Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTH TRANSIT CENTER - PDP - 9-10 - CORRESPONDENCE - (17)[5/7/10] The main pedestrian connection/sidewalk in the south portion of the site is mainly at the west side of the lot. An additional connection should occur further east, near where the existing sidewalk along the access road curves west. Need to label the name of the access road on the various plans. Is it Fossil Blvd.? 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. Sincerely, Emma McArdle City Planner Page 11 w • Topic: Site Plan Number: 168 Created: 6/25/2010 [6/25/10] Please change the Railroad name to "BNSF Railway" on the Site Plans & Existing Conditions Plan, to be consistent with the Subdivision Plat. Topic: Utility Plan Number: 169 Created: 6/25/2010 [6/25/10] There are line over text & text over text issues on the Utility Plans sheets.004, C05, C06, C07 & C10. Number: 173 Created: 6/25/2010 [6/25/10] Please correct the direction of the north arrow on sheet C06, and add a north arrow to sheet C10. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Stormwater Number: 91 Created: 5/18/2010 [6/23/10] Reminder Comment. [5/18/10] Onsite drainage easements or alignments are needed for the limits of the detention pond and storm sewers. Number: 92 Created: 5/18/2010 [6/23/10] Reminder Comment. [5/18/10] Offsite drainage easements are required for the portion of the detention pond offsite and for any portion of the outfall storm sewer that is on private property and not within an existing drainage easement. Where an offsite drainage easement is required, a letter of intent is all that is required before the public hearing. Number: 94 Created: 5/18/2010 (6/23/10] Does a conflict exist with the existing storm sewer? [5/18/10] Please provide more detail for the outfall. This includes property lines, topo, etc. Number: 171 Created: 6/25/2010 [6/25/10] The drainage report states that 1.19 ac-ft of detention is required. When adding the quantity detention and quality detention stated in the report, 1.29 ac-ft results in being required. Please revise. Number: 172 Created: 6/25/2010 [6/25/10] What is the field inlet near the southern end of the outlet storm sewer for? Is this proposed or existing? There is an existing detention pond located in this area with an existing outlet structure. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: zoning Number: 6 Created: 5/7/2010 [6/18110] Applicant indicates that they'll provide quantities with final submittal. That's ok with Zoning as long as it's a condition of approval of the PDP. [5/7/10] The landscape legend needs to indicate the quantity of each tree, shrub, etc. Number: 8 Created: 5/7/2010 [6/18/10] The crosswalk should be labeled on the plan i.e. "raised", "painted" or what? Page 10 • [6/24/10] In numerous locations on many sheets there are water meter symbols that are clearly not water meters. Please remove. Number: 164 Created: 6/24/2010 [6/24/10] Overall, I have tried to encapsulate the majority of the major comments and concerns in these comments, however there are quite a few more issues with the Utility Set that I have noted as redlines on the plans themselves. I have checked and corrected them as much as feasible at this point, however once the plans are cleaned up and the appropriate information is displayed new comments regarding the design may be made in later rounds. Department: Forestry Issue Contact: Tim Buchanan Topic: Utility Plan Number: 165 Created: 6/25/2010 [6/25/10] The tree transplanting and mitigation plan was re -reviewed in the field on 6-25-10. Orange flagging was placed on 37 trees for transplanting. The previous count for trees to transplant was 33. Mitigation trees required were reduced to 98 pending the final determination if 3 large trees are transplantable. We reviewed minimum spacing between transplanted evergreen trees with a contractor and determined the minimum spacing needs to be 10 feet between transplanted trees. The landscape architect needs to contact the City Forester to discuss these changes and plans to transplant some trees off -site if necessary. Ornamental trees can be used for mitigation. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann Topic: Fire Number: 98 Created: 5/19/2010 [6/22/10] Thanks for showing the Emergency Access Easement on your documents. Just a reminder that approved signage will need to be in place prior to issuance of a CO. Just a reminder to include the EAE when you show easements on future documents. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Jennifer Petrik Topic: Utility Plan Number: 124 Created: 6/21 /2010 [6/21/10] Please provide an update on the status of the traffic signal at Hwy 287 and Fairway. Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County Topic: General Number: 167 Created: 6/25/2010 [6/25/10] The 2 Utility Easement & 1 Drainage Easement boundaries & legals close. Topic: Plat Number: 166 Created: 6/25/2010 [6/25/10] The Plat boundary & legal close. Number: 170 Created: 6/25/2010 [6/25/10] 6/25/10- We talked with Emma McArdle about the small tract at the southwest corner of the property. The City is in the process of purchasing this. The soonest the City would have title is September. It would be nice to include this in the plat, but would require the boundary to change. Page 9 0 Number: 153 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] An enlarged detail would be helpful to identify what exactly is proposed at the Northwest corner of the site. Please identify how the existing sidewalk is going to change