HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM, 15TH FILING - PDP - 11-09 - CORRESPONDENCE - (13)Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 55 Created: 7/15/2009
PFA has no additional comments or concerns at this time.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. We can go through
an informal review because Engineering, Technical Services and Waste/wastewater
are the only departments that will need to review this again prior to hearing. We will
still require paper copies and two weeks time to review the corrections. Please feel
free to call myself or the staff member who made the comment for clarification.
Engineering needs to review — Site Plan, Plat, Utility Plans and Variance Request
Technical Services needs to review — Site Plan, Plat and Utility Plans
Water/Wastewater needs to review — Plat and Utility Plans
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6206.
Sincerely,
Emma McArdle
City Planner
CC Susan Joy, Engineering
Roger Buffington, Water/Wastewater
Jeff County, Surveying
Page 4
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 4 Created: 2/24/2009
[7/14/09] Missing the General and Construction Notes (only some of them are shown on the
cover sheet).
[4/7/09] You missed quite a few items that are required on the plan sets before going to
public hearing and labeled them instead as NA. This is not correct. Please go through
Appendix E4 and address all highlighted items that are not shown or shown incorrectly on
your plan set. Please call if you have questions so we can avoid unneccessary rounds of
review.
[2/24/09] Please see LCUASS for all utility plan requirements and go through and complete
all highlighted items in Checklist E-4 with the next round of review. All highlighted items
must be designed in the plan sets before the project may go to hearing. All other applicable
items must be completed in Final Compliance and prior to final plan approval.
Number: 34 Created: 2/27/2009
[7/14/09] The street cut note is incorrect. Please copy this note exactly:
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 City street repair standards.
The note requested on 2/27/9 is missing. Please note that if the existing curb and gutter can
not be removed in such a way that the street asphalt is not damaged, then all street
patching must be done in accordance with city standards.
[4/7/09] Repeat comment.
[2/27/09] Please show removals and approximate street cuts. Please note that if the
existing curb and gutter can not be removed in such a way that the street asphalt is not
damaged, then all street patching must be done in accordance with city standards. Just an
fyi..that means that the street patch occurs at the lane line or in the middle of the travel lane
when a cut is made parallel to the curb and gutter.
Number: 47 Created: 4/7/2009
[7/14/09] Please change the word "road" to "drive" in the cross section.
[4/7/09] What is the private drive constructed out of? Please provide a typical cross section
as well.
Number. 59 Created: 7/16/2009
[71161091 Please label all existing sidewalk widths.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: WaterMastewater
Number: 49 Created: 4/7/2009
[7/14/09] A manhole must be installed at the end of the 8-inch sewer that is extended south
from Custer. Clean -outs may be used at the end of the sewer services which go to Lots 1
and 3. (Sorry for the confusion caused by the redlined comments last round of review.)
[4/7109] Revise Construction Note 2 on sheet PDP-4 as shown on the redlined plans.
Number: 53 Created: 7/14/2009
[7/14/09] 1 would suggest revising the layout of the water line as shown on the redlines
which would avoid a street cut in Custer. Please call me to discuss (970-221-6854). This
would also require changing the utility easements on the plat.
Page 3
Number: 17 Created: 2/25/2009
[7/14/09] Repeat. The easements along Custer are different on the plat and the utility
plans. Please coordinate the plan sets and present the same information. Also, why are
you dedicating a 15' utility easement along a portion of the Custer frontage? Was that
required by another department? And why not the whole width of the property? The utility
plans are showing multiple layers of existing and proposed utility easements. Please show
the existing and then dedicate additional width off the back of existing but not over the
existing - does that make sense? And then coordinate the plat as well.
[2/25/09] The easements do not match from plat to utility plan.
Number: 52 Created: 7/14/2009
[7/14/09] Label the access easement as "6' Access Easement", all plan sets.
