HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD THIRD FILING - PDP - PDP130037 - CORRESPONDENCE -Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: If there are questions, please contact me at 970498-0604. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eric Gamer, P.E.
District Engineer
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221.6854, rbuffington(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Water service in this area is provided by the ELCO Water District. Revise the drawings
and notes on Shts OU1 and U1 to indicate connection to the ELCO main in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac
on Mandarin Drive.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970.416-2743, avandeutekom,(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
11/27/2013: No comments
0
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Page 15 of 15
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please review the organization and analysis documents in the Short and Long
Background and Total appendices. It seems to have repeat and missing analysis documents. The
long term total, Appendix F, is presented before the ST Total, Appendix G.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please revise the the label of Stop Sign to Signal for Lemay & Vine, ST Total.
Topic: Variance Request
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Traffic Operations recognizes there's no applicable solution to the existing Lemay and
Vine intersection condition and recognizes that without development west and north providing their
appropriate New Vine roadway improvements the problem at Lemay & Vine will continue until major
funding can be found to build the ultimate overpass/underpass improvements to mitigate the condition.
This only delays improvements in the area to provide relief from the current operational issues at the
intersection. As such Traffic Operations accepts the Variance Request for relief from the LOS standards
at Lemay and Vine.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: LCUASS Figure 8-1 requires left turn lanes at all intersections and all -movement accesses
on arterial streets. Therefore left turn lanes are required at Timberline and New Vine and at Timberline
and the north site access. The applicant will need to submit Variance request(s) for the City to consider
alternatives to the standard.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Eric Garner, ,
Topic:General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet EX2: Existing District infrastructure is incorrectly labeled. The existing BSD sanitary
sewer is 10-inch diameter (10�) , not 8-inch diameter (8�)
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet EX2: Label existing District manholes using District labels. Beginning at
northernmost manhole (PDI 0820), and decline in increments of ten (10) to the final southwest manhole
located north of Vine Drive (PDI 0750). Please let me know if clarification is needed.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet DE3: The existing District sanitary sewer crossing Vine Drive is 16-inch diameter,
not 12-inch diameter shown.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet OU1: Coordinate callouts of existing District sanitary sewers with previous
comments; 10-inch and 12-inch. Sheet OU1 indicates 8-inch, 10-inch, and 15-inch.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11126/2013
11/26/2013: The District has more than adequate treatment plant capacity to service the property
referenced above. Any written agreements required to complete sanitary sewer connections to the
property will be completed subsequent to the land approval process.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/2612013: The District is a participant in the region's 208 Water Quality Planning Association. The
District is in full compliance with applicable federal and state water quality requirements.
Page 14 of 15
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 12104/2013
12/04/2013: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: The outer boundary distance along Timberline Road does not match the Waterfield P.U.D.
First Filing. See redlines.
Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please label the line marked running parallel to Timberline Road on sheets 7 & 9. See
redlines.
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: All centerlines must have bearings & distances and/or curve data.
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: All street & alley rights of way must show the width.
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated:
12104/2013
12/04/2013: Please show the record distance at the east end of Outlot A on sheet 9. See redlines.
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated:
12104/2013
12104/2013: Please switch the bearings and distances marked on sheet 9. See redlines.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12104/2013: Please show the east right of way line of Timberline Road on sheets 7 & 9. See redlines.
Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please show Conifer Street across Outlot A on sheet 10. See redlines.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 10
12/02/2013: Please add "Third Filing" to the title on sheet 1. See redlines.
Comment Number: 11
12102/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. See redlines.
Comment Number: 12
12/02/2013: There are text over text issues on sheet 2. See redlines.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970.221.6820, wstanford(a)fcoov.com
Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
Comment Originated: 12102/2013
Comment Originated: 1210212013
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: New Vine Drive and also New Timbedine Drive P&P sheets: Please design the median
noses to conform to LCUASS Standard Drawing 801.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: No Signing and Striping Plans. Ok to provide at FDP stage.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Just a note for clarification: the Tls states the land use classification as Low Density Mixed
Use District, which should be corrected to L.D.M.U. Residential.
