Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEMAY AVENUE ESTATES - PDP - 37-04 - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)FORT COLLINS•LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT Q'(0 SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT February 23, 2005 Mr. Steve Olt City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: #37-04 Lemay Avenue Estates PDP Dear Mr. Olt, The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed the above mentioned request and submit the following comments. Access to the existing sanitary sewer line is required. The District requires easements, on the District's standard easement form, for all facilities that are not located within the public ROW. The District does not allow trees within 10 feet of District facilities. The review was not completed due to the lack of adequate information. The District will require another review. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have any questions or require additional information. Respectfully, Merry W. Farrill, P.E. District Engineer xc: Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, District Manager Mr. Stan Everitt 5150 Snead Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-3104 Fax (970) 226-0186 . ( " Be sure and return all red -lined plans if or when you re -submit revised plans. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at 221-6341. Yours Truly, kj(.' Steve O t, City Planner cc: Marc Virata Stan Everitt Northern Engineering The Birdsall Group Current Planning File #37-04 Page 12 3. It is being suggested (only) by City staff that a trail connection from the internal street to the public sidewalk along the east side of South Lemay Avenue be provided between Lots 1 &)31. 4. The City will not take ownership of and maintain Tract D except for the portion within the Stanton Creek floodplain. 5. What is being proposed at the entry bridges? Staff needs clarification because there may be associated liability issues. Stormwater: 1. Some lots are too close to the erosion buffer zone. No disturbance can occur within this zone. A clear boundary is needed. 2. There may be a bicycle/pedestrian trail and storm water inlet conflict near the northeast corner of this development. 3. Will the bicycle/pedestrian trail from the cul-de-sac at the east end of Woods Landing Drive be able to withstand the weight of City utilities maintenance equipment as they access Stanton Creek? 4. Where is the subdrain outfall system? Ught & Power: 1. The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District may want to pair services on lot lines. This may create a problem for Light & Power services. Transportation Planning: 1. The radial cross -walk ramps should be struck from the plans. 2. The bicycle/pedestrian trail in Tract D, at the northeast corner of this development, should be in a Public Access Easement. Natural Resources: 1. The Limits of Development must be shown on all of the development plans. Page 11 Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: 6ener+ai Number: 70 Created: 2/15/2005 [2/15/05] Will Tract D have a "blanket" public access easement? If not, a public access easement must be dedicated in the location of the future trail connection between lots 20 and 21 where this connection will pass through Tract D. Thanks. Topic: Transportation Number: 51 Created: 11/9/2004 [2/15/05] Just a minor detail: You fixed the ramp problems with two exceptions. The site plans indicate ramps located at the inner apex of both Humholtz Dr/Showline Rd and Showline Rd/Woodsland Rd intersections respectively. The utility plan set (dated 2/2/05) show the correct alignment and locations. Please revise the site plan to match the locations indicated preliminary utility plans (dated 2/2/05). Thanks. [11/9/04] There are a number of crossing ramp locations that need to some work. Some have problematic locations. Others have no "receiving ramp", and therefore create an incomplete crossing. Please see redlines on utility plans (sheets Ul-U4). Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Gary Lopez Topic: ZONING Number: 77 Created: 2/17/2005 [2/17/051 Is this project modified or a cluster development? I am finding some side setbacks less then the required UE setback of 20', with some lots with building envelopes showing only 15'. Number: 78 Created: 2/17/2005 [2/17/05] Entry sign shown may not meet City sign code requirements and any approval for such a sign shall be separately approved/ permitted through Building/Zoning and not by the planning approval process. The following comments were expressed at staff review on February 16'h: Engineering: 1. The 30' wide street connection (Mountain Home Drive) to an arterial street is not acceptable. 2. The subdrains are not OK for the streets. Need to figure out how the drainage for the lots is going to work. Page 10 [11/9/04] The plans currently show a storm sewer pipe collecting flows off of Lemay Avenue discharging into the rear of proposed lots along the southern boundary. Please note that this arrangement is not allowed, public systems are not allowed to discharge onto private property. The pipe will need to be extended to a public outfall or the site's detention pond. Topic: Maintenance Access Number: 74 Created: 2/17/2005 [2/17/05] If the City is to maintain the floodplain area, then a maintenance access road needs to be provided to that area. This can be done through a minimum 10400t wide drivable surface that would connect the public street to the area. This trail needs to be built in a way that can withstand a large maintenance vehicle in accordance LCUASS. Topic: Plot Number: 64 Created: 11/12/2004 [2/15/051 [11/12/04] The plat indicates that the floodplain area is all enclosed within proposed Tract D. The City would be willing to take ownership and maintenance responsibility for the area within the floodplain if provided with maintenance access to a tract that is strictly limited to the area enclosed within the floodplain. The City will need permanent maintenance access into the floodplain area and the erosion buffer area. However the areas encompassed within Tract D currently include the detention pond and areas that will not be accepted by the City for ownership or maintenance. Please clarify what is the purpose of the Greenstone easement that is shown on the plat. Is it publicly owned ? If it is and the whole area is encompassed within a tract being dedicated as a public easement, maybe the old easement should be vacated by this plat. Topic: Subdrain System Number: 59 Created: 11/9/2004 [2/15/05] [11/9/04] Please show the subdrain system on the utility plans. Show how this system will be tied to the stormwater system. Outfall should be designed to be at or above the 100 year water surface elevation in the storm sewer system. Topic: l/tility Plans Number: 61 Created: 11/12/2004 [2/15/05] [11/12/04] At final a detailed erosion control plan is required as well as storm sewer pipe profiles and all relevant water