HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAVEN VIEW - FDP - 12-05B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - REVISIONSNumber:227 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please provide actual site specific elevations on the water lowering detail.
RESPONSE: Site specific elevations have been added to the City detail.
Number:233 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please see other comments on the redlined plan set.
RESPONSE: Comments from the redlines have been addressed.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
RESPONSE: All redlined plan sets have been returned with this submittal. Please note the
additional responses contained within applicable redlined sets.
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,
Anne H. Aspen
City Planner
SHOULD ANY DEPARTMENT HAVE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS SUBMITTAL OR
RESPONSE LETTER, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US:
APPLICANT
Tom Peterson
Stanford Real Estate
970.226.1414
DEVELOPER
Russ Wells
Pinnacle FTC
970.495.0508
ARCHITECT/PLANNER
Lori Darling, AIA
Lyman, Davidson, Dooley
970.223.0683
SITE ENGINEER SURVEYOR GEOTECH. ENGINEER
Nick Haws, PE Gary Gilliland, PLS Michael Coley, PE
Northern Eng. Northern Eng. Earth Engineering
970.221.4158 970.221.4158 970.224.1522
LANDSCAPE
Chris Whitted
Cityscape
970.226.4074
STRUCTURAL
Tom Hartmann, PE
TwH, Inc.
970.893.6223
Page 20
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number:107 Created:9/29/2005
[4/21 /06]
[9/29/05] Separation distance between water/sewer MAINS and trees is 10 feet. (Land Use
Code is incorrect.)
RESPONSE: This note has been revised accordingly.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number:219 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] A swivel tee is required at all fire hydrant lines where they connect to the main.
RESPONSE: Swivel tees are now noted
Number:220 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Sanitary sewer manhole Al may be eliminated. Maintenance will still be achieved
even though it is longer than 400 feet due to the main being the same slope for the entire
run.
RESPONSE: The previous manhole has been eliminated
Number:221 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] All multifamily buildings require meter pits for the water service. Please draw to
scale the meter pit on the utility plans. 4 feet is the required separation between the pit and
any structure.
RESPONSE: Per AWWA calcs, and Owner's experience with similar project at Pinnacle
Townhomes, only buildings of 6 units or more require a 11/2" meter pit. This has been drawn
to scale for Lots 3-8, and the utility easement jogs out to accommodate the pit. The 4-ft
separation is maintained. We can meet in person with blow-up sketches if that helps.
Number:222 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/061 The curb stops for all water services are required to be within the utility easement,
normally 1 foot inside of the boundary.
RESPONSE: The water service graphic and detail have been revised.
Number:223 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please provide gate valves at water line junctions per redlines.
RESPONSE: The additional gate valves have been added per the redlines.
Number:226 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please remove unused water and sewer details. See redlines.
RESPONSE: The marked details have been removed
Page 19
Number:218 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/061 Please provide a note on the grading plan and the storm sewer profiles sheet that
the existing inlet, which the pond outfall piping is connected to, is to be core drilled and
grouted.
RESPONSE: See revised plans -
Number: 224 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/061 A cross pan is required along Raven View Road at the road stub to the south to
keep the flows along Raven View flowing as designed. There should be a highpoint in the
road stub design at the property line to keep on -site flows on -site and flowing to the
detention pond.
RESPONSE: See revised street stub design.
Number:225 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please revise HGL on the storm sewer profiles. See redlines.
RESPONSE: HGL's are OK (per meeting and additional discussion/clarification); i.e., 100-yr
flows overtop and surface flow into the pond.
Number:228 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please revise water quality outlet structure detail per redlines.
RESPONSE: See revised plans.
Number:229 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] The swale cross -sections were not shown on sheet DR1 as indicated.
RESPONSE: See Sheet D10.
Number:230 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please provide a pond summary table per redlined drainage plan.
RESPONSE: See Sheet DR1.
Number:232 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please see other comments on the redlined plans and report.
RESPONSE: See revised report and plans.
Topic: Erosion Control
Number:231 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Comments will be available the week of April 23rd.
RESPONSE: Bob Zakely's comments (both written and per 05/09/06 meeting) have been
addressed.
Page 18
Topic: Utility Plans
Number:206 Created:4/18/2006
[4/18/06] A gravel pedestrian crossing of the stubbed out street to the south is not
acceptable. At minimum, the crossing surface must be asphalt. Also, align the ramps at this
location to align the crossing. This can be easily achieved by sliding the western ramp a
foot or two south. Thanks.
RESPONSE: See revised design
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Drainage
Number:83 Created:3/31/2005
[4/20/06] A little more clarification needs to take place on this item. A short meeting should
solve this issue.