Page 13 of 15
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Is the easement(as drawn in on sheet 3) dedicated by Waterfield P.U.D. Second Filing
being vacated by this Plat? See redlines.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Waterfield P.U.D. Second Filing shows a Public Service Co. easement. Is it to be
vacated ? If so please show it on sheet 3 and provide an acknowledgement block for PSCO. If not,
show it on sheets 4 & 5.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please adjust the outer boundary shown along Vine Drive on sheet 3. See redlines.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Rights of way shown on sheet 3 as being vacated by the Plat, must be vacated by City
Council action.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please change all "Vine Drive" for the proposed realignment to "New Vine" Drive (Final
Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). See redlines.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please change "Outlot A" to "Outlot B" on sheet 3. See redlines.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Outer boundary bearings & distances would be helpful as an overview on sheet 3, along
with ties to section comers & section lines. See redlines.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please add a keymap to sheets 4-10.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated:
12104/2013
12/04/2013: Please show the sidelines on all easements. See redlines.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated:
12104/2013
12/04/2013: All easements must be dimmensioned and locatable. See redlines.
Comment Number: 35
Comment Originated_ :
12104/2013
12104/2013: Please add marks for all point of tangency. See redlines.
Comment Number: 36
Comment Originated:
1210412013
12/04/2013: Please add bearings & distances to all lot lines. See redlines.
Comment Number: 37
Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: All existing streets must show dedication information.
Comment Number: 38
Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12104/2013: Street names need to be shown on all sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 39
Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please label all surrounding subdivisions. See redlines.
Comment Number: 40
Comment Originated:
12104/2013
12/04/2013: Please label & describe the aliqout comers. See redlines.
Comment Number: 41
Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Is there non continuity in the curves on sheet 6? See redlines.
Page 12 of 15
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12/02/2013: There is cut off text on sheet R16. See redlines.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12102/2013: Please increase the size of the marked text on the cross sections. See redlines.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 12102/2013
12/02/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets 3, 4 & 5. There are many more issues than what
is marked. Removing the contours would clean these sheets up a lot. See redlines.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please remove "P.U.D." from the title on all sheets.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please add "A Portion Of' to the sub -title on all sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12104/2013: Please add "except the south xx' of the East Vine Drive right of way" to the legal
description. See redlines.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please revise the legal desccription. See sheet 3.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: The boundary & legal description close.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please check the next to last call in the boundary. The legal description & plat do not
match for the distance. See redlines.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated:
12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliqout corners shown on
the Plat.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: If you are vacating Boxelder's easement (Reception #98090191), an acknowledgement
and signature from them will be necessary.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: If you are vacating Poudre School District's drainage easement (Reception #98094713),
an acknowledgement and signature from them will be necessary.
Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please update the title commitment information as appropriate.
Comment Number: 23 1 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12104/2013: Please add a note for the ownership, maintenance and proposed usage ( i.e. easements)
for all Tracts & Outlots.
Comment Number: 24
12/04/2013: Conifer Street should remain. See redlines.
Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
Page 11 of 15
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970.218.2932, ischlam()fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/19/2013
11/19/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials
need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria
under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials
Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report,
and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are
any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416-2418, wlamargue(a.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please quantify how the site is meeting the LID requirements. List LID measures that are
being proposed for the various sub -basins and preliminarily calculate the volume required and where
these measures will be located.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please label on the gading plan the grading proposed for each lot, Type A or Type B to
ensure the lots can be graded per City requiements.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please see redlines for other minor comments.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: An off -site drainage easement is required for the sub -basin 13 drainage that is being
directed off -site. A letter of intent from the property owner is required before a public hearing.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, icountv(.fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11129/2013
11/29/2013: There is a "R" missing from sheets R20-R22 in the sheet index.See redlines
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/29/2013
1112912013: Please change the benchmarks shown on sheet CS2 to Fort Collins benchmarks. The
benchmarks on sheets CS1 & CS2 should match. See redlines.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2013
11/29/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2013
11/29/2013: Please change all "Vine Drive" for the proposed realignment to "New Vine" Drive (Final
Name To Be Determined By City Council By Resolution). See redlines.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/29/2013
11/29/2013: There are text over text issues on several sheets. See redlines.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/02/2013
12102/2013: There is text on several sheets that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See redlines.
