median. College needs to be designed for three travel lanes and a right turn lane north of Triangle. The City does not typically require an acceleration lane, but the state sometimes does. I will be checking with the state to determine if an acceleration lane is needed south of Triangle Drive, if so this will need to be designed and additional row provided for this and built. The construction of the right turn lane could probably be delayed. To do so money would have to be put up by the developer for the construction of these improvements in the future and plans would need to be provided showing both phases of work, as a right turn lane would need to be striped onto the existing shoulder and the placement and location of ramps would probably change with the phases. (Continued on next page) Date: r_ �� 9(p Signature, CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE 0 UTILITY This completes the review comments at this time. Formal Project Comment sheets have not yet been received from Police, Advance Planning, the City Right -of -Way Agent, Transfort, the Post Office, and the State Highway Department. Additional comments may be forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this request. Please be aware of the following dates and deadlines to assure your ability to stay on schedule for the December 16, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board hearing: Plan revisions (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Building Elevations) are due no later than the end of the working day, November 27, 1996*. Please contact me for the number of folded revisions required for each document. The Engineering Department and Stormwater Utility should be contacted directly for information on when their revisions* are due. * NO REVISIONS WILL BE REVIEWED AFTER THE ABOVE DEADLINE. IF REVISIONS ARE NOT RECEIVED BY THIS DATE, THE ITEM WILL EITHER GO TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS OR THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE THE OPTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT MONTHS BOARD AGENDA. PMT's (photo reduction of Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Building Elevations to 8.5" x 11"), rendering (one each colored full-size Site or Landscape Plan and Building Elevations), and 8 folded copies of the final full-size Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Building Elevations revisions ( for the Planning and Zoning Board members packets) are due on December 9, 1996. Please contact me at 221-6750 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. erely, e0t Project Planner xc: Sheri Wamhoff Stormwater Utility Transportation/Streets Shenandoah Land, LLC Northern Engineering Landstar Surveying Project File 16. The Stormwater Utility offered the following comments at interdepartmental: a. The site drainage patterns have changed and there could be some problems associated with the changes. b. Improvements to the Louden Ditch are being required with this development plan. The Ditch Company will have to approve the plans and sign the plat for the property. They should have received the plat for review. Please contact Richard Bernhardt, at 667-3427, to see if the Ditch Company has any concerns about this development request. C. There is storm drainage modeling required with the final PUD submittal that has not yet been provided. This could delay the request going to the Planning and Zoning Board. d. A structure analysis of the 15' deep pipe is needed. This may require more street right-of-way for South College Avenue. The analysis must be received by the 11/22/96 revision date on the Development Review Schedule. The formal Project Comment Sheet has not yet been received from the Stormwater Utility. Please contact Glen Schlueter or Basil Harridan, at 221-6589, if you have questions about the storm drainage comments. 17. The formal Project Comment Sheet has not yet been received from the Natural Resources Department. Please contact Rob Wilkinson or Susie Gordon, at 221-6600, if you want to discuss what their concerns may be. 18. You should contact Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, to schedule a meeting on - site for the purpose of reviewing and evaluating existing trees. Tim can be reached at 221-6640. 19. Final building elevations for the day care and office components of the project must be submitted for review. If approved, these building elevations will be recorded as part of the PUD documentation. 20. Good buffer should be provided between single family Lots 106 - 111 and the future Neighborhood Convenience Center (Tract E) to the east. The Louden Ditch, itself, is not necessarily sufficient buffer between the two land uses. Possibly providing plant materials along the ditch with this phase of development would be appropriate to establish the buffer prior to the convenience center developing. 13. The Mapping Department offered the following comments: a. The control monuments are not described. b. The outer boundary monuments are not described. C. What is the right-of-way for Highway 287 (South College Avenue)? It is unclear if it is 60' now or will be 60' when this plat is recorded. Please clarify. d. What is the area near the east side of Tract E? e. There are bearings and distances missing. f. The north arrow is going in the wrong direction. g. The plat does not close. 14. The Parks & Recreation Department stated that they are glad to see some park space provided in the project, even if it is private. Will the park development be phased with the residential construction? 15. The Engineering Department offered the following comments at interdepartmental: a. The medians in Triangle Drive are new, not having been shown with the preliminary PUD plans. These have to be reviewed against the City's new street design standards. b. Will the street trees be in the parkway or behind the sidewalks? C. An access permit for Triangle Drive into the State highway will be required. This will be initiated through the City Engineering Department. d. The original and Amended Ridgewood Hills ODP's must be reviewed relating to the designation of the streets through the Shenandoah and Ridgewood Hills PUD's. Strasburg Drive is being designed to function as a local street and it is probable that the ODP's indicated a street in this area to be a collector street. The formal Project Comment Sheet has not yet been received from the Engineering Department. Please contact Sheri Wamhoff, at 221-6750, if you have questions about the engineering comments. r' 8. A copy of the comments received from the Building Inspection Department is attached to this letter. 