[9/30/05] Stormwater is confident this can be worked out after the hearing. Comments may
follow at final compliance on the details of this to satisfy Stormwater and Poudre Fire
Authority's requirements.
[3/31/051 There is a conflict with the emergency access road and inlet along Mulberry which
needs to be resolved.
RESPONSE: The additional information now shown on revised Sheet ST1 should clarify
things. Feel free to contact us or schedule a meeting as you review the new plans if there
are additional questions. (Also see green responses on redlines)
Number:213 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please provide one stage -storage table with water quality included in with quantity
detention.
RESPONSE: See revised Drainage Report.
Number:214 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/061 The water quality orifice sizing calculations do not seem to be correct. Please see
redlined drainage report. The number of columns should be 2.
RESPONSE: See revised report and plans.
Number:215 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please label lots type A, B, etc.
RESPONSE: See revised Grading Plan.
Number:216 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please revise detention pond contours. See grading plan redlines.
RESPONSE: See revised Grading Plan.
Number:217 Created:4/20/2006
[4/20/06] Please show detention pond emergency spillway location on the grading and
drainage plans and provide spillway crest spot elevations on the grading plan. See redlines.
RESPONSE: See Sheet D9.
Paac 17
Number:210 Created:4/19/2006
[4/19/06] FIRE LANE: We acknowledge the Emergency Access Easement, signage, etc.,
that provides a second access point off Mulberry Street. This fire lane must be visible by
painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. It must be a flat, hard, all-weather
driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights.
Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites.
For details on appearance and spacing of "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" signs, contact Carie
Dann at PFA.
RESPONSE: The emergency access road is asphalt (pavement design to support 40-ton
loading). Site Plan has added fire lane signs along emergency access road.
Number:211 Created:4/19/2006
[4/19/061 Sheet U1 shows branches overhanging the fire lane being trimmed to 13 feet, 5
inches. PFA requests they be trimmed to at least 14 feet clearance, to accommodate the
height of fire apparatus.
RESPONSE: The note has been revised to read 14 feet."
Number:212 Created:4/19/2006
[4/19/06] Per the inquiry from Anne Aspen at Staff Review, here are minimum clearance
distances around fire hydrants: (1) A space of at least 36 inches must be maintained around
the circumference of the fire hydrant. The only allowable vegetation within the 36 inches is
short ground cover, e.g., grass or flowers, but nothing that would obstruct access or visibility,
such as juniper bushes. The 36-inch clearance also applies to buildings, fences, trees, etc.
(2) Above the hydrant, minimum clearance is 15 FEET, to accommodate fire -hydrant
maintenance equipment. (3) The middle of the 5-inch cap must be a minimum of 18 inches
above grade, because the hydrant wrench used remove this cap is 18 inches long. (4)
Regarding hydrants adjacent to streets or private drives, vehicle parking is prohibited within
7.5 feet in either direction of the hydrant; the red painted curb extends 7.5 feet in either
direction from the hydrant. Sources are 1997 Uniform Fire Code 1001.7.1 and 1001.7.2.
RESPONSE: The Owner acknowledges the clearances necessary as noted and the red
curb painting required.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill
Topic: General
Number:32 Created:3/29/2005
[4/18/061 Repeat comment.
[9/27/05] Repeat comment.
[3/29/05] A minor point, on the "Cover Sheet", please remove the wording "Bike Path Each
side of Road" as it references Taft Hill Rd. and Mulberry St. While bike lanes do exist (at a
sub -standard configuration) there are no bike paths along these facilities in this location. Of
course if you want you can leave the wording on the sheet but change "path" to "lane".
RESPONSE: The note has been removed
Page 16
Topic: Utility
Number:37 Created:3/29/2005
[4/17/06] Repeat. Still no dimensioning shown. It does not appear that the drive aisles
have been widened to 28' into the multi -family as previously requested.
[10/4/05] [3/29/05] Need to dimension all drive aisles, driveways (at multifamily) and
parking stalls in accordance with LCUASS.
RESPONSE: Drives are dimensioned at 24' wide (per LCUASS). See Site Plan for parking
stalls.
Topic: Utility Plans
Number:163 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Complete and submit the checklist in Appendix E4 with the next submittal.
Several items not shown on the plans with this round. Any item not addressed with the next
round stays an open item until corrected.
RESPONSE: Our apology that you never received the Appendix E4 submitted last round.
Please see updated checklist with this submittal.
Number:200 Created:4/18/2006
[4/18/06] Provide a signature block for the two homeowners to the north on any sheet
where work is proposed on their lot, including the detail sheets. I know you have an
easement but this is the only way I know that they are aware of the actual proposed
improvements planned for their property and that they have agreed to it.
