The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOLD TOWN FLATS - FDP - FDP130049 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS10/14/2013: Discussed the issue with Traffic Op's management. With the current Quiet Zone efforts and discussions taking place the previous comment of adding signage to restrict WbL turning traffic on Cherry at the alley is retracted. No restrictions will be implemented at this time. 10/13/2013: TIS suggests the westbound left from Cherry into the alley should be restricted. City agrees. Applicant should expect to provide signage to discourage westbound motorists from turning left into the Alley. 10/13/2013: Please add No Left Turn (R3-2) signage on the right hand side of Cherry just east of the alley. Also include Do Not Enter (R5-1)signage angled to the west bound motorist. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Numerous discrepancies between the Fig 6 & 7 volumes and the Appendix D & E volumes. Please verify the analysis volumes in the appendix are correct from Existing thru Total. ELB Response: All discrepancies have been corrected between Figures 6 and 7. Analysis has been re -run for both 2018 background and total traffic. 10/11/2013: The Mason and Maple 2018 Total Traffic analysis has discrepancies with the turning counts in Figure 7. The SbL movement is still analyzed with SbL turning traffic volumes. Please review and revise the 2018 Total Traffic analysis. ELB Response: Did not find southbound or northbound left turns in the analysis of Mason/Maple. Re -ran the analysis and included new capacity sheets. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/12/2013: No comments Comment Originated: 12/12/2013 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-65887 tcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: There are line over text issues on sheet FDP 3. See redlines. OZ Response: This has been corrected. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2014 01/10/2014: Please correct the spelling of "Exhibit" in the sheet C600 title block. NE Response: This has been corrected. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2014 01/10/2014: There is one line over text issue on sheet LP401. See redlines. R+M response: Updated Topic: Plat Comment Number: 4 01/10/2014: No comments. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 5 01/10/2014: No comments. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 wstanford@fcqov.com Comment Originated: 01/10/2014 Comment Originated: 01/10/2014 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Please include striping plans for Mason between Maple and Cherry. Include the a brief portion of the existing striping south of Maple as reference for the striping alignment north of Maple. The lanes lines adjacent to and crossing over the northeasterly turning tracks should match the placement of the lane lines adjacent to the track barrier curbing to the south of Maple. Their may be issues to work out on the striping so feel free to contact Ward Stanford at 221-6820 with any questions or concerns. NE Response: A striping plan is now provided (C201). All striping north of Maple was based on the location of the existing curb running along the BNSF railroad tracks south of Maple. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Restriction signage is shown on the plans and staff doubts the applicant received the revised comment (below) which retracted the restriction. Please delete the Cherry St Detail on Sheet C200. The restriction will not be implemented at this time. Please leave the Stop signs as shown though. My apologies for not verifying the applicant's staff had received the retracted comment. NE Response: We did not receive the revised comment as you suspected. We have since removed the restriction signage, but have left the stop signs as requested. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/12/2013 12/12/2013: No comments. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, ischlam@fcqov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2013 12/31/2013: Erosion Control Report is not missing any information, just minor edits. Section 1.1... "Carriage Apartments" Please Change, Section 2.2... "raze all structure" I was not aware that there were still structures to be demolished, Section 2.7... "Grasses Gravel'... missing and? or is this glass -less gravel?, and Section 4.1 please specify weed free mulch. The erosion control plans had some redlines specifically 1) Perimeter Controls on a few of the sides 2) Worries about wattles as perimeter control on tall buildings not being effective basis The District at Campus West. Please address this issue to ensure the site will be effective at preventing the materials from ending up in the Poudre. 3) Missing Inlet Protection how is the inlet protection going to prevent discharge from a water quality structure. Please show detail. Also the location of the trash enclosure is close to the outlet structure, this could be an issue for long term pollution discharges. Possible secondary containment? Erosion Control Escrow Calculation looked good but might have to be recalculated when the plans are shored up. If you need clarification concerning this, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ ischlam@fcqov.com NE Response: The requested changes, corrections, and additions have been provided. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2014 01/10/2014: A discussion needs to take place regarding the grading at the northwest corner of the site to ensure an outfall is present for part of Mason Street. The grading ties into existing elevations, but may create a sump. NE Response: Per our meeting with City Stormwater and Engineering staff, and inlet is now provided. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2014 01/10/2014: Please check to make sure all porous landscape details are consistent with one another. NE Response: All permeable paver sections and details are consistent. If there is something we missed, please provide clarification. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2014 01/10/2014: The City suggests a cleanout for the roof drains near the tie-in location to the porous pavement section. NE Response: A cleanout/drain basin is now provided within the paver system. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/06/2014 01 /0612014: Please check the scale on sheet LP101. It appears that this sheet may be drawn to a different scale than shown. R+M response: The scale has been updated. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/06/2014 01/06/2014: The Dwarf Rabbit brush specified in the plant list is typically named as follows: Dwarf Blue Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus nauseosus R+M response: The text has been corrected. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/06/2014 01/06/2014: In the long east west aligned landscape area located in the parking lot evaluate if it is feasible to include some ornamental trees such as Chanticleer Pear? R+M response: A storm drain runs in this area and it would not be possible to plant these ornamental trees. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/06/2014 01/06/2014: Evaluate the need to provide plants that have a mature height of 2 feet or less in the planting bed at the corner of Mason and Maple and in the bed along Mason just to the south of the corner. Review expectable mature plant heights in these planting beds with Traffic Operations staff and make adjustments to meet their direction. R+M response: Discussed and reviewed by Ward Stanford (Traffic Operations) Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/06/2014 01/06/2014: Evaluate the feasibility and benefit to the design by adding a couple of low movable surface planters along Maple in the wide plaza to the east of Mason to help soften the extent of horizontal hardscape in that area? R+M response: Planters could be added in the future. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/06/2014 01/06/2014: Additional Landscape Notes: Please add a landscape note that addresses the following LUC (3.2.1 K) required tree utility separations. This can replace Landscape note number S. Trees shall not be planted closer than..... Forty feet between shade trees and street lights. Fifteen feet between ornamental trees and streetlights. Twenty feet between shade and or ornamental trees and traffic control signs and devices. Ten feet between trees and water or sewer mains. Six feet between trees and water or sewer service lines. Four feet between trees and gas lines. Eight feet away from driveways. Please add a landscape note, if it is not already addressed, that described they type of mulch to be used for the project. Please add a landscape note, if it is not already addressed, that describes how turf, trees, shrubs perennials and ornamental grasses will be irrigated. R+M response: All Landscape notes have been added to landscape plans. NE Response: Sneet C501 is now included which provides the requested information. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: The railroad track drawings in the civil set show a disjointed railroad track just south of the inlet and should be corrected for clarity. Are the existing contour lines along Mason representative of what occurs across the railroad tracks? NE Response: The linework has been adjusted as requested. Existing contour lines on the west side of the railroad tracks (beyond the limits of proposed construction) are approximate only. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: With the inclusion of the signing and striping plan for Mason Street, additional review of the patching limits will be done. We may need to provide additional patching out to the railroad track for a section to avoid the acute angle where the inlet is, but will need to see the patching information along with the lane lines to have a more complete review. The City's standard note regarding limits of street repair being approximate should be added. NE Response: The requested plan is now provided. Please contact the design engineer directly should there be any additional questions so as to avoid further review iterations and expedite the issuance of Utility Plan Mylars. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: The storm drain plan and profile sheet should also include design information for the additional storm line on Mason Street with the shifting storm inlet. Will want to see the cover over the pipe depicted. NE Response: The storm drain in Mason has been extended, and a plan & profile is now provided on sheet C301. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: How are downspouts from the building intended to be conveyed? Will they tie-in internally to the permeable paver area and inlet? NE Response: Downspouts from the building tie into 6" storm drains, which convey the drainage to the paver sub -base. See sheets C300, C401, and C604 for additional information. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: The placement of private lighting in public right-of-way is problematic and would need to relocated outside of the right-of-way. R+M response: Pole mounted decorative light fixtures have been removed. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Please remove the PA designation on the landscaping plan where Mason Street is intended to be. R+M response: It has been removed. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: The plat for the final indicates a utility easement along Mason Street that alters from 7.5 feet to 9 feet to 7.5 feet. If the additional 9 feet is specifically needed for the short section by the utility providers, then that's fine. Otherwise, I'd suggest maintaining just a consistent utility width (7.5 feet is fine). NE Response: The easement widths provided are based on discussions with Roger Buffington, and will need to remain as currently depicted. sheet. R+M response: Existing Conditions sheet will be removed for final FDP mylars. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/13/2014 01/13/2014: It appears that there is room for one additional Ginkgo Biloba in the parkway at the north end of the Mason Street frontage. Adding one more tree in this location will carry the landscaping north to match the planting beds along the building. R+M response: Tim Buchanan (Forestry) and I discussed the tree alignment during the previous submittal and the fact that there would be a conflict with the railroad if another tree were added to the North. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: The construction plans need to have a signing and striping plan sheet for Mason Street that provides information on what the bikelane and travel lane widths are resulting from the curb and gutter widening. This includes showing the amount of travel lane resulting in proximity with the railroad track. The bike lane needs to show how it continues around the inset curve and then ties out into the bikelane that continues north of the property. NE Response: A signage and striping plan has been added, and the requested information is now provided on sheet C201. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Please specify the curve radii along the new curb and gutter section, including at the curb return at Mason and Maple. NE Response: The requested information has been provided on sheet C500. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Please specify the pavement type for the widening along Mason Street. The utility plan sheet appears to depict concrete for the inset curve but is presumably asphalt from the relocated inlet south, but I'm uncertain. NE Response: The pavement type has been clarified on sheet C500. In general, areas that are currently asphalt will continue to be asphalt, and areas of existing concrete will be concrete. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/08/2014 01/08/2014: Please provide cross sections along Mason Street from at least the center of the railroad track to the right-of-way line. I would want to review how the cross slope of existing Mason Street ties into the additional widened portion and if proposed and existing cross slopes are the same or vary. Additionally, the flowline grading and cross slope along Mason Street north of the inlet I'd like to see additional information on up to where the 2.6% cross slope towards the railroad track takes place. I'm a little concerned that the minimal .5% flowline grade with the 2% cross slope transitioning to the 2.6% cross slope in the opposite direction may result in a flat area lacking drainage in the transition where the cross slope is at or close to 0%. Would like to see how the minimal cross slope below 2% is reduced along this .5% flowline grade area. With the inset curve having flush curb and negative cross slope to the railroad track, I'm unsure of how drainage flows along this area are intended to be conveyed and whether the railroad track/crossing material acts as some sort of conveyance (does the gutter section here remain catch curb or does it change to spill curb?). We may want to explore keeping the cross slope positive and away from the railroad track. City. of F6rt Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. com/developmentrevie w January 13, 2014 Dave Derbes Brinkman Development, LLC 3003 E Harmony Rd Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Old Town Flats, FDP130049, Round Number 1 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: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/13/2014 01/1312014: On the Site and Landscape Plans, please label the pole -mounted decorative light fixtures and be sure to distinguish from City Light and Power street lights. Also on Site Plan Notes number 10, please add that these fixtures will also need an encroachment permit for being located within the public right-of-way. R+M response: Pole mounted decorative lighting has been removed. The only existing lighting is (2) relocated City Light and Power lights. Note 10 has included needed text as requested. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/13/2014 01/13/2014: These decorative light fixtures are identified on the Lighting Plan as the EE fixtures. Please note that these fixtures do not match the Transit Center fixtures which have a horizontal arm versus a straight vertical pole. Also, these fixtures need a more detailed specification in the Luminaire Schedule. R+M response: Pole mounted decorative light fixtures have been removed. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/13/2014 01/13/2014: Prior to mylars, all plan sheets need to numbered sequentially including the architectural elevations. Please note that for Final, we will not need an Existing Conditions