9. The Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a. Concerning shared water and electric services on property lines, refer to the attached service installation agreement. The developer must coordinate the location of Light & Power facilities (vaults, streetlights, etc.) prior to installation of any water services. b. Street trees along Strasburg and Triangle Drives must conform to the attached tree/streetlight standards (this also applies anywhere on the site). C. Additional conduits for services will be installed along all detached sidewalks at an additional cost to the developer. d. Transformer locations will need to be coordinated in the commercial/retail areas. e. The locations of fire hydrants and catch basins in the planting strip,are going to be problems. f. Light & Power suggests a utility coordination meeting for this development. Please contact Bruce Vogel, at 221-6700, if you have questions pertaining to these electric service comments. 10. A copy of the Water Conservation Standards comment sheet from Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, is attached to this letter. This plan does no meet the basic standards for water conservation. 11. Eric. Bracke, the City's Traffic Engineer, has stated that the developer should be responsible for the traffic signal at the intersection of Triangle Drive and South College Avenue ... when warranted. However, it is unlikely that this particular phase of development will generate sufficient traffic to warrant signalization. 12. Keith Meyer, the Pavement Engineer, has stated that a preliminary soils investigation, as well as a final soils report and pavement design, must be provided according to the new submittal process. Please see the Pavement Design and Technical Criteria for the checklist. Please contact Keith, at 221- 6605, if you have questions about his comments. b. No trees may be planted closer than 4' to any natural gas line. C. The 9' wide front lot utility easements are not shown through Lots 1 - 3 and 106 - 111 on the final plat. These easements need to be shown. 5. A copy of the comments received from Rusty Guyton of TCI of Fort Collins (cable television) is attached to this letter. 6. The Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. A second point of access, i.e. Triangle Drive through Ridgewood Hills ora connection from Triangle Drive via Strasburg Drive to Ridgewood Hills, Second Filing, must be provided. b. All previous comments on the Amended Ridgewood Hills ODP and the Shenandoah PUD - Preliminary review still apply. Please contact Roger Frasco, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 7. The comments received from the Zoning Department are as follows: a. The dividing lines for the phases on the Landscape Plan are not real clear. They should be enhanced to eliminate any confusion or uncertainty. b. The north arrow on the subdivision plat appears to be pointing west. C. It is interesting that the name of the development is relating to a region and mountain range in the eastern portion of the United States and the street names all are presumably relating to middle eastern countries. d. Tract E on the subdivision plat is shown at two locations, being the detention area at the north end and the future neighborhood convenience center between the office complex and Fossil Creek Nursery. There is a 6.146 acre and a 6.149 acre number shown. Is Tract E the sum of these two or is just one acreage correct (and which one?). g. The lots areas (square feet or acres, whichever is appropriate) must be shown on the subdivision plat. h. The standard note about the requirements for installation of landscaping, or escrow or letter of credit in lieu of, should be included on the Site and Landscape Plans. i Commu. _.y Planning and Environmental , evices Current Planning City of Fort Collins November 8, 1996 Cathy Mathis Vaught -Frye Architects 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Cathy, Staff has reviewed your documents for the Shenandoah PUD, First Filing - Final that were submitted to the City on October 14, 1996, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. The water and sanitary sewer services for this development will be provided by the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. A copy of the comments received from Terry Farrill, the Districts' Systems Engineer, is attached to this letter. Also, trees and large bushes, etc. are not to be planted within District easements or within 15' of District facilities. 2. A copy of the comments received from Susan Peterson of U.S. West is attached to this letter. 3. The Planning Unit of the Thompson School District R2-J has stated that the students from this proposed development would be bussed to all schools; therefore, a bus pick-up and shelter would be needed on either Trilby Road or County Road 32. Currently, busses do not travel through the residential developments on the local streets. Both middle and high schools are currently at or beyond desirable capacity; however, the school bond issue did pass in November (1996) and the District will be building a new middle school and high school in the future. A copy of the Development Impact Report, with projections, is attached to this letter. The report and projections are the same as those with the preliminary PUD. 4. Gary Huett of the Public Service Company offered the following comments: a. The developer will have to provide a 10' minimum width utility easement parallel to the west line of South College Avenue (and parallel to the proposed 10" sanitary sewer) between County Road 32 and Triangle Drive for the purpose of installing a new natural gas line to feed the First Filing of the Shenandoah PUD. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002