RESPONSE: N/A per e-mail from Susan Joy to Russ Wells dated 04/28/06.
Number:205 Created:4/18/2006
[4/18/06] See redlines for other comments not contained here in the comment letter.
RESPONSE: See additional responses — where applicable — (hand-written in green ink) on
redlines.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number:209 Created:4/19/2006
[4/19/061 WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrant location is adequate. However. fire protection
would be more effective if we could move the two hydrants shown on the "loop" composed
of Raven View Road, Rook Drive, Corvid Way and Pica Street. Sheet U1 shows hydrants in
the northwest and southeast corners of this loop. We are requesting these hydrants actually
be located at the southwest and northeast corners of this loop. Also, applicant needs to
ensure the hydrants flow a minimum of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure.
RESPONSE: The hydrants have been relocated, as requested. City Water Utility to verify
fire flows.
Page 15
Number:195 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Detail Storm Drain Line A and 114/D7 and 400/ST1 need to match each other and
be shown consistently elsewhere on the plan sets.
RESPONSE: Storm Drain Line A does not run under the Emergency Access Drive. 114/D7
and 400/ST1 are now consistent.
Topic: SD2
Number:192 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] See redlines.
RESPONSE: See additional responses — where applicable — (hand-written in green ink) on
redlines.
Number:193 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Homeowner needs to sign this sheet for the off -site driveway cross-section.
RESPONSE: N/A per e-mail from Susan Joy to Russ Wells dated 04/28/06.
Topic: Site Plan
Number:47 Created:3/29/2005
[4/17/061 [10/4/05] [3/29/05] Please coordinate the comments under other sections so that
all plan sets match.
RESPONSE: Drawings have been checked and should match.
Number:128 Created:l0/5/2005
[4/18/061 Still have to provide a scale and it must be an engineering scale, not architectural.
[10/5/05] Please provide a north arrow, scale, etc.
RESPONSE: Scale and north arrow were located in the upper left corner — they have been
relocated to the right side of the sheet. Reference to inches has been removed — thus in
engineering scale.
Topic: ST1
Number:199 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Detail 400 doesn't match the rest of the plans. Label proposed as "proposed" and
existing as "existing". Label and dimension Mulberry row and UE.
RESPONSE: Revised Sheet ST1 now matches other sheets. Clarification has been added
for "existing" and "proposed." See Sheet R5 for Mulberry R.O.W., there are no know utility
easements.
Topic: Stormwater Plan and Profiles
Number:204 Created:4/18/2006
[4/18/06] Can not use HDPE pipe in the row or where City Maintenance vehicles will drive
later to maintain the lines. Replace with RCP.
RESPONSE: HDPE pipe runs have been limited to areas outside the R.O.W. The
previous sanitary sewer manhole has been removed; thus, there will be no City
Maintenance vehicles using the driveway at 2009 W. Mulberry Street.
Page 14
Number:171 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Remove note 7, this information must be shown all plan sets per LCUASS.
RESPONSE: Note #7 has been revised — reference to plat has been removed; however;
flowline curve/line data remains on Sheet R5.
Topic: Scanning Requirements
Number:10 Created:3/28/2005
[4/17/06] The plans still do not meet the scanning requirements set forth in Appendix E6.
No mylars will be approved until they do so.
[9/30/051 This is more a Final Compliance issue but I'll just keep the comment open until
resolved.
[3/28/05] Please see Appendix E6 for our scanning requirements. Shaded areas and anal
photos will not scan. Please correct all overlapped labeling. Please see Jr/Tech Services if
you have any questions.
RESPONSE: A set of plans is currently being reviewed by JR Wilson exclusively for
scanability. Applicant acknowledges that all sheets (all plan sets) must satisfy scanning
requirements before mylars will be accepted.
Number:203 Created:4/18/2006
[4/18/061 Sheet 1 of 10 of the Site and Landscape plan will not scan, please see Appendix
E6 for all requirements.
RESPONSE: Line weights and hatching have been revised.
Number:207 Created:4/19/2006
[4/19/06] From Technical Services: See attached comment sheet. Scanning is still a huge
issue with the plan sets. Contex lines will not scan and need to be darkened up to meet the
scanning requirements set forth in Appendix E6.
RESPONSE: Line weights and hatching have been revised.
Topic: SD
Number:190 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] HDPE is not allowed in row or in the road.
RESPONSE: HDPE pipe runs have been limited to areas outside the R.O.W.
Number:191 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Scanning issues.
RESPONSE: A set of plans is currently being reviewed by JR Wilson exclusively for
scanability. Applicant acknowledges that all sheets (all plan sets) must satisfy scanning
requirements before mylars will be accepted.