Page 10 of 15
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Ash trees and the Freemont Cottonwood are shown -on the wetland mitigation and enhancement list.
These species are not recommended. Please review for suitable substitutions using regionally native
species.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
For lots that are 60 feet or less in width (which appear to be most of the lots) provide only one street
tree per lot. Utility and driveway separation standards limit more than one tree per lot on these
narrower lots. (LUC 3.2.1 D. 2. a. If two or more consecutive residential lots along a street each
measure between forty and sixty feet in street frontage width, one tree per lot may be substituted for
the 3040 feet spacing).
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Check that street trees are shown at 40 feet spacing along streets that are not fronted by homes.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Please add the following street tree planting notes:
Street Trees shall be supplied and planted by the developer using a qualified landscape contractor.
Street trees shall be installed by residential lots by the developer at time of CO, unless season of year
limits tree planting, in which case residential street trees shall be planted within 6 months of CO.
The Developer shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting until final maintenance inspection
and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees in the project must be
established, of an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance.
Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utility
separations between trees, street signs and street lights. Street trees to be centered in the middle of
the lot to the extent feasible. Quantities shown on plan must be installed unless a reduction occurs to
meet separation standards.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970.416.2869, Ilvnxwiler@aoudre•fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: PRIOR COMMENTS
All prior PFA comments have been addressed to this point.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: GARGANEY DRIVE TRAVEL WIDTHS
The proposed 14' travel lanes for Garganey Drive (on either side of median) may pose a problem for
emergency vehicle access. If parking is to be allowed on Garganey, then the net available road width
is insufficient to allow for fire apparatus movement and operations. Further review and discussion is
needed.
Page 9 of 15
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221.6361, tbuchanan(a.fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11127/2013:
Please contact the City Forester to review in an on -site meeting any existing trees and possible
mitigation. If there are existing trees to retain they should be shown on the plan and the tree protection
notes added that are found in in LUC 3.2.1 G.
Comment Number: 2
11/27/2013:
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Identify any existing trees by species, size, condition, to retain or mitigate and the number of mitigation
trees. Place this information in a table. Provide upsized mitigation trees in the required numbers
based on the following sizes.
Canopy Shade Trees 3.0 inch caliper
Ornamental Trees 2.5 inch caliper
Conifer trees 8 feet height.
Comment Number: 3
11/27/2013:
Select all street trees from the City of Fort Collins Street tree list.
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
If not already provided add a note with all of the utility separation standards in LUC 3.2.1.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013:
Provide street tree placement that meets all of the utility separation standards in LUC 3.2.1. Show
street light locations and tree placement to the separation standard.
Comment Number: 6
11/27/2013:
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Provide a street tree design based on guidelines in the City of fort Collins Streetscape and Median
Standards.
Comment Number: 7
11/27/2013:
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Address how landscaping in the medians of the future Vine Drive is to be addressed and installed.
Consult with Clark Mapes and Pete Wray on design standards.
Page 8 of 15
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: 11/27/2013: The ECS for the project indicates the total wetland is 8.46 acres and 0.18
acres are proposed to be developed through the project. The wetland is non -jurisdictional, per the
ACOE letter, and only City regulations apply to this wetland. The applicants have proposed to mitigate
the 0.18 acres of wetlands through upland enhancements.
I've reviewed the ECS and the proposed plans and do think that the ecological value lost from the
0.18 acres of wetlands could be replaced through upland habitat enhancements, especially as the
hydrology data from 2013 (and observations since the early 2000s) indicate the large wetland may be
drying up.
However, the plans as they are currently proposed need to provide a much higher level of buffering
and vegetation enhancements to achieve the standards set forth in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use
Code. I've tried to graphically depict the areas where I think additional enhancements are necessary,
but perhaps a meeting with the applicants, Cedar Creek Associates, and myself would be beneficial?
