Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout800, 808 & 814 W. PROSPECT RD. MIXED-USE (OBSERVATORY PARK) - PDP - 41-02A - CORRESPONDENCE - (16)I - This completes staffs (and outside reviewing agencies) review'and comments at this time. Comments 90 and above are being expressed in their present form since the last round of review. There are several "carry-over" comments from departments that are being shown to warrant "repeat" comments, and they are identified as such in this comment letter. There are 3 "carry-over" comments from Water/Wastewater (#'s 38, 39, and 40) that are not identified as "repeat" comments; however, the red -lined response letter from the applicant, with responses to staff comments, does not have responses to these 3 comments. This proposal is subject to the 90-day revision re -submittal requirement (from the date of this comment letter, being June 11, 2003) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. A copy of the Revisions Routing Sheet, showing numbers of copies of each revised document to re -submit, is attached to this comment letter. Be sure and return all of your red -lined plans when you re -submit. There will probably be Planning comments forwarded to you upon Ted Shepard's return to his office on June 16th. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call Ted (after June 16`b) at 221-6750. Yours Truly, ' Steve Olt for Ted Shepard, City Planner cc: Katie`Moore, Engineering Wes Lamarque, Stormwater Jeff Hill, Water/Wastewater Current Planning File #41-02 Page 5 easement. No construction improvements would be required with this proposal other than the walkway connection mentioned in Comment #59. Number: 59 Created: 10/28/2002 Please explain further how this project ties into the surrounding transportation system, such as walkways, drive aisles, etc. (COMMENT 6-4-03) The proposed walkway connection to the existing walk along the apartment to the north needs to be shown on all plan sets. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Utility Plans Number: 96 Created: 6/6/2003 Existing 6-inch sewer in Prospect has limited capacity. Developer shall replace the existing 6-inch sewer with 8-inch from the point of connection to the 8-inch sewer in Whitcomb. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Utility Plans Number: 38 Created: 10/23/2002 As previously indicated, provide separate water/sewer services for each type of use in the proposed building (i.e. residential/commercial). Number: 39 Created: 10/23/2002 Extend the 6-inch water main from the east in Prospect Road across the front of the site and connect to the existing 4-inch main on the south side of Prospect Road. Number: 40 Created: 10/23/2002 As previously indicated, include a note that the fire line and water services must be extended into a mechanical room with a backflow preventer and a floor drain sized to accept the discharge from the backflow preventer. Include a note to maintain the required depth of bury over the waterlines as they cross the detention pond. Will a lowering of the fire line be required at the detention pond? Number: 75 Created: 2/ 14/2003 As previously indicated, If sewer services are not being used they must be abandoned at the main. Clearly define this on the utility plans. Number: 95 Created: 6/3/2003 Maintain 4 feet of separation between water service/meter vault and the proposed retaining wall. See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. The Technical Services (Mapping) Department offered the following comments: a. The outside boundary and legal description on the subdivision plat do close b. The South 1/4 Corner is not described on the plat. C. What is the "Not Esmt." In the northwest corner of the property on the plat? Page 4 Number: 86 Created: 2/20/2003 The grading at the eastern parking garge entrance seems to show that water will flow underneath the building before the 100-year WSEL is achieved. This seems to be a possible flooding and structural hazard that should be avoided. The crest elevation of this entrance should be higher than the spillway elevation to ensure that detention pond water will not inundate the parking underneath the building. Please revise. Repeat Comment 5/30/03 - The grading along the parking garage entrance is higher than the Pond HWL and spillway, but the grading does not make sense in this location. Is a flush curb proposed in this location? Please clarify the grading in this location. Number: 88 Created: 2/20/2003 Off -site drainage esements are needed if the 100-year developed flow in any swales are not fully contained with the property boundaries. Please provide documentation that these flows are maintained on -site. Repeat Comment 5/30/03 Number: 93 Created: 5/30/2003 There is still an area at the northwest comer of the site that needs to show proposed contours. There is also a permanent grade change that will require the approval from the property owner. Number: 94 Created: 5/30/2003 The sizing of the detention ponds was done correctly per previous comment, but the water quality volume was not added onto the required volume for Pond 1. Please revise. See redlined drainage report. Topic: ErosionlSediment Control Number: 89 Created: 2/20/2003 Please indicate on the plan that the ponds along the south portion of the property will be constructed as the first phase of grading, and utilize them as sediment traps. Repeat Comment 6/4/03 Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: Transportation Number: 56 Created: 10/28/2002 It is recommended that a meeting be set up to discuss the future circulation pattern for this area as it redevelops for higher intensity according to the neighborhood plan. Follow-up comment (Rnd #2): There has been further talk within Transportation Services about a future possible rear street/drive/alley between lots that can accommodate