and who exactly will be constructing the bus guide way. Are any of these areas in existing easements? If any off -site work is proposed with this plan set a off -site construction easement will be needed as well as a letter of intent prior to hearing. This area needs some clarification as it is currently not clear what is proposed. See redlines. — After a discussion at the Staff Review meeting on 6-23 it appears that no off -site work is proposed at this location with this project. This is by far the cleanest option, please show via line weight and callouts that all of this work is to be performed by others and the BRT project and no off -site work is proposed with this utility set. Number: 154 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] The North arrow on the Utility sheet is incorrect, please revise. Number: 155 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] A Type III barricade is required at the end of the access circulator and the sidewalk on the North end of the site. Number: 156 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] The proposed water line connection through the property to the North will require a utility easement and a letter of intent prior to hearing. Number: 157 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Who is the owner of the overhead line running East/West on the Southern portion of the site? It may need to be undergrounded. — After a site visit on 6-23 it appears that this line is no longer current. Remove the OHU line from the utility plan Number: 158 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Please call out the widths of all proposed and existing sidewalks and drive isles. Number: 159 Created: 6/23/2010 [6/23/10] Grading lines are not required on the Utility sheet. See comment #134. Removing the grading from the utility sheet will clean up the sheet drastically and make for a cleaner looking sheet. However, if this is done, the grading details for the proposed storm outfall and the end of Fossil Blvd will need to be done on the grading plan since grade lines are required for those details. Number: 160 Created: 6/24/2010 [6/24/10] After a site visit on 6-23 it appears that there is an existing storm inlet on the East curb line near where the proposed stormline passed under the NW corner of Fossil Blvd and Conjoes Rd. Please show this inlet and how the proposed line will impact and/or tie into this existing structure. See redlines. Number: 161 Created: 6/24/2010 [6/24/10] On the Utility sheet there are several locations where text is displayed that is not needed. I have tried to make a note of all of them on the redlines. Please remove text that is not needed. Number: 162 Created: 6/24/2010 Page 8 0 Number: 138 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] It appears that the installation of the stormline in Fossil Blvd is require the removal of the C&G along Fossil Blvd. Handicap ramps will be required to be installed along Fossil Blvd at the time of re -construction. Also, since the sidewalk along the north side of Fossil Blvd is the main pedestrian connection to the site, a mid block handicap ramp is encouraged on Fossil Blvd on the North side of the street. See redlines. Number: 139 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Label the width of all existing and proposed sidewalks. Number: 140 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Where is the existing ROW along Fossil Blvd and Fairway Lane? It is missing, mis-labeled, or difficult to tell. Number: 145 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] An enlarged detail of the portion of the site at the end of the currently constructed Fossil Blvd is needed to show what is proposed to happen to the curb line, the existing crown of the road and the proposed transition into the site, and the proposed sidewalk connection to the North. See redlines. Number: 146 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] If the proposed sidewalk along the detention pond was a public sidewalk in ROW we would require that 1 foot behind the walk be flat before the 4:1 grading took place to ensure pedestrian safety. Since this is not a public sidewalk we can not require that 1 foot however is anything similar proposed to ensure pedestrian safety? Number: 147 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] What is proposed to happen to the existing bike path at the Northwest corner of the detention pond? The plan shows some concrete in the pond. See redlines. Number: 148 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Are the sidewalk chases under the existing bike path existing or proposed? If proposed please call them out as such and include the appropriate sidewalk chase detail from Stormwater. Number: 149 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] There are many locations on the Utility set that have the incorrect lifestyle which is identified as a property line. See redlines and revise. Number: 150 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Is the western most storm inlet proposed to be within the sidewalk? If so what will it be draining? Shouldn't it be along the curb line? Number: 151 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Handicap ramps are required at all pedestrian crossings on the site. See redlines. Number: 152 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] The proposed fire hydrants are shown as being in the bus drive isle. Is this correct? Page 7 Number: 129 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Add "(For Reference Only)" to the plat sheet since the