Page 13
Number:165 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Repeat comment (shown elsewhere): Need to take the road design to the CL of
Taft. Provide existing information and show how Raven View is tying into it. Scanning
issues this sheet. Some information is illegible. Identify taper length, see redlines. Need to
construct the street stub to the south to the PCs as previously stated. Gravel does not meet
ADA requirements and the raw, asphalt edge proposed along Raven View's flowlines is a
maintenance issue for the city.
RESPONSE: Per meeting with Susan Joy on 05/05/06, the CL extension is understood to
be OK as -is. See previous responses regarding scanability. The taper length is not a
construction item, and the plan is already quite busy; therefore, can the previously submitted
exhibits and variance request letter suffice? See revised plans regarding the street stub.
Number:166 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] You have exceeded the 3% max cross slope requirement.
RESPONSE: See revised Intersection Details
Number:167 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/061 Show curb return information, all flowline profiles.
RESPONSE: Per a meeting with Sheri Wamhoff on 05/09/06, the equivalent information
can be reviewed utilizing the spots shown on the intersection details in conjunction with the
flowline curve/line data.
Number:168 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Standard requires centerline stationing only, however, you have shown both FL
and CL stationing. Please provide spot elevations at appropriate intervals so that I can
verify cross slopes. This applies to all plan and profile sheets and especially the street
widening in two places. The street widening spots and slope information can be added to
the intersection detail sheets if you like. Either place will work for me.
RESPONSE: See revised Intersection Details
Number:169 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/061 See redlines.
RESPONSE: See additional responses (hand-written in green ink) on redlines.
Topic: Rook Street Plan and Profile
Number:170 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/061 Font size not meeting minimum requirements in some areas.
RESPONSE: A set of plans is currently being reviewed by JR Wilson exclusively for
scanability. Applicant acknowledges that all sheets (all plan sets) must satisfy scanning
requirements before mylars will be accepted.
Pa,e 12
Number:43 Created:3/29/2005
[4/17/06] According to the existing conditions sheet, there is no existing drive where the
Emergency Access drive is going. A sidewalk culvert will be required if exceeding the max
drainage allowed over a public sidewalk.
[10/4/05] Final Compliance. This driveway exceeds the maximum 500sf of drainage over a
public sidewalk. You will need to provide a culvert to the street and/or an inlet to the
stormdrain. Need to specify what the drive is constructed out of.
[3/29/05] Please provide a typical section and a plan and profile for the western emergency
access drive and include all information necessary build it. This drive must meet PFA's
minimum requirements. Show how you are tying into Mulberry with it. The maximum 500sf
of drainage over a public sidewalk applies here as well.
RESPONSE: See Detail 114 on Sheet D7.
Number:64 Created:3/29/2005
[4/18/06] If applicable.
[10/4/05] Final Compliance.
[3/29/05] Identify all grade breaks.
RESPONSE: All grade breaks are identified on the profiles.
Number:65 Created:3/29/2005
[4/17/06] Repeat.
[10/3/05] [3/29/05] Final Compliance. Continue the centerline profile through the
intersection at Taft and where the road loops back on itself.
RESPONSE: Per meeting with Susan Joy on 05/05/06, this item is understood to be OK as -
is.
Number:125 Created:l0/5/2005
[4/17/06] Cross slopes are still not meeting standards in some areas and not enough
information is shown in other areas to determine if the cross slopes are meeting standard.
[10/5/05] Final Compliance. The cross slopes shown of 4% exceed the maximum cross
slope requirement of 3%.
RESPONSE: See revised Intersection Details.
Topic: Raven View Plan and Profile
Number:164 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/061 Remove note 7. This information must be shown on the utility plans, all sheets
per LCUASS.
RESPONSE: Note #7 has been revised — reference to plat has been removed; however;
flowline curve/line data remains on Sheet R5.
Page l I
Number:60 Created:3/29/2005
[4/18/06] Still need to dimension and label all crosspans.
[10/4/05] Final Compliance.
[3/29/05] Need to dimension the crosspan at Taft and provide the detail in the detail sheets.
RESPONSE: See roadway sheets for crosspan call -outs.
Topic: Overall Utility Plan
Number:162 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Label and dimension all crosspans. Scanning issues. Remove number 8 under
notes, this information must be shown on the utility plans per LCLIASS. See redlines for
other comments.
RESPONSE: See roadway sheets for crosspan call -outs. A set of plans is currently being
reviewed by JR Wilson exclusively for scanability. Applicant acknowledges that all sheets
(all plan sets) must satisfy scanning requirements before mylars will be accepted. Note #8
has been removed.