Number. 56 Created: 7/16/2009
[7/16/091 From Technical Services:
1. Boundary and legal close.
2. Minor line over text (scanning) issues on site and utility plans.
3. Benchmark #1 elevation needs to be changed on site and utility plans.
Number: 57 Created: 7/16/2009
[71161091 I think / see the problem with the driveway/curb return configuration. Back in
February, I commented that the driveway must be built in accordance with 707, which would
solve the need for a variance to the curb return radii (this comment has not been addressed
on the plan set as of yet). Commercial driveways must be 24-36' wide. Drive aisles must be
either 20' wide or 24' wide depending on the angle of the parking stall (see 19-7). Since we
have no idea what the future layout of the undeveloped lots are going to be, there is some
risk that you might have to rebuild the drive aisle when the future development comes in if
you go with the 20' width. My suggestion is to plan for the 24' wide drive aisle and dedicate
the EA for 24' as well. If you choose to go with the 20' wide drive aisle; both driveway
entrances have to be 24' wide for a minimum of 25' and then you may neck it down to 20'.
However, doing it this way, you run the risk of having to redo everything later. As stated in
several telephone conversations, widening out the driveway to standard should solve the
PFA issue and allow for the 15' curb returns, thus making the need for a variance
unnecessary.
Number. 58 Created: 711612009
[71161091 l will need another round of review because of the easement and variance issues
that have yet to be addressed. Please meet with me if you have questions or need help in
getting your plans in shape for hearing. This is a fairly simple plan set and shouldn't need
this many rounds of review.
Number: 60 Created: 711612009
[7116109] Since there are no landscape plans, you'll need to show all reseeding and such on
the utility plans. Perhaps the grading sheet? Or would the drainage and erosion control
sheet be better? Please work with your planner to come up with a satisfactory way to
address this issue.
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Citv of Fort Collins
Scott Maier
Armstrong Development Properties, Inc.
999 18th Street, Suite 2700
Denver, CO 80202
Date: 7/17/2009
Staff has reviewed your submittal for RIGDEN FARM, 15TH FILING PDP - TYPE I (formerly
1 st filing tract A Replat), and we offer the following comments (items in blue italics are new
since the letter dated 7/15/09):
ISSUES:
Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Emma McArdle
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 54 Created: 7/15/2009
[7/15/09] Please provide parcel size in gross and net acreage. May do at Final
Compliance.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: General
Number: 5 Created: 2/24/2009
[7/14/09] Repeat comment. The response letter indicates that you wish to pursue the
variance but a variance was not submitted with the plan set. Please submit the variance
along with an exhibit with a truck turning template overlayed on the driveway showing the
turning movement for both the 15' and the proposed curb return radii. There is no conflict
with PFA requirements as PFA turning radii only pertain to ONSITE. Driveways and street
intersection requirements fall under the public row and that's governed by Table 8-2. In
other words, you need to show us that the fire truck cannot make the turn without the larger
radii. As previously explained, this project can not go to hearing until all easement and
variances have been addressed so please address this asap.
[4/7/09] Repeat comment. A formal variance request is required if proposing anything other
than a 15' curb return radius. Please see LCUASS 1.9.4 for variance request requirements.
Also, now the plans are not calling out the radii at the driveway intersection at all so I do not
know what radius you have gone with. Please label the plans, thanks.
[2/24109] All driveways must be constructed in accordance with LCUASS detail 707. Curb
return radii must meet LCUASS table 8-2 requirements.
Number: 14 Created: 2/25/2009
[7/14/09] Please provide a copy of the recorded easement. We will need this document
prior to final plan approval. Also, the easement needs to be clearly shown, dimensioned
and labeled on all plan sets.
[417/09] 1 will need at minimum a letter of intent from the church property before allowing
this project to go to hearing. The actual easement itself will be required in Final Compliance
and prior to final plan approvals.
[2/25/09] Is there an access easement on the Timberline Church property allowing access
to their private driveway? If not, one will be needed before this development can be
approved. A letter of intent to grant this easement signed by the Church property owner will
be required prior to hearing and the actual easement itself will be required prior to final plan
approval.
Page 1