plat within the utility set will not be signed. Also, the plat should be located after the notes sheet within the utility set. See cover sheet and plat sheet redlines. Number: 130 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] As mentioned earlier, all easements on this site need to be labeled as "Alignments" not Easements. See redlined plat for these changes. Also, it would be cleaner and easier to dedicate all the onsite Alignments on the plat instead of dedicating them by separate document which has additional fees associated with each dedication. All the off - site dedications will still need to be done via separate document. Number: 131 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] The general notes sheets (General Construction Notes and the General Notes) should be located directly after the cover sheet in the Utility Set. See notes sheets for redlines. Number: 132 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] The grading plan is showing some off -site grading on the property to the East. This grading will require a temporary construction easement form that property owner unless the grading can be revised to stay within the property. If a easement is required, a letter of intent will also be required prior to hearing. Number: 133 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Spot elevations are still needed on the grading plan for the lot corners. See redlines. Number: 134 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] On the Utility sheet, a enlarged detail of the proposed drainage outfall into the Redtail development is needed to show what exactly is proposed and how this design will tie into Redtail Phase 2. Existing and proposed grading is required as well as outfall elevations and how exactly this design will work in the interim and ultimate conditions as Redtail constructs their improvements. Much more detail is needed in this enlargement showing the surrounding conditions and what Redtail Phase 2 will be constructing. However since grading lines are not required on the utility sheet this enlargement may be better suited for the Grading sheets. Removing the grading lines from the utility plan will allow more clarification of lines and make for a cleaner plan. Also, be sure to include both the existing conditions with ample labeling as well as the ultimate Redtail Phase II improvements called out as such. Number: 135 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] A drainage/construction easement may be required for the proposed storm outfall into the Redtail development. If so, a letter of intent is also required prior to hearing. Number: 136 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] The proposed outfall must coordinate with the Redtail Phase 2 design. It appears that the stormline is currently shown going through a building envelope. Number: 137 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Quite a bit more detail is needed to show what is proposed for the storm outfall. See redlines for additional comments. Page 6 0 [5/21/10] Is the curb and gutter along Fairway Ln. and Fossil Blvd. being reconstructed? If not, please do not show it in a proposed line weight. Number: 120 Created: 5/21 /2010 [6/22/10] It is still not shown or called out where the existing street ends and what is proposed at the end of the existing Fossil Blvd. Is any of what will need to be built within existing ROW? [5/21/10] On all sheets in the Utility set, please show where existing Fossil Blvd ends and if any street cuts and/or patches are required for the new utilities. Number: 121 Created: 5/21 /2010 [6/22/10] Note not added to the Utility sheet. [5/21/10] Please add the following street cut note to the Utility and Grading sheets: "Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with the City street repair standards." Number: 123 Created: 5/21/2010 [6/22/10] Again, this set needs some drastic work before it can be accepted by the city. I have tried to identify the major issues and provide much feedback with my redlines. Again, feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the Utility Plan requirements, am more than happy to sit down and discuss them with you. [5/21/10] Overall, the Utility plan set needs some work. Please take another look at the Utility Plan checklist provided in Appendix E-4 of LCUASS to see what exactly is required. I have tried to identify the majority of the big issues with this round, however the set needs some work before the next round. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Number: 125 Created: 6/21 /2010 [6/21/10] The following comments are from Engineering Inspection: 1) The utility plan needs a sheet containing the stormline profiles with grades. 2) Is it possible to move the stormline manhole out of the sidewalk along the detention pond? Not having the manhole directly in the walk is preferred. 3) Please add handicap ramps at all cross -walk locations as well as the handicap ramp details from LCUASS. 