future traffic projections for this area as it redevelops. It is strongly suggested that a meeting be set up to discuss the area's future circulation needs and to not preclude a future rear circulator. (COMMENT 6-4-03) The potential to allow for vehicular cross access to the north and for the creation of a future rear circulator/alley has been recommended from the start of this project's review. Even though the current neighborhood plan does not require or mention such a circulator, the improved accessibility would greatly benefit the future residents of the proposed development, as well as the neighborhood. To facilitate such an improvement, it is recommended with this development that 8 feet along the north side of the lot be identified and dedicated as a public access Page 3 Topic: Grading Plat: Number: 68 Created: 2/7/2003 There are a few minor locations where it appears that this project will be re -grading on neighboring lots. Any re -grading on adjacent property will require a permanent offsite easement for grading. The construction easement does not cover this. 5.22.03 - Repeat - the grading may be minor, but permission still needs to be obtained from the adjacent property owner to do it. Please provide, prior to hearing, letters of intent from these property owners that they will grant grading easements. Number: 92 Created: 5/22/2003 Grading in the ROW is still unclear. It appears that the grade will drop a foot within the sidewalk and that the grade from the wall to the sidewalk is too flat (less than 2%). Two values are given for TOW, which is correct? Shouldn't the grade contours be perpendicular to the slope arrows? (The ped. ramps at the driveway comers are shown to be flat and to slope at the same time.) Department: Stormwater Utility Topic: drainage Number: 43 Please add water quality outlet structure detail. detail with the trash rack at a 3 or 4 to 1 slope. Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Created: 10/23/2002 The detail should be similar to UDSCM, Vol. III Repeat Comment 2/19/03. There also needs to be calculations in the report documenting amount of water quality volume required and sizing of the orifices. FYI - The water quality volume required needs to be in addition to the water quantity detention. Repeat Comment 5/30/03 - Water quality volume calculations are OK, just need better documentation of the orifice sizing with the detail of the entire outlet structure in the plans, including all structural components. Number: 85 Created: 2/20/2003 There is currently no freeboard for the detention ponds. There needs to be 1 foot of freeboard with a designated spillway for each pond. Currently, water could spill onto the adjacent properties. There also needs to be at least 1 foot of freeboard to any finished floor elevation of the structure. The mechanical and equipment room are currently inundated by the HWEL of pond 2. Please revise and provide spillway calculations in the report. Repeat Comment 5/30/03 - This project being an in -fill development, it is understandable that a freeboard requirement of 1 foot may not be attainable for the enitre perimeter of the ponds. It is important to have this required freeboard to any structures proposed on the site. The utility rooms are still at the HWL of Pond 2. Also, on the southwest corner of the lot, there is a location where the retaining wall is lower than the HWL of Pond 1. This would create the pond to spill in this location rather than at the designated spillway at the driveway. Please revise grading to make the pond spill at its designated location. Water can not spill on any adjacent property as well for the 100-year event. Page 2 Ct j STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Citvof Fort Collins VF Ripley Associates, Inc. Date: 6/11/2003 c/o Louise Herbert 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite #201 Fort Collins, CO. 80521 Staff has reviewed your submittal for 808 WEST PROSPECT MIXED USE PDP, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: DetailSheet Number: 33 Created: 10/10/2002 Please use Detail 7-29B for the drive approach and use Detail D-10 for the sidewalk culvert. 2.7.03 - Detail D-10 was not used; the old detail is still on the plans. 5.21.03 - Now there is no detail for the under -walk drain at all. Please show Detail D-10 (re- attached). Topic: Genera! Number: 30 Created: 10/10/2002 Where is the proposed ped/bike connection to the North? 2.7.03 - This connection is still not being shown offsite. 5.21.03 - Again, this connection is still not shown. What is going on with it? Will easements be needed for it? Number: 74 Created: 2/7/2003 The soils report is being returned so that it can be signed and stamped and returned with the next submittal. 5.22.03 - The soils report was not returned. Please return a signed stamped copy of the soils report. Number: 90 Created: 5/22/2003 The off -site utility easements will need to be dedicated to the City in standard form (instructions are attached). They should not be dedicated to an individual (Frazier). Number: 91 Created: 5/22/2003 Letters of intent from affected property owners for any easements needed are required prior to scheduling a public hearing for this development request. The template easement language provided for the temporary construction easements is interesting, but the City's need is for letters from the adjacent property owners themselves stating that they intend to grant whatever easements are necessary for this project to move forward. For the off -site grading and temporary construction easements, copies of the completed easements are required prior to signing of mylars. For the off -site easements dedicated to the City (utility), the completed dedication paperwork, legal descriptions, sketches, and filing fees will be required prior to mylars being signed. Page I