Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINVERNESS INNOVATION PARK FIRST FILING (ROCKY MOUNTAIN INNOVATION INITIATIVE) - FDP - 30-09A/B - CORRESPONDENCE -Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: Zoning Number: 2 Created: 8/19/2009 [10/19/09] The dimensions still aren't clear. I can see that Bldg 2 is 60' wide, but it's not clear on the depth. There's a dimension line showing 120', but that doesn't appear to go all the way to the north end of the building. Re: the car park structure, I still can't see the structure dimensions, just the stall dimensions. [9/16/09] 1 don't see the dimensions for Building 2 or for the car park structure. [8/19/09] Show building footprint dimensions on site plan for all buildings, including the bike parking pavilion. Number: 6 Created: 8/19/2009 [10/19/09] 1 looked at the elevation drawings that Ted Shepard has, and the sign is still shown on the building. It needs to be removed, especially since it doesn't comply with the sign code. [9/16/09] 1 didn't receive elevation drawings with this round of review, so I'm assuming signage has been removed from the drawings, in addition to just acknowledging that signage is under separate permit. [8/19/09] Signage isn't approved by this PDP, and should be removed from drawings. FYI, the RM12 signage shown on top of the canopy on the front of Bldg 1 doesn't comply with the sign code. Signs aren't allowed on top of canopy. Number: 7 Created: 8/19/2009 [10/19/091 The structure is labeled, but as mentioned above, it still doesn't appear to be dimensioned. [9/16/09] The response letter states that the applicant acknowledged this comment, but I don't see that the comment was addressed on the plan. Looks the same as the 1 st round of review. [8/19/09] The solar collector car park structure needs to be clearly shown/labeled on the site plan, with building dimensions shown. 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 - Ted Shepard Chief Planner Page 6 Number: 125 Created: 10/20/2009 [10/20/09] The drainage report states that the top of berm elevation of 4958 is also the spillway elevation. The plans show that the pond would start to spill at an elevation of 4956.5 near the west temporary swale. Please clarify the design of the pond and revise where necessary. Number: 126 Created: 10/20/2009 [10/20/09] Please add a detention pond depth gage on the drainage plan and provide a detail. Number: 127 Created: 10/20/2009 [10/20/09] Please add a basin summary table to the drainage plan. Number: 128 Created: 10/20/2009 [10/20/091 Please add HGL's to the storm sewer profiles. Number: 129 Created: 10/20/2009 [10/20/09] 1. The following plans should contain the No Floatable Materials note, specifically: "no overnight parking" and the "dumpster tie down": - Site Plan, Grading Plan, Drainage Plan - Drainage Report - Development Agreement 2. The parallel portion of the landscape wall is ok. The part that is of concern are the solid ends. It is the solid ends that will block the flow. Can you remove the solid ends and go with a post for support? 3. Considering the flood potential on the site, please make sure that all mechanical and electrical exterior components are protected from flood damage. This includes the plugs for the electrical car charging, connection components for the solar panels, wind turbine controls, etc. Protection may be achieved by elevating or floodproofing. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: WaterMastewater Number: 105 Created: 9/23/2009 [10/19/09] The fire hydrant to be installed on the north side of Vine is shown to connect to the existing main with a tapping saddle which would indicate that a wet tap connection is intended. On a wet tap, the valve must be bolted directly to the tapping saddle. If there is not enough clearance between the water main and duct bank for the valve (and possible lowering), a tee will need to be cut into the existing line which involves a shutdown of the water main and advanced notification to the affected customers. NOTE: Six feet of clearance between the water main and duct bank is needed to install tapping machine for a wet tap. [9/23/09] Revise notes and labels on Utility Plan (Sht 3) as noted on the redlined plans. Page 5 from the bottom of the inlets. Could this become an issue? (I'll defer this to Stormwater as the function of the inlets and stormwater system is more of their concern). Number: 133 Created: 10/21 /2009 [10/21/09] The soils report indicated that with the high groundwater in the area the use of under -drains was recommended. With the groundwater appearing to be below the pavement depth, this isn't necessarily being pursued from an Engineering perspective. However if the development wishes to install an under -rain system however, a groundwater report is needed and the design must be shown on the construction plan set. Regardless of whether an under -rain system is proposed or not, it would appear that there may be constructability concerns with the installation of the deeper utilities given the high groundwater. If de -watering of the area is somehow intended, this needs to be identified and discussed prior to field work. Number: 137 Created: 10/25/2009 [10/25/09] Additional comments may be made with the addition of the information required at time of final. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann Topic: Fire Number: 135 Created: 10/22/2009 Per our conversation at Staff Review, please email me a pdf of the revised remote FDC/hydrant locations. Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 131 Created: 10/21 /2009 [10/21/09] Sheet 1 of the landscape plans has one line over text issue. Topic: Plat Number: 130 Created: 10/21 /2009 [10/21/09] The boundary and legal close. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Stormwater Number: 114 Created: 9/25/2009 [10/20/09] The recorded easement is needed before mylar signature. [9/25/09] The letter of intent for the natural area use of the 2x's detention requirement has been received. Stormwater is ready for a hearing. Number: 115 Created: 9/25/2009 [10/20/09] The storm sewer functions as a siphon underneath Vine Drive. Siphons can be problematic and a solution should be worked out that can provide a more sustainable design. [9/25/09] At final compliance, the storm sewer placement will need to be coordinated to provide a suitable solution. Page 4 W verify if all the grading can be contained on -site. It does appear that offsite grading will be needed at least to the east. Number: 80 Created: 8/26/2009 [10/20/09] The response indicated that elevations and cross sections will be shown on the next submittal. This is fine, though without this information at this time, it's certainly possible additional concerns may be discovered. Please note in ID#76 that the patching limits will need to be expanded. [9/22/09] At time of final the patching limits will need to be expanded in accordance with our patching requirements. There will also need to be enough information (spot elevations/cross sections to show that the interim improvements will work properly in the interim condition and that these improvements along the frontage will match the ultimate condition. [8/26/09] The grading plan appears to show curb and gutter on both sides of Vine Drive, which has my assuming that both sides of the street along the development's property frontage is to be built at this time, however interim tapers are only shown on the north side. Is the curb and gutter (and driveway) on the south side not being proposed at this time and the grading plan combines showing interim and ultimate conditions? Again an interim horizontal control plan would be beneficial. Please note that the frontage improvements abutting the infiltration pond will need to be satisfied with this development. Number: 82 Created: 8/26/2009 [10/20/09] Carried over for reference as an outstanding with the response letter indicating will be addressed in the next submittal. [9/22/09] At time of final please ensure the information referenced in the response letter is included in the drawings. [8/26/09] The ultimate design should call out what the limits of the design are tying into and show such on the drawings. Does the terminus of the offsite design to the west tie into designs done with Old Town North? Does the terminus of the offsite design to the east need to show a transition to tie into existing edge of pavement? Number: 112 Created: 9/24/2009 [10/20/09] Carried over needing further clarification. [9/24/09] I'm assuming the modified inlet design discussed prior to submittal is still being looked at. Please look at providing some sort of written information/variance request (perhaps from the geotechnical engineer) along with a design detail of the proposed inlet design in order to have this discussion. Number: 132 Created: 10/21 /2009 [10/21/09] With the explanation this morning on the design of the modified Type R inlets with the perforated bottom, I discussed this with Pavement Management and the following thoughts/concerns were raised: - A detail/spec of the bedding beneath the bottom of the type R inlet should perhaps be specified as this material type may be of greater concern with the perforated bottom. - The City's work on North College along with the soils report provided for this project by CTL Thompson indicates that groundwater is shallow throughout this area. Specifically the soils report shows groundwater found at depths around 5' below the existing surface. With the construction drawings showing that the bottom of the inlets are generally more than 10' below the existing surface, there would seem to be the likelihood of groundwater entering Page 3 A' The following legal descriptions I have not yet seen: 5. Offsite right-of-way for the south side of Vine Drive 6. Offsite right-of-way east of the project. 