4) The South fire hydrant line is also labeled as a fire line. The line is shown as just a hydrant line. Number: 126 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] The PE stamp and signature is only required on the final mylars, not on each submittal. Number: 127 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] Before printing mylars, remove all the text in the revision block. Number: 128 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] The two standard text notes that you have attached to the signature block are only required on the cover sheet. Please remove them from the other sheet. Also, they are not required to be attached to the signature block. Page 5 • Number: 100 Created: 5/19/2010 [6/22/10] The Access circulator design through the site is acceptable to engineering. However, because this is a city property, and the city can not grant easements to itself, all of the "Easements" on the site needs to be called "Alignments". The process and end result is the same, however, they will all need to be called out as Alignments not Easements on both the utility plans as well as the Plat. [5/19/10] The Access circulator through the site will need to be in an Access Easement. Please show this and any other easements on site such as the Emergency Access Easement on the Utility Sheet. Number: 113 Created: 5/21 /2010 [6/22/10] Please add LCUASS details: 701, 702, 1201, 1601, 1602, 1603, 1606, 1606(a), 1607. Also, why is some of the text in the details bolded? It is difficult to read, please do not bold that text. Please ensure that all of the details are the most recent edition, some of the dates are from 2000. [5/21/10] Site details are needed for the utility plan set. Please see Appendix A in LCUASS for all of the applicable details. Number: 114 Created: 5/21 /2010 (6/22/10] If you wish to use a single abbreviations sheet for the set it is OK, however there are several line styles that are incorrect. Please use the correct line styles. [5/21/10] For this site, would it be cleaner to do away with the general abbreviations sheet and simply call out what is needed on each sheet? It is a fairly straight forward plan and having to refer back to a master list that is much bigger than needed seems wasteful. Also, there is plenty of room on each page for a small legend. Number: 115 Created: 5/21 /2010 [6/22/10] Spot elevations are still missing. See redlines and checklist item II. D. for what is required. [5/21/10] On the grading sheet, many spot elevations are needed. See the checklist (Appendix E-4) item II.D. for what spot elevations are needed. Also, please make the property lines much darker. The background line weight is also too light and will not scan properly. Number: 116 Created: 5/21 /2010 [6/22/10] The line weight still needs some work. Grey scale is acceptable however it appears that there are only two line weights (dark and light). Feel free to look at any utility plan set that has been accepted by the city for reference. The Union Place Development is a good example of a site that is of similar size. [5/21/10] On most sheets the line weight needs some work. Please show whatever is proposed as a dark line weight and what is existing as a lighter line weight that what is proposed. The current existing conditions line weight is too light and will not meet the city's scanning criteria. Also, please show property lines etc as the darker weight. Number: 118 Created: 5/21 /2010 [6/22/10] The C&G along Fossil Blvd is within the area shown for the proposed storm line. This C&G will need to be replaced as well as sidewalk if it is disturbed. Also, since the C&G along Fossil Blvd at the intersection with Fairway Ln. is being torn up, the installation of Handicap Ramps may be required. Page 4 • Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Andrew Carney Topic: Utility Plan Number: 38 Created: 5/14/2010 [6/22/10] The city signature block is required to be in the lower right hand corner of ALL sheets within the utility plan set with the exception of the plat since it for reference only. See section 3.2.3 in LCUASS for information on the title block requirements. [5/14/10] Please add the City signature block to all sheets in the Utility Plan set. Number: 40 Created: 5/14/2010 [6/22/10] The provided General Notes are incomplete. Please include all of the notes as well as the project specific information in notes 19 and 48. Also, note 44 is missing and the text you have provided at the start of the notes should not have been copied, please remove it. Lastly, please put the notes pages directly after the cover sheet in the set. [5/14/10] Please add the General Notes and the General Construction Notes to the Utility Set. (See Appendix E-1-FC/LAR and E-2 of LCUASS). Number: 41 Created: 5/14/2010 [6/22/10] On several of the sheets more information was included, however the information does not appear to be complete. In many instances, incorrect line styles are used and/or lines are not labeled. Please CLEARLY label everything. [5/14/10] Please show more off -site context on all sheets. It is difficult to tell what the surrounding properties/areas are as existing. Number: 42 Created: 5/14/2010 [6/22/10] Spot elevations not provided for lot corners. See II. D. in the LUCASS Utility Plan Checklist. (5/14/10] Add finish grade elevations for streets, lots corners, and finish floors/top of foundation of buildings for all lots. (See II. D. in the LUCASS Utility Plan Checklist) Number: 43 Created: 5/14/2010 [6/22/10] Note was not added to the Erosion Control Plan - please add it. [5/14/10] Add the following note to the Grading and Drainage and Erosion Control plan sheets. "The top of foundation elevations shown are the minimum elevations required for protection from the 100-year storm." Number: 84 Created: 5/18/2010 [6/22/10] The stormline plan needs to show a stormline profile complete with proposed line grades, depths, and lengths. Also, please clearly show what is proposed to be cut, patched, or replaced. If a segment of pavement or sidewalk is to be replaced it needs to be shown as a darker line weight. See redlines. [5/18/10] On the Storm