Topic: Pica Street Plan and Profile
Number:175 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Remove note 2 and 7.
RESPONSE: Note #2 has been removed. Note #7 has been revised — reference to plat
has been removed; however; flowline curve/line data remains on Sheet R5.
Number:176 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Provide curb return info in the profiles.
RESPONSE: Per a meeting with Sheri Wamhoff on 05/09/06, the equivalent information
can be reviewed utilizing the spots shown on the intersection details in conjunction with the
flowline curve/line data.
Number:177 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Scanning issues, correct all overlapped labeling. Dimension and label crosspan.
RESPONSE: A set of plans is currently being reviewed by JR Wilson exclusively for
scanability. Crosspan widths are now labeled.
Topic: Plan and Profiles
Number:42 Created:3/29/2005
[4/17/06] Dimension the existing eastern driveway on the existing conditions sheet so I can
determine how much square footage is being added. A sidewalk chase may or may not be
required.
[10/4/05] Repeat.
[3/29/05] The east driveway off Mulberry is shown draining towards the street. No more
than 500sf of drainage is allowed to discharge over a public sidewalk.
RESPONSE: N/A per meeting with Susan Joy on 05/05/06 — existing asphalt driveway is
being replaced with concrete following utility installation (no additional pavement).
Page 10
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number:48 Created:3/29/2005
[4/17/06] [10/4/05] [3/29/051 Please coordinate the comments under other sections so that
all plan sets match.
RESPONSE: The base plan for these sheets was taken from the Civil Engineering
drawings, thus should match.
Topic: Offsite Easements
Number:134 Created:l0/5/2005
[4/18/061 Will need legals and exhibits for all offsites for our review and approval and
completed dedication statements for filing.
[10/5/05] The plat and the offsite easement documents do not match. The emergency
access drive on the plat says it is a 24' emergency access, maintenance and construction
easement while the contract calls it an emergency access and utility placement only. The
construction easement needs to be called out separately on all documents and say whether
its temporary or permanent. Is a drainage easement necessary as well? A letter of intent
from the property owner is required prior to hearing if the original document is not correct.
The drive on the east side of the property is called out as a 30' drainage and utility easement
on the plat. The contract document calls it an Access and Utility Easement. We will also
require a drainage and maintenance easement. Also, the 30' easement is not wide enough
to include and construct the retaining wall. A letter of intent revising the contract is fine
before going to hearing, the actual documents will need to be filed during Final Compliance.
Emergency Access and Drainage easements need to be dedicated to the city and accepted
through the city process. All other private easements can be recorded between the
individual parties at the County. We will need a copy of the recorded documents before final
plan approval.
RESPONSE: All easement exhibits and legal descriptions were provided to the City for
review. Said easement agreements were signed by the Grantors on 05/04/06.
Topic: Overall Site Plan
Number:201 Created:4/18/2006
[4/18/06] Please see E6 for scanning requirements, this sheet will not scan. Needs to be in
engineering scale, not architectural. Use darker line weight for proposed, grey scale for
existing (for instance, proposed sidewalks are grey lined).
RESPONSE: The drawing is in engineering scale and the line weights improved.
Topic: Overall Utility
Number:59 Created:3/29/2005
[4/18/061 [10/4/05] [3/29/05] Need to show/dimension existing and proposed row and utility
easements along Taft and Mulberry.
RESPONSE: The R.O.W. is shown. There are no known utility easements
Page 9
Number:186 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Correct detail 2 to match earlier comments. Need interim and ultimate intersection
details for street stub.
RESPONSE: See revised Intersection Details. In general, Sheet R6 represents the
future/conceptualf'ultimate" design (not for construction), and Sheet R7 is for the interim
construction.
Number:187 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/061 ID curb transitions at crosspans and refer to detail.
RESPONSE: The transition lengths are labeled on the Intersection Details. Additionally,
the mid -block crosspan dimensions have been added to LCUASS DWG 708.
Number:188 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Remove note 5 and place info here.
RESPONSE: Note 5 has been revised — reference to plat has been removed; however;
flowline curve/line data remains on Sheet R5.
Number:189 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/061 Remove landscaping from detail 1.
RESPONSE: The existing tree canopy/dripline has been removed.
Topic: Intersections
Number:68 Created:3/29/2005
[4/17/06] Repeat. Incomplete spot elevations shown.
[10/3/05] [3/29/05] Please provide intersection details in accordance with details 7-27 and
7-28 (Final Compliance).
RESPONSE: See revised Intersection Details
Topic: Landscape and Site Plan
Number:52 Created:3/29/2005
[4/18/06] [10/5/05] [3/29/05] Please label and dimension all easements, row.
RESPONSE: The easements have been labeled and dimensioned.