Let me know if that would work for you.
The ECS also needs to address the removal of the Russian olives and how that will be mitigated for, in
accordance with recent Land Use Code updates.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Can the lineweights be clarified on the site/landscape plans so that the difference between
the buffer areas and the wetland boundary can be more easily read?
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: The buffer zone around the canal also needs to be labeled and additional plantings
should be discussed in this area as well. I'd also like to see a stronger relationship between the
wetland area and the canal, e.g., can there be a direct connection from the trail around the wetland to
the canal? Are there plans for ped access along the canal? Is there a seed mix proposed for the buffer
along the canal? If so, can that be specified and made clearer?
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Please note that fugitive dust requirements from Larimer County may apply. Contact their
Health Department for more information.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: What is the improvement on the southwest comer of the wetland? It appears to be another
traillpath, but it's also outside of this phase? Does the phasing line need to be changed or should this
detail be removed?
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: A note should be added to the site/landscape/utility plans that the wetland and canal
areas are meant to be maintained in a native landscape. This will help preserve the intention behind
the buffer zones and the natural features into the future.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: On the fence detail, it appears the scale is off. Also, I would prefer to see the wire mesh
be required and not optional to prevent domestic animals from entering into the wetland area
unleashed.
Department: Forestry
Page 7 of 15
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Mandarin Drive should have it's right of way extended and dedicated to tie to Conifer.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Public right of way should not be dedicated in the alley in Block 11, this could be
dedicated as an Access Tract instead. Please label width.
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenbergerna.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/18/2013
11118/2013: The project owes and additional $6532.68 for the TDRF PDP fees. This is based on the
total land being platted being used in the fee calculations.
Andrew Gingerich - excluding some portions of land being platted could reduce these fees, i.e. the
outlots, some tracts, etc.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224-6143, lex(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Please add the Environmental Planner signature to the Utility Plans.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Please add the following statement to the notes on the Utility and Grading overall plans,
and on any sheets that show the wetland or canal: Please see Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for
allowable uses within the buffer zone. .
Comment Number: 3
11/27/2013: Please also label the buffer zones on the utility plans
Topic: General
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
Page 6 of 15
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Medians require an underdrain to drain them, show on the plans where these underdrains
will tied to storm sewer and how they will outfall.
Comment Number: 34
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/2712013: There are numerous areas where the grade break on the centerline profile is greater than
the allowable .40 percent. Please revise or add vertical curves.
Comment Number: 35
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Sheet R16 -Pavement on Merganser and the other 2 roadways that are proposed to have
the center v-pan and cross pans will need to be constructed with concrete pavement. See redlines.
Comment Number: 36
Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Sheet R19 - Dedicate right of way for Mandarin all the way to Conifer Street right of way.
The roadway may be phased and only constructed to the cul de sac shown. However, do not build a
formal cut de sac, construct the roadway and rollover curb as a normal street, end with a barricade and
provide temporary turnaround outside of the rollover curb with temporary asphalt, road base, etc. The
turnaround area may be dedicated as an access easement instead of the right of way as shown.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Show the offsite design for existing vine street 500' outside of project boundaries.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Right of Way may not be vacated by Plat. It will need to be vacated by separate
document and go through City Council approval which includes two readings after the project has been
approved through public hearing.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Some right of way that is existing should not be vacated and should remain. The right of
way on Merganser, Conifer and the portion of Turnberry between conifer and New vine should remain.
Per state statute it is very likely that most of the "Tract X on the plat will be given back to Bull Run
once it has been vacated. We should discuss further how this project will approach this vacation, if at
all. We will not support vacating the portion until Merganser is constructed and accepted. Perhaps the
applicant would pursue a separate agreement or quick deed to transfer this land for Tract J.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: It appears that the intent is to vacate right of on the North side of existing vine and
rededicate as a Collector Street. Please label the width that is being proposed as the plat currently
shows 115' right of way.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Merganser is a local street on our master street plan. The plat is showing dedication of
76' of right of way and it appears from the Civil drawings that Merganser will be removed and replaced
so what is the reasoning for keeping the 76' of right of way?
