Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE DISTRICT AT CAMPUS WEST - FDP - FDP120021 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)02/12/2013: No ._.,itional comments at this time. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals(a)_fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: The site plan does not need to include the old ROW please remove them. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 02/13/2013: On the elevations please label materials of the wall that extends from the building to the cabanas. Does this wall have to be so tall? 12/20/2012: On the Elevations it appears the CABANA extends the full length of the courtyard, however on the site plan the CABANA is separated by a fence and gate on both sides. Which is correct? Building permits are not normally issued for structures in Drainage easements (cabana, parking garage). Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/20/2012 12/20/2012: On the elevations there is a note that all utility equipment shall be painted this note should also include mechanical equipment. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970.221-6820, wstanford(cDfcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/23/2012 01/08/2013: Please include R1-1 signage with "All Way" supplemental plaque on the NE corner of Plum and City Park. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Roadway detail sheets state a 7' bike lane and the cross sections state an 8' bike lane. Please correct. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/0812013 12/23/2012: Cross section states "7' No Park". Please correct. 03/26/2012: Please revise Bluebell to have parking on both sides of the roadway. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Private drive has two head -in parking stalls at the end, just past the under -building parking access. What is the design expectation for motorists to exit the spaces and ultimately move on to Plum SO The assumed methods of backing all the way out and into Plum is not desired by the City. Backing out and into the out bound lane of the under -building parking doesn't seem so easy or with very good sight distance and is not desired by the City either. Are the two stalls satisfying a must need situation? Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Please revise the S&S Notes on the S&S plan (sht 503) to match the S&S Notes on the General Construction Notes sheet (C001). Comment Number: 7 Landscape Plan sheet 6 looks like tree number 78 is in the middle of the access drive to the underground garage. Comment Number: 8 Landscape Plan sheet 6 — a few other trees look to be in the middle of sidewalks (trees number 77, 96 maybe, and 97. Please double check their placement on the plan. Comment Number 9: Sheet C503: please adjust the dotted white line (circle 3) to a spacing of 2' stripe, 4' gap at the taper into the bus stop (or continue the solid bike land through the bus stop area). Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 4 01/08/2013: TIS accepted. Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221.6854, rbuffington anfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/12/2013 Department: Technical Sei ....es Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, acounty(a)fcaov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 02/13/2013: The 'Review Set Not For Construction" note will need to be removed from all sheets prior to filing mylars. 01/02/2013: The "Review Set Not For Construction" note will need to be removed from all sheets prior to filing mylars. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 02/1312013: There are line over text issues on sheet C405 & C406. 01/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet C200, C403, C405, C406, C502, C504. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 02/13/2013: This text is still very small, but can be read. 01/02/2013: The text in the details on sheet C709 is very small. Can the details be enlarged? Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: There is a new line over text issue on sheet 4. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 02/13/2013: No plans were provided to us for review. If plans are to be filed with this project, we will need to review them before filing. 01/02/2013: No plans were provided to us for review. If plans are to be filed with this project, we will need to review them before filing. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, jcounty(a.fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/03/2013 02/13/2013: This will be addressed at final mylars. 01/03/2013: Do you want to provide newer title commitments? Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: The title at the top right corner of all sheets is cutoff, Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: Please show ties to the accepted corners on sheet 2. See redlines. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: More bearings & distances are needed for the easements on sheet 3. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: Does the drainage easement cross the access easement on sheet 3? Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: Is the easement marked up a drainage easement? Please label it. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/1312013: Forestry requests that Chanticleer Pear be used in place of New Bradford pear as a street tree. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/14/2013 02/14/2013: Need a more comprehensive Plan addressing the redline issues. This plan should also be separate from the drainage plan. I would also Like to see the sequence chart of BMPs during the different phases. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wlamargue a(�fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/27/2012 02/13/2013: Drainage easements are provided. The drainage report states that easements are not required for the private drainage infrastructure. Please revise. 12/27/2012: Reminder comment. Initial Date: 02/16/2012 Drainage easements are required for the planter detention areas. The detention area in the parking garage will be discussed in the development agreement. The City is still deciding what the best options are for securing perpetual compliance for the garage detention. We welcome any suggestions from the applicant. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: Many comments are located on the redlined plans. Please return the redlines with the next submittal. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: Is the storm drain systems located along the northem property boundary sized for the 100-year storm of the roof area? Also, is the roof drain system capable of collecting the major storm flows to the piping along the north property boundary. Flows may enter the property to the north if this system is not sized for the 100-year storm, Report says storm drains were sized for the 10-year. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: Basil is reviewing the media sections for the underground detention for all the variations proposed. Comments will come by February 15th. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: Cleanouts should be included frequently in the porous underground detention areas and identified on the plans. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02113/2013: The storm drains along the north property boundaries are located within 4 feet of many canopy trees. This situation is unavoidable so special maintenance should be identified in the SOP along with providing cleanouts frequently to help assist in maintenance. Topic: General Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: The civil, site, and landscape plans all appear to show that the entrances into Building 1 off of Plum Street are "side loaded" such that all portions of the building appear to be outside of right-of-way. If this is the intention, Engineering has no further concerns. (The response letter, along with the building elevations imply that the design is to be front loaded, which would still be of concern if stairs and/or railing encroach onto public right-of-way). Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/14/2013 02/14/2013: At the staff review, it was brought up that there may be subsurface structural components that encroach onto right-of-way. These structural components would need to be placed outside of right-of-way. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: With the change in Bluebell Street's width after initial submittals, I hadn't realized until now that the public walk portion is limited to the theoretical tree lawn area, where the only portion of sidewalk that's public is where the street trees are placed. Additional access easement or right-of-way needs to be provided off of Bluebell Street to bring the sidewalk behind the street trees in either right-of-way or access easement. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221-6361, tbuchananpfcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: It appears that there may be a utility line, possibly a storm drain line, close to existing trees to be retained #127 and #128. Please review LUC specification 3.2.1 G 7 for inclusion to address boring under root systems of existing trees. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 01/02/2013: Please review conifer tree sizes for minimum size standard 3.2.1 4 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: Thank you for adding Landscape note #16 about coring under root system. To help insure compliance during construction also please make note by these two spruce trees on sheet 4 of 14 and sheet 6 of 14 with a note and with an arrow pointing to the two trees. Note can say coring required under these two trees see landscape note #16 and tree protection note 7. Comment NumL 17 . ,nment Originated: 01/02/2013 02/13/2013: Acknowledged the applicant's response of providing a separate drawing via email. Per an email response, the drawing would need to be an exhibit as part of the encroachment permit that's being applied. A steel casing will need to be shown on the exhibit (and shown/provided as part of the construction plan set), and the exhibit will need to have the pullbox located outside of the right-of-way. 01/02/2013: Understanding that a private cable line is being contemplated to connect to buildings, this may potentially be allowed through an encroachment permitting process similar to the private fire line. The proposed location and design needs to be provided for review. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: What is the dotted rectangular area on the northwest portion of the site directly north of the tree/tree well, is this a sidewalk culvert? Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: Please add LCUASS Detail 707 to the detail sheets. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: Please add CDOT detail M-412 (or similar) for further concrete details for the bus bay and Aster Street. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: On sheet C704 there is a detail D-14 which doesn't appear to be needed and is superseded by Drawing 708 which is on sheet C706. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/13/2013 02/13/2013: The previous concerns regarding cover of pipe along Plum Street (and now cover of pipe along Bluebell Street) are considered addressed and confirmed with the City Engineer. The introduction of the inlet along Bluebell Street we believe was a great solution that addresses previous flowline concerns with the roadway along with the previous concerns of the storm line being private in right-of-way, A follow-up to the previous variance request will be done to "close the loop" on these items. Topic: General Comment Number: 6 1 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 02/13/2013: The response indicates that the details are located with the construction plan set. I was unable to find the details in the construction plan set. On sheet C403 there's a note that indicates "Proposed Wall Around Existing Tree (See Landscape Plans)" which implies the detail is in the landscape plans. No detail was found on the landscape plans. 01/02/2013: Information on the retaining wall around the existing tree at the northwest corner of Bluebell Street and Plum Street was not provided. The construction plans on the grading sheet refers to the landscape plan, however no design information appears on the landscape -plan. Depending on the information provided, this may need to be an structural engineered type of design provided in the construction plan set. V City of F&tCollins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. conUde velopmentreview February 18, 2013 Linda Ripley Ripley Design, Inc. 401 W. Mountain Ave. #100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: The District at Campus West, FDP120021, Round Number 1 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: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard(afcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/16/2013 02/16/2013: The architectural elevations for the north and west sides of the parking strucure are of inferior quality and will not likely reproduce on mylar so as to be readable. Please upgrade the quality of these elevations. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221.6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/02/2013 02/13/2013: Recognizing the response, we'll require this line be part of the encroachment permit(s) applied for with the project. 01/02/2013: If the storm sewer along Plum Street abutting buildings 1 and 2 is considered private, is there an opportunity to shift it to the north to not straddle the right-of-way line be completely out of right-of-way?