Number:149 Created:l0/5/2005
[4/18/06] [10/5/05] Must be in engineering scale.
RESPONSE: The plan is drawn in engineering scale.
Number:202 Created:4/18/2006
[4/18/061 The street stub to the south was not designed correctly and this area will
change ... just a heads up.
RESPONSE: The revised street stub is shown
Page 'i
Topic: Grading Plan
Number:161 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] This sheet is missing a lot of spot elevations and some that are shown are
illegible. Need to specify emergency access road surface (Concrete? Asphalt?) Need to
label all slope ratios (4:1 max). Provide TOW, BOW for retaining wall. Correct street cut
dimensions as shown on redlines per Lance Newlin, Chief Inspector. Provide signature
block for both homeowners with driveway improvements on the east and west drives to
Mulberry. Lots of scanning issues, this sheet. See redlines for other comments.
RESPONSE: See response to Number 122 above. Street cut will remain as drawn, with
final determination to be made in field (per meeting with Susan Joy and Russ Wells on
05/05/06). Homeowner signature(s) is N/A per e-mail from Susan Joy to Russ Wells dated
04/28/06. A set of plans is currently being reviewed by JR Wilson exclusively for scanability.
Applicant acknowledges that all sheets (all plan sets) must satisfy scanning requirements
before mylars will be accepted.
Topic: Intersection Details
Number:12 Created:3/28/2005
[4/17/061 Repeat - Please call out all dimensions shown in Figure 7-24. Still not known
whether or not the widenings are meeting standard.
[10/4/05] Will need this detail before hearing to make sure the horizontal layout is to
standard OR you can go to hearing with the understanding that the row may still move if the
bulbouts are not designed in accordance with 7-24.
[3/28/051 Please provide a street widening detail for each of the three bulbouts. The street
widening must be designed in accordance with detail 7-24. Call out each of the dimensions
asked for in the detail (R1 can equal 20-36' per Mike Herzig). Where the street has been
widened on the east leg and out at Taft, show another typical street section for those areas
and label with "from station xxxx to station xxxx.
RESPONSE: See revised Intersection Details.
Number.70 Created:3/29/2005
[4/17/06] Repeat comment. Incomplete spot elevations shown and it appears that the max
3% cross slope has been exceeded. Also, need to dimension the street widenings in
accordance with figure 7-24.
[10/3/05] [3/29/05] Please provide a cut section through the PC and widest point of the
bulbouts so that I can verify you are meeting our cross slope requirements (Final
Compliance).
RESPONSE: See revised Intersection Details
Number:185 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Incomplete intersection details. See figures 7-27 and 7-28 for requirements. See
7-24 for information and dimensions you need to show on widenings.
RESPONSE: See revised Intersection Details.
Pa,-,e 7
Number:114 Created:10/5/2005
[4/17/06] Repeat comment.
[10/5/05] Final Compliance. The street stub to the south needs to be designed and
constructed to the property line and a type III barricade is required (please show on all plan
sets). This development has the option of building the stub and the curb return to the PCs
and ramps and then cash in lieu of the rest. If this option is chosen, the plans would need to
show interim and ultimate and an estimate for the remaining portion of the street has to be
submitted for our review and approval. The estimate must include the removal of any
landscaping in the row of the future street. Only grass will be allowed in the row, however,
no shrubs or trees of any kind. We need it to be very clear to the future and existing
residents that the street is absolutely going through.
RESPONSE: The plans have been revised accordingly. An estimate will be submitted
separately, directly to Susan Joy, in conjunction with the Development Agreement.
Number:117 Created:10/5/2005
[4/18/06] [10/5/05] Please label all Tracts and Easements, all sheets, all plan sets.
RESPONSE: The plan sets have been revised accordingly.
Number:120 Created:10/5/2005
[4/18/06] Missing information, see redlines.
[10/5/05] Final Compliance. Please provide more information and details on the proposed
inlet modification on Mulberry.
RESPONSE: The missing information (as noted on the redlines) has been added to Sheet
ST1.
Topic: Grading
Number:121 Created:10/5/2005
[4/17/061 [10/5/05] Label slopes in all detention areas.
RESPONSE: The detention pond now has slope labels.
Number:122 Created:10/5/2005
[4/17/06] Repeat comment. Incomplete spot elevations shown and many are illegible.
Must provide spot elevations at all lot corners, including overall property boundary corners,
and drainage arrows, etc. Lots of missing info, see redlines, and LCUASS.
[10/5/05] Final Compliance. You may have to break this sheet into two sheets so that the
information is clear and scanable.
RESPONSE: Missing information has been added (either to Sheet G1, G2 {new], or others
(streets, intersections, details)). Cosmetic changes have been made to make plan more
legible.