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Timberline is a 4 lane arterial per our master street plan so 115' of right of way is required
and it appears the plat is dedicating right of way for a 6 lane arterial.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: See the Civil plans for comments on Garganey Drive but additional right of way will be
required to be dedicated to allow for wider travel lanes.
Page 5 of 15
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/2612013: SHeet U5 - Per the demolition plan it appears that the water and sewer mains are being
removed and replaced, how will service still be maintained to the existing bull run appts. during this
time?
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet G4 -shorten the island noses on the medians on Garganey to allow for vehicles to
turn around at the end of each median.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R1 - Show preliminary offsite design for New Vine Drive to the east for 1000', the
plan currently only shows 500 feet.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R1 - At final review we will need to see 4 Flowline profiles for timberline and new
vine that includes both median flowlines and both outer roadway flowlines.
Comment Number: 24
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R1 - end the median short of the end of New Vine and pave the middle to allow for
vehicles to make a u-turn in the interim. Provide a callout for barricades at the end of New Vine and rip
rap rundowns to protect the roadbase where the curb and gutter ends.
Comment Number: 25
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R1 - Revisit vertical curve lengths for New Vine which has a design speed of 50
mph, vertical curve lengths should be calculated based on the 50 mph design speed.
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 11126/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R2 - Please revise labeling of sidewalks, it appears that the labeling is calling out
the parkways as sidewalk instead of labeling the detached walks.
Comment Number: 27
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R4 - Additional discussion will need to be had if we will allow a sub standard
vertical curve for the interim tie in at existing Timberline for the interim condition. Show existing
timberline in the plan view on this sheet as well and callout accordingly. At final we will need an
ultimate design sheet showing timberline and new vine and then a separate interim design sheet
showing new vine tieing only to existing timberline.
Comment Number: 28
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R9 -revise callouts for vine drive that should be existing timberline.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R10 - Show median for a right in right out intersection.. Label and design timberline
accordingly for a 4-lane arterial instead of the 6-lane arterial as shown.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet R10 - Arterial roadways need to be preliminarily designed to 1000' offsite of the
project.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Street Sheets -see redlines for comments on vertical and horizontal curve design on
local streets.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 11/27/2013
11/27/2013: Sheet R12 -what is the angle at the intersection of New Vine and Merganser?
Page 4 of 15
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: In general, there are a variety of redline comments that relate to legibility, font size, line
weight primarily due to the fact that the Site Plan is at 200 scale and the Landscape Plans include
contour lines and plant symbols. This results in plan features that do not stand out. Let's discuss how
best to make the plans more readable.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970.221.6603, apingerich a(7.fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: The cross sections for timberline appear to be the same on the cover sheet for ultimate
and interim. Additionally, Tim bed ine is a 4-lane arterial per our master street plan and only 115' right of
way. Please change plans and plat accordingly.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11126/2013: Will the project be phased for construction? If so, how many and which portions will be
phased?
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11126/2013: Sheet DE6 - why is all of Merganser being demolished and than rebuilt? If the road is
completely demolished and rebuilt is it still the desire to have it collector width or would it be rebuilt as
a local? During construction access will need to be provided to the Bull Run apartments.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Local streets intersecting with arterials should be a minimum of 36' wide at the intersection
to allowfor an informal through/left and right turn.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/2612013: Please show the appropriate line work for the medians on New Vine and Timberline for
the right in/right out and 3/4 turn lanes.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet U2 - Please revise all concrete drainage chases on New Vine to drainage
structures/inlets. For an arterial it is not desirable to have drainage through a curb chase.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet U3 -Ensure that all storm drainage meets cover requirements of 36" from top of
pipe to top of asphalt.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet U4 -Please revise some linework breaks on many of the sheets
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet U4 - the center drainage median in Garganey drive has divided the travel lanes of a
normal local street. The plans show 14' travel lanes on each side with is assumed to have parking as
well. Engineering will support at a minimum a 20' travel lane with parking. Poudre Fire Authority may
have requirements above 20' in width and additional discussions should be had with PFA and
Engineering.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Sheet U5 -Multiple sheets appear to have the Keymap incorrectly showing the sheets in
the legend.
