The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK - PDP - 20-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - (6)Number: 11 Created: 4/21/2005 [7/12/05] [4/21/05] Proposed landscaping needs to be labeled on the landscape plan with types and counts noted. 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. Yours Truly, Steve Olt City Planner Page 6 , V neighborhood traffic mitigation is required per the TIS requirements. You may still want to work with these neighbors on some type of suitable mitigation, but its not an 'official' requirement based on the TIS findings. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General Number: 41 Created: 5/6/2005 [7/12/05] No services may be located between the main and the meter pit. Show and label the location of the curb stop and meter pit. [5/6/05] Curb stop and meter pit may not be located in a traveled way (i.e. sidewalk, driveway, parking lot, etc.). Number: 42 Created: 5/6/2005 [7/12/05] [5/6/05] Provide a profile of the proposed sanitary sewer main. Show all water and sewer line crossings in storm sewer and sanitary sewer profiles. Number: 44 Created: 5/6/2005 [7/12/05] [5/6/05] Maintain the required landscape/utility separation distance on the landscape plans. Include the standard general notes pertaining to landscape/utility separation distance on the landscape plans. Number: 56 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Maintain 10 feet of separation between proposed storm sewer inlets/manholes and all existing/proposed water and sewer mains. Number: 57 Created: 7/12/2005 (7/12/051 Clearly define all connections to the existing 20-inch water main. This main is cathodically protected and any connection to this main must be accomplished with a CP isolation connection. Clearly define this on the plan set and include the isolation detail. Field locate, show and label all CP test station within this projects boundaries. Clearly define any and all relocations necessary for the CP test stations. Number: 58 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12105] Place the proposed fire hydrant on the south end of this project near the private entrance (see plan set for details). Maintain 4 feet of separation between the proposed fence and the proposed fire hydrant within the facility maintenance yard site. Provide a detail of the proposed PVC surrounding the facility site Number: 61 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Perhaps another meeting to discuss the outstanding issues would be warranted. If you would like to schedule a meeting please contact Jeff Hill at 221-6674 See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: ZONING Number: 6 Created: 4/21/2005 (7/12/05] [4/21/05] What is the gravel storage area - It looks like there is a row of parking spaces in that area .... please clarify Page 5 Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Channel Design Number: 80 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] How will the channel within the relocated Spring Creek channle be vegetated. Topic: Drainage Report Number: 79 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Please provide a modeling report for the Spring Creek flows. Topic: Floodplain Comments Number: 55 Created: 7/12/2005 (7/12/051 No floodplain modeling was submitted, plase provide with next submittal. Topic: Grading Plans Number: 43 Created: 5/6/2005 [7/12/05] Show how the future eregional pond grading will tie into existing grades. [5/6/05] Grading plans are incomplete, as they do not show the area of the park that will be used as a regional pond. We hope that with the next submittal, more detail will be kown for that area as the design of the regional pond is finalized. Topic: OlYsite Grading Number: 54 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Plans show grading off -site for the channel in the area to the south of the site, if the area is not owned by the City, then an off -site grading easment will be required. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: details Number: 78 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] entered into DMS for Kathleen Bracke: For the classification of Horsetooth, we're ok with the TIS recommendation of Horsetooth being downgraded from an arterial to a Collector street but it needs to be a Collector with parking along the Park frontage. Mark Jackson will incorporate this change to the City's Master Street Plan in a future MSP clean-up process later in the year so your project will not be held up by that process. Please work directly with Sheri and Katie in Development Review Engineering on the design details for the curb alignment and for the cul-de-sac. Regarding the TIS' findings for the Drake/Overland intersection, the current overall intersection functions adequately with the stop sign control. Transportation will take Matt's information into consideration if/when future improvements to that intersection are scheduled to be improved by the City as part of a larger capital project. There are other intersection designs that could also work besides the "sweeping curve" mentioned in the TIS. So, your project does not need to do any improvements to the intersection at this time based on the TIS. In the future, Transportation and Parks can work together to determine what type of intersection improvements should be constructed and if a financial partnership can be arranged between the two departments (if any improvements are needed). Regarding the TIS findings for the additional traffic projected to use the existing north/south residential streets (Windon and Platte), the projections are greater than a 10% increase but are still within the standard level of traffic volumes expected on local streets so no Page 4 Number: 40 Created: 5/6/2005 (7/12/05] (5/6/05] Please see utility plan checklist for additional items. Number: 70 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05) Please see redlines - the culdesac design is confusing and doesn't meet LCUASS requirements, and I don't understand why certain segments of the profiles are labeled with lengths and slopes within vertical curves. What's going on? Number:.71 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] The vertical scale for the profiles