Page 6
Number:196 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] This doesn't match what's shown in the Storm Drain Line A plan and profile or
114/D7 and 400/ST1. All of these sheets need to match each other in design.
RESPONSE: Storm Drain Line A does not run under the Emergency Access Drive. 114/D7
and 400/ST1 are now consistent.
Number:197 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Show and dimension existing row and the UE along Mulberry.
RESPONSE: The existing R.O.W. was already dimensioned. There are no known utility
easements.
Topic: Future Street Plan and Profile
Number:182 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] The information shown is incomplete. As discussed previously and stated under
other comments, you must provide both an interim and ultimate plan and profile for the
street stub if not building to the property line. Must provide both CL and FL profiles, see
7.4.1 LCUASS. Need to address drainage to neighboring property.
RESPONSE: Both flowline profiles have been added to Sheet R6. In general, Sheet R6
represents the future/conceptualf'ultimate" design (not for construction), and Sheet R7 is for
the interim construction. The revised design eliminates the off -site drainage concern.
Number:183 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/061 Remove note 7 and provide the information on plans.
RESPONSE: Note# 7 has been revised — reference to plat has been removed; however;
flowline curve/line data remains on Sheet R5.
Number:184 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Scanning issues here as well.
RESPONSE: A set of plans is currently being reviewed by JR Wilson exclusively for
scanability. Applicant acknowledges that all sheets (all plan sets) must satisfy scanning
requirements before mylars will be accepted.
Topic: General
Number:49 Created:3/29/2005
[4/17/06] The utility plans still have not been dimensioned.
[10/4/05] Repeat. Also, please dimension both the utility and site plan with all parking stalls
in accordance with LCUASS.
[3/29/05] There are no handicapped parking spaces shown.
RESPONSE: Per meetings with Staff, it is understood to be sufficient to dimension parking
stalls on the Site Plan only.
Page 5
Topic: Drainage
Number:58 Created:3/29/2005
[4/18/06] [10/4/05] [3/29/051 Final Compliance. Show drainage arrows on the drives out to
Mulberry.
RESPONSE: See Sheet DR1.
Number:159 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] The street stub to the south is draining towards the neighboring property. You will
need to either keep the drainage onsite or get an offsite drainage easement. Will need
erosion control where the curb and gutter terminates at the PC.
RESPONSE: The street stub has been revised, thus eliminating off -site drainage.
Number:160 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Add drainage arrows.
RESPONSE: See Sheet DR1.
Topic: Emergency Access
Number:124 Created:l0/5/2005
[4/17/06] [10/5/05] Please see PFA as soon as possible for their comments on the
emergency access drive.
RESPONSE: All comments received from PFA regarding the Emergency Access Drive
have been addressed.
Topic: Emergency Access Plan and Profile
Number:178 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Remove note 7.
RESPONSE: Note #7 has been revised — reference to plat has been removed; however;
flowline curve/line data remains on Sheet R5.
Number:179 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Profile - label station and elevation information from R4 to show tie in information.
RESPONSE: The profiles now back reference each other (note, the stationing is the
same/continuous for Pica Street and the Emergency Access Drive).
Number:180 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Provide profile information to CL of Mulberry. Show existing grades and how you
tie in.
RESPONSE: We believe this is sufficient (per our meeting with Susan Joy on 05/05/06).
Number:181 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Need to show existing features, dim sidewalk, label curb type etc.
RESPONSE: Said features are properly labeled/noted (via "match exist.").
Page 4
Number:174 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/061 ID transition lengths for crosspan in VC and provide a detail.
RESPONSE: The transition lengths are labeled on the intersection details. Additionally, the
mid -block crosspan dimensions have been added to LCUASS DWG 708.
Topic: D6
Number:194 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Homeowner needs to sign this sheet for the off -site EA road section.
RESPONSE: N/A per e-mail from Susan Joy to Russ Wells dated 04/28/06.
Topic: D7
Number:198 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/061 Where is 111, 112, and 113 being used? Couldn't find a reference to them on the
plan sets. Need to label all onsite curb and gutter as "On -Site". Detail 114 doesn't match
the EA plan and profile sheet or details 114/D7 and 400/ST1.
RESPONSE: 111 and 112 are being used for the on -site private parking lots. 113 is being
used on the off -site driveway at 2009 W. Mulberry St. 114/D7, 400/ST1, and Sheet R5 are
now consistent.
Topic: Demo Sheet
Number:136 Created:10/5/2005
[4/17/06] Repeat. Scanning issues are still a problem with this sheet (font size too small,
shading versus outlining, overlapped labeling, etc). Mylars will not be approved until the
scanning requirements in Appendix E6 are being met.