Page 3 of 15
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Why is the cul-de-sac on the north not included in the Line of phase one?
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
12/04/2013: Both the Plat and Site Plan would benefit from providing a Legend that describes the
purpose and size of the Tracts.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Where are the street trees along Old Vine Drive? Is there a sidewalk along here?
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Where are the landscape details for Tract J?
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Where are the street trees along New Vine Drive in along the Public Right of Way and the
Existing Bull Run apartments?
Same comment for the other side of this the Right of way especially along Lot 1 and New vine Drive.
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970.221.6343, tshepardna.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Show the future Conifer Street alignment on the Site Plan. Also, the Plat should dedicate
the appropriate right-of-way for this collector street.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: The proposed alignment of the extension of Mandarin Drive is shown to intersect with
Conifer Street at a location that appears to be too close to the bridge that will be needed to cross over
the Eaton Ditch. With all of the improvements necessary for a bridge structure, the location of this
intersection looks infeasible and would cause significant sight distance problems. This intersection
should be shifted to the west.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: On the Plat, please provide two distinct Outlot designations one each for the City of Fort
Collins and one for the Poudre School District like shown on the Site Plan. It may be confusing to
have two owners of one Outlot. Also, please add a key map to pages 4 - 8 of the Plat.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: Please consider dedicating the, appropriate right-of-way for Turnberry Road, between
"New Vine" and Conifer. It may be likely that when the park develops, it may not be platting. And,
since the Poudre School District receives its building permit from the State, a Plat is not required.
Waterfield Third Filing seems like the most opportune time to dedicate this right-of-way to avoid the
extra effort required for separate dedications by different entities at dissimilar times.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12104/2013: Please provide a walkway connection to the trail that loops around the wetland at the tee
intersection of "New Vine" and Cape Teal Drive. This will allow easy access to the trail for the
residents south of "New Vine."
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 12/04/2013
12/04/2013: The loop trail around the wetland is specified to be only five feet wide. This seems too
narrow for such a significant amenity and given the length that the loop provides. Since this trail will be
used by walkers, joggers, dog -walkers, etc' it seems a wider trail should be provided. At five feet, it
will be difficult and awkward for users going in opposite directions to pass one another.
Page 2 of 15
City of
Fort Collins
December 04, 2013
Stephanie Sigler
Ripley Design Inc.
401 W Mountain'Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: Waterfield Third Filing, PDP130037, Round Number 1
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6760
970.224.6134 - fax
rcgov. com/developmentreview
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: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbeals(a.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
12/04/2013: For labeling purposes please use the following, including the clause in the parentheses:
"New Vine" Drive (Final Name to be Determined by City Council by Resolution.)
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
11/26/2013: Please add a note on the site plan identifying the approved modification to the mix of
housing types for this phase.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
12/04/2013: On the Site Plan sheet 2, please add a column between Gross and Net and show what
parcels / tracts, and their acreage, that are being netted out.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/26/2013
12/04/2013: On the Site Plan, sheet 2, the schematic that illustrates the Community Trail Section is very
helpful. For the other buffer yards, however, the plans are difficult to read at the 200 and 100 scales.
For example, the Landscape Plan indicates a buffer yard between Block Six and the future multi -family
but the Plat does not show a tract for this buffer. It would not be an effective buffer if the plant material
were located on individual lots and located within a perimeter fence. An effective buffer yard is
needed and it needs to be in a separate tract and properly designed to accomplish a transition
between potential three-story buildings and single family detached homes in close proximity. Also, a
schematic or detail would be helpful to show the buffer along the two arterials. The Planning
Objectives indicate that this area will be 35 feet wide but these areas need further detail. For example,
will there be any earthen berms in these buffer yards? Also, the plans need to provide more clarity for
the buffer for the Public Service Gas Regulating Station. Is a buffer contemplated for this facility?
Page 1 of 15