7. Offsite sight distance easement directly east of the project. A concern I have is specific to #1 and #5 above, the utility and right-of-way dedications should encompass the entire length of the parcel in which the pond is being built (an additional 110' further east in length). The legal descriptions should be expanded to include the entire parcel frontage. [9/21/09] The plat now no longer shows these areas to be dedicated with the plat and references that they are by separate document. We will need to keep up with the processing of the easements to ensure that they are processed in time to record and then have the reception numbers shown on the plat as a result. As a backup, I would recommend that these various easements and rights -of -way are "to be recorded by separate document" so as to not necessarily be recorded prior to the plat being recorded given the tight schedule for the project. We will still need the signed offsite easements/rights-of-way in hand before the plat can be recorded, but then we're not holding up the plat from recording should the easement recordation process when left with the City become problematic -from a timing standpoint.. [8/26/09] The plat shows areas outside of the platted property being legally described (such as the drainage easement for the pond on the south side of Vine and the portion of the access, utility and drainage easement to the east of Lot 1). I've verified with the City Surveyor that the plat cannot be the document that establishes these areas because they're outside of the platted boundary. Either these areas need to be conveyed by separate document to the City, or the platted boundary needs to be expanded to include these areas. One consideration in this regard between the two options, may be the cost differential between the increased TDR fee of an expanded plat boundary against the TDR fee to dedicate by separate document. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 76 Created: 8/26/2009 [10/20/09] The expanded patching information is helpful. 25.5.2 of LCUASS requires that the street patching be done parallel and perpendicular to the line of travel however, so the patching limits shown need to be expanded further. [9/22/09] The interim condition is now easier to follow though the existing right-of-way east and west of the site is not shown. It should be verified if the roadwork being done (such as the pavement transitioning back to existing is fully within right-of-way or is additional right-of- way needed). [8/26/09] The interim condition is very difficult to follow and review over the contours of the grading plan. Please prepare a horizontal control plan to provide more clarity on the interim condition. Number: 79 Created: 8/26/2009 [10/20/09] There are still some property lines that I think aren't being shown/labeled. The demo plan sheet has numerous dark lines that would imply property lines but are not. (9/22/09] The property lines (when going off the site) are not shown on all sheets. [8/26/09) Please ensure the property line boundary is shown on all sheets of the construction plan set. Sheet 4 of the plan set does not indicate property line boundaries to Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins Michael Bello Date: 10/27/2009 Urban Development Partners, LLC 1220 S. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff has reviewed your submittal for INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK FIRST FILING PDP - TYPE I AND FINAL PLANS (aka Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative at Inverness Innovation Park, First Filing PDP - RM12), and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: General Number: 90 Created: 8/27/2009 [10/23/09] Need note on Demolition Plan. [9/24/09] Re: Demolition Plan. [8/27/09] All nuisance species, including Russian Olive and Siberian Elm will be removed from the buffer zone. A note shall be added to the Landscape Plan and the Demolition Plan describing this requirement. Number: 136 Created: 10/23/2009 [10/23/09] Provide PDF files of Demolition and Grading Plans prior to mylars for review. Topic: Photometric Site Plan Number: 42 Created: 8/25/2009 [10/23/09] [9/24/09] [8/25/09] Fixture AA shall include a full house side shield. In this case Accessory MA1213- XX. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 124 Created: 10/19/2009 [10/19/09] With the limits of construction to ultimate condition stopping short of being fully in front of the infiltration pond frontage, additional funds would need to be accounted for and collected prior to building permit (and indicated as such on the D.A.) Given the expanded patching limits now shown in the interim condition to tie back into existing, might there be a benefit in having the full half street frontage improvements in place along the infiltration pond? Topic: Plat Number: 71 Created: 8/26/2009 [10/20/09] The following are the legal descriptions I've received and are being checked for closure: 1. Offsite utility easement on the south side of Vine Drive. 2. Offsite drainage easement (infiltration pond) south side of Vine Drive. 3. Offsite access and emergency access easement (east of the project). 4. Offsite utility easement (east of the project, north side of Vine). Page 1