[10/5/05] Final Compliance. Scanning issues here. Don't shade the existing offsite
structures, just outline. Add the street row for Crestmore Place and Court.
RESPONSE: A set of plans is currently being reviewed by JR Wilson exclusively for
scanability. Applicant acknowledges that all sheets (all plan sets) must satisfy scanning
requirements before mylars will be accepted.
Number:157 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Dimension existing sidewalk widths.
RESPONSE: The existing sidewalk widths are now noted.
Number:158 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Dimension the existing eastern drive to Mulberry. How much impervious surface
are you adding with the new proposed drive?
RESPONSE: N/A per meeting with Susan Joy on 05/05/06 — existing asphalt driveway is
being replaced with concrete following utility installation (no additional pavement).
Page 3
Topic: Site Plan
Number:110 Created:l0/4/2005
[4/24/06] Construct the stub.
[10/4/05] In the staff review meeting, you indicated that you do not intend to construct the
stub road to the south. Your site plans seem to show, with equal line weights, that you plan
to build and not build the stub. You said that City staff had OK'ed not building the stub at
this time. I told you that wasn't what I recalled but that I would look back through the record
and get back to you. I looked through the entire record on this project and found nothing to
indicate that staff OK'ed your not building the street stub. What I did find were three
references to the contrary. First, in your conceptual review letter dated May 10, 2004, it is
clear that street stubs must be designed and constructed. Second, at a transportation
coordination meeting on March 31, 2005, Susan Joy and I explained to you, Russ Wells,
Matt Delich and Wayne Hochstetler that you would be required to construct the street stubs
to standard, which in this case would be 51-53'. Susan mentioned the possibility of a
contribution in aid as a possibility and suggested that you be in touch with her about that.
There was no further communication about that. Finally, in an email dated April 1, 2005,
Susan Joy wrote to Nick Hawes and stated that the street stub would need to be designed
and constructed. So as it stands now, you will be responsible for the design and
construction of the street stubs. Staff has determined that it would be possible to modify the
requirements given the nature of the circumstance. See Susan's comment # 114.
RESPONSE: The stub will be constructed at this time (including cross pan, ped. ramps, and
asphalt to PCBs)
Number:234 Created:4/24/2006
[4/24/06] At the hearing, Russ agreed to install a 6-foot solid wood fence around the
perimeter of the entire property except where overland stormwater flows would prevent it.
Please add fence along the north side of the property.
RESPONSE: The fence has been continued around the perimeter of the property.
Number:235 Created:4/24/2006
[4/24/06] Please line up the ramps on the south stub.
RESPONSE: The ramps now better align.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: Corvid Way Plan and Profile
Number:172 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Remove note 7.
RESPONSE: Note #7 has been revised — reference to plat has been removed; however;
flowline curve/line data remains on Sheet R5.
Number:173 Created:4/17/2006
[4/17/06] Provide curb return information in profiles.
RESPONSE: Per a meeting with Sheri Wamhoff on 05/09/06, the equivalent information
can be reviewed utilizing the spots shown on the intersection details in conjunction with the
flowline curve/line data.
Paee 2
aSTAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
TOM PETERSON Date: 04/24/2006
3555 STANFORD RD. #204 RESPONSE DATE: 05/17/2006
FORT COLLINS. CO 80525
Staff has reviewed your submittal for RAVEN VIEW PDP AND FINAL PLANS, TYPE I, and
we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen
Number:208 Created:4/19/2006
[4/19/06] The following departments indicate that they have no further concerns with this
project: Park Planning, Xcel Energy, Neighborhood Services, Comcast, and the Post Office
RESPONSE: Good.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number:99 Created:9/27/2005
[4/24/06] It looks like there is in fact room for a tree even with the hydrant. Please refer to
PFA's comments.
[9/27/05] Need to add a street tree at the NEC of Pica and Corvid Way
RESPONSE: A tree has been added to this location
Number:236 Created:4/24/2006
[4/24/06] Please add foundation plantings on at least 50% of the highlighted areas on the
redlines.
RESPONSE: Foundation planting has been added.
Number:237 Created:4/24/2006
[4/24/06] Please add landscaping to the detention pond area.
RESPONSE: Natural grasses and trees have been added to the detention pond.
L[4opic: Lighting Plan
umber:238 Created:4/24/2006
/24/06] Please add fixture cut sheet to lighting plan.
ESPONSE: The fixture cut sheet has been included.
Number:239 Created:4/24/2006
[4/24/06] Reduce brightness or add house side shields to reduce offsite light spill.
RESPONSE: The off -site spillage has been corrected.
Passe 1