water plan please show the grading (existing and proposed), how the stormline is tying into the existing, any off -site easements that are needed, as well as, any street cuts/patches that are required. Currently, there is very little detail on the sheet. Number: 86 Created: 5/18/2010 [6/22/10] For the most part, more off -site context was included, however much more detail is needed for the proposed stormline layout and outfall. There isn't any proposed grading shown for the outfall and very little existing grading. See redlines. [5/18/10] All of the sheets in the Utility Plan could use more off -site context and background information. It is very difficult to understand the surrounding conditions and how this design will tie in. Page 3 [6/17/10] A Modification of Standard Request has been submitted for this section. Please revise the request to initially call out what the intent of the standard is and how this plan deviates from that. Right not it just starts with a justification, but for a hearing officer or the public that does not know what the standard is the way it is written currently makes it hard to understand. (5/14/10] Parking lots with more than 100 spaces shall consist of at least 10% of interior landscaping, which is apx 5,428 s.f. for this proposal. The plan only has apx 2,614 s.f. of landscaping, please increase the interior landscaping to meet the standard. Number: 50 Created: 5/14/2010 [6/22/10] 1 think we need to clarify the parking lot landscaping information on the plan. Please see redlines. Some islands are hindered by lighting, but there are at least 2 on the north side of the site that can accommodate trees. I still don't think that there are enough trees shown to meet the requirement. [5/14/10] All landscape islands shall have a canopy shade tree. Code requires 1 canopy shade tree per 150 s.f. of interior parking lot landscaping. With the 10% requirement of 5,428 s.f. of interior landscaping the parking lot shall have a minimum of 36 shade trees. (3.2. 1 (E)(5)(b)) Topic: Lighting Plan Number: 61 Created: 5/14/2010 [6/22/10] The LLF should be 1, please revise plans. [5/14/10] Please tell the Light Loss Factor on the plans, without this the numbers mean nothing. Number: 62 Created: 5/14/2010 [6/22/10] Please add a note saying this on the plan. [5/14/10] Not clear from the plan where the ELI lights are, the plan says to refer to the elevations, but I don't see them on the elevations either. Topic: Site Plan Number: 59 Created: 5/14/2010 [6/16/10] Why not take advantage of the possibility to get more spaces on this site by having some compact spaces? [5/14/10] Are there any Compact Parking spaces? These may account for 40% of your spaces and be 8' wide as opposed to 9,' they would need to be labeled. Topic: Water and Sanitation Number: 143 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] These comments are entered in for Terry Ferrill, with Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. Sheet C08 shows three proposed sections of the sanitary sewer line extension. The length and pipe diameter of the proposed sections are 146 LF of 8 inch, 171 LF of 8 inch and 163 LF of 4 inch. On sheet C09 the last section is shown as 161 feet of 8 inch. The discrepancy needs to be corrected. Number: 144 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] There may be vertical conflicts between the proposed water, sanitary sewer and the storm water at the south end of the project. Page 2 Fart Collins STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Jerod Huwa Date: 6/28/2010 BHA Design, Inc. 1603 Oakridge Dr Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff has reviewed your submittal for SOUTH TRANSIT CENTER PDP- TYPE I, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Emma McArdle Topic: Elevations Number: 67 Created: 5/17/2010 [6/22/10] Maybe I just don't know the terminology, but can you clarify that Alum. Storefront are windows and add color information to all finishes, i.e. Stained and Painted, what color? [5/17/10] 1 like the color plans for review, but I will need to make sure they are legible in black and white also, please submit black and white next time or include both. Also, black and white plans label the colors of each material. Number: 69 Created: 5/17/2010 [6/22/10] Please add note indicating that if anything is mounted on the roof that it will be screened from view. [5/17/10] Will there be any vents or equipment on the roof? Number: 141 [6/22/10] What does D.S., TYP mean? Created: 6/22/2010 Number: 142 Created: 6/22/2010 [6/22/10] The shadows may not be good for scanning purposes, but I'll leave that up to Technical Services to address. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 37 Created: 5/13/2010 [6/16/10] Assuming this requirement is met at Final Compliance, the note will address my concerns. (5/13/10] Please include a table with all trees types and species called out and number and percentage of total trees listed meeting LUC 3.2.1((D)(3) Minimum Species Diversity. Number: 48 Created: 5/14/2010 [6/16/10] This standard only applies to parking lot perimeter landscaping, you've added more trees than would be required, but due to the mod of standard request for less interior parking lot landscaping, I think the extra trees are needed to make up for those missing on the interior. [5/14/10] 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) requires 1 tree per 40' linear feet along a side lot line. The side property line is 460', which requires 12 trees, only 10 are on the plan. Number: 49 Created: 5/14/2010 Page 1