must be 1:5 or 1:10, and it is labeled as 1:6. This is a repeat comment. Number: 73 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] The transition shonw on horsetooth is pretty short for a 30' wide transition. Number: 74 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Since my previous comment to design the park entrance drive to meet the driveway detail was ignored and it appears that it is being designed as a street, please provide street intersection spot elevations as required in Lcuass and show them on sheet c3.2, not on the detail sheet. Number: 75 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Please show what the new overland entrance drives are connecting to. Is there a street there? What does it look like? How does it transition to what is proposed? Topic: Utility Plans Number: 69 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/051 The signature blocks on the utility plans should always be on the lower right hand quadrant of the sheet. Also, only the cover sheet needs the indemnification paragraph. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Alan Rutz Topic: Utility Plans Number: 50 Created: 7/11/2005 [7/11/05] The sanitary sewer line at Manhole #4 located at Sta 14+54 along with the water line have shifted approx 65' to the west. These lines are now in conflict with the location of the proposed electric ductbank. Can the water and sewer lines be shifted back to their original position? Number: 51 Created: 7/11/2005 [7/11/05] Please include the electric ductbank design on the Utility Plans. Number: 52 Created: 7/11/2005 [7/11/05] Please show all electric meter locations and proposed transformer locations on the Utility Plans. The transformer must be within 10' of a parking lot or roadway. Number: 53 Created: 7/11/2005 [7/11/05] Show any future buildings on the Utility Plans. Page 3 Number: 66 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] On the site plan and utility plans - label and dimension street sidewalks and parkways. Clearly and boldly show, label and dimension existing and proposed road ROW/Alignment/Areas. Number: 67 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] . Since we know that people will want to park on the culdesac, and we also know that it is not legal to park in the culdesac as it is shown on these plans, please provide parking. This can be done by enlarging the bulb and providing parking in the middle as detailed in LCUASS, or Engineering may be open to an engineering variance to allow parallel parking in bumpouts around the bulb. Number: 68 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] How can any of the utilities be marked private? Number: 72 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Please ensure that the plat, site, landscape plans, and utility plans are all coordinated and match. Topic: Plat Number: 59 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05) Why is the existing ROW for Horsetooth labeled as a tract? It should not be a tract. Neither should the proposed Horsetooth ROW be shown as a tract - it is a road area. Number: 60 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Please label the "water areas" as "water utility areas". Number: 62 Created: 7/12/2005 (7/12/05] Please show/label/dimension all emergency access areas on the plat. Number: 63 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Some items are un-labeled on the plat - I think it's another water utility area - what is it? Topic: Street design Number: 38 Created: 5/6/2005 [7/12/05] [5/6/05] Please provide more data on the plan and profile views of Horsetooth, including elevation labels and vertical curve information on the centerline profile. For reference please include the south flowline profile - it is needed to determine whether cross -slopes will be adequate when the centerline is altered. Number: 39 Created: 5/6/2005 (7/12/05] [5/6/05] Please design the culdesac according to LCUASS Chp. 7, and figure 7-19. Flowline grade minimum in culdesac is 1%. Additional elevation data is needed to determine whether cross -slopes will be adequate. Show centerline profile of Horsetooth to the high point in the culdesac (see redlines). Page 2 glow STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins RUSSEL LEE, BHA DESIGN Date: 07/13/2005 4803 INNOVATION DR. FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for SPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK PDP, TYPE 1, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore Topic: details Number: 76 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Please use the standard LCUASS details straight from the book. Also, please add the new details for ADA ramps. Call if you need them. Number: 77 Created: 7/12/2005 (7/12/05] Where is the underdrain being proposed? Topic: General Number: 27 Created: 5/3/2005 [7/12/05] Horsetooth should have been designed as a collector with parking (a minor collector) as opposed to the major collector cross-section. Please re -design Horsetooth to minor collector standards. [5/3/05] Why was Horsetooth proposed as a two-lane arterial but designed only as a collector? Number: 32 Created: 5/3/2005 [7/12/05] [5/3/05] Please see redlines for further comments. Number: 33 Created: 5/3/2005 [7/12/05] [5/3/05] Street design comments are based on the premise that Horsetooth is ok as a collector street: The vertical curve length is too short. See LCUASS Figure 7-17. for required vertical curve lengths. Please provide a striping plan, including striping east of site on Horsetooth. This is needed to determine how the transition should take place, either similar to what is shown (but using curves since angle points are not permitted) or with a quicker transition if Horsetooth to the east will have parking and west will not. Number: 64 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12105] Once the street is widened to allow parking, street trees should fit in the parkway instead of behind the walk. Please show street trees along Horsetooth and around the culdesac bulb. Number: 65 Created: 7/12/2005 [7/12/05] Scanability is still a big problem - please read LCUASS appendix E-6 and revise all plans accordingly. If you have questions, please contact Technical. Services. Page I