quality details. Page 9 Please grade an overflow Swale at all sump inlet locations and in particular at the inlet on Wood Landings Drive. Please make sure at final that the location of the inlet will not interfere with the pedestrian/bike path ramp location. Some lots have a rear yard swale carrying flows from these lots into Pond 301 and Pond 303, since these are large estate type lots such a design would be allowed, provided that no fencing is allowed across these swales. At final a proper detail of that Swale should be provided and notes are added to the grading plan indicating that this Swale is to be maintained by the individual homeowners and that flows within these swales will not be impeded by the homeowners. The grading plans should show the delineation of the limits of disturbance. Notes should be added to the plans specifying that no disturbance should happen within the erosion buffer zone except for any potential disturbance that could occur during the construction of outfall pipes from the detention ponds into the creek. [11/9/04] When providing the final grading plans for the site please keep in mind that the City does not allow rear yard drainage swales that go across 3 lots or more. These are typically present maintenance problems for future homeowners. This appears to be the case for several lots along the south property line and in the central part of the proposed development. Grading to the north will need to match existing grades at the Stanton Creek Subdivision. Currently the grading does not extend beyond the limits of this property and it is impossible to judge how the lots along the north end will tie to existing grades. Topic: Headcut Number: 56 Created: 11/9/2004 [2/17/05] [11/9/04] The mater plan calls for drop structures to built to stabilize the existing headcut on Stanton Creek to the east of this project. Access for this future work will be needed. Alternatively the City might go ahead and build the drop structures called for by the master plan at the time of construction of this development. This can be either done as a developer repay or by a separate contractor hired by the City. Topic: In/et on Lemoy Avenue Number: 60 Created: 11/9/2004 [2/17/05] Thank you for adding a detention;pond at this location, the inlet being on - grade and at a steep slope might need to be a combination inlet in order not to allow bypass flows. Page 8 6. Sheet 8, Overall Landscape Plan - Please include a note that "No irrigated vegetation is allowed within the erosion buffer zone. Any plantings within the erosion buffer zone or floodway require a floodplain use permit" [11/9/04] Floodplain Comments 1. Please see the included floodplain checklists for items. required for 50% and 100% submittals. 2. The plot must show the f loodplain/f loodway boundary. The floodplain and floodway boundaries are the same along Stanton Creek. 3. Please show the floodplain cross -sections and BFE's on the drainage and grading plans. 4. The erosion buffer zone needs to be shown on the site plan, drainage plan and grading plans. The erosion buffer zone is different than the natural resources buffer. 5. All development must be outside of the erosion buffer zone (except the required stormwater outfall). Please review plans for development that is currently shown within the erosion buffer zone. In particular, look at lots 12,15,16 and the .detention pond. 6. Please see checklists for other restrictions on buffer zones including no construction traffic, storage of materials, fill, irrigated vegetation, etc. Please include notes on the plans about these items 7. The stormwater outfall must be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to the channel bed and banks and also no fill is allowed in the floodway. 8. Any construction in the floodplain/floodway outside of the erosion buffer zone must be shown by a hydraulic analysis to cause no -rise. To avoid hydraulic modeling, all development must stay out of the f loodplain/f loodway. 9. The erosion buffer zone and floodway must be staked in the field and marked as a no disturbance area except for permitted items in the buffer -and floodplain (i.e. stormwater outfall). 10. A floodplain use permit and $25 fee are required for the stormwater outfall into Stanton Creek, Please include a detail of how disturbance to the channel bed and banks will be minimized. 11. Please see checklists for items relating to floodplain that must be included in the drainage report. Topic: Eroding Number: 57 Created: 11/9/2004 [2/17/05] At final please provide more detailed grading plan that call,out all lot corner elevation and the proposed minimum finished floor elevations for all lots. Page 7 Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Bike Troii in the Erosion Buffer Zone Number: 72 Created: 2/16/2005 [2/16/051 The bike trail is currently shown within the limits of the erosion buffer zone. This location would not be allowed per City code. Please move bike path out of the Erosion Buffer Zone. Topic: Detention Release Rote Number: 62 Created: 11/12/2004 [2/17/05] Basin 05-1 is being proposed to be released undetained. The discharge from this basin is significant, about 10 cfs, and will affect downstream capacity if allowed to be undetained. The variance request for allowing this basin to release undetained is not approved at this time. Please investigate whether it would be possible to bring these flows back into the she subdivision's drainage system. [11/12/04] The report calculates a release rate of 2.99 cfs/acre was assumed for basin EX-1, this seems a bit high, your actual calculations shows this rate to be closer to 0.299 cfs/Acre, please correct. Topic: Fi000piain Issues Number: 55 Created: 11/9/2004 [2/16/05] Lemay Avenue Estates Floodplain Comments 2-8-05 1. Please show the floodplain cross -sections and BFE's on the drainage and grading plans. - REPEAT COMMENT 2. Please see checklists for other restrictions on buffer zones including no construction traffic, storage of materials, fill, irrigated vegetation, etc. Please include notes on the plans and the drainage report about these items - REPEAT COMMENT 3. The stormwater outfall must be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to the channel bed and banks and also no fill is allowed in the floodway. Please provide.a detail. - REPEAT COMMENT 4. The erosion buffer zone and floodway must be staked in the field and marked as a no disturbance area except for permitted items in the buffer and floodplain (i.e. stormwater outfall). Include as a note on the plans and in the drainage report. - REPEAT COMMENT 5. A floodplain use permit and $25 fee are required for the stormwater outfall into Stanton Creek. Please include a detail of how disturbance to the channel bed and banks will be minimized. - REPEAT COMMENT Page 6 work better from an aesthetic standpoint. The trail will need to be a minimum of 8" thick in accordance with Chapter 16 of LCUASS. Number: 76 Created: 2/17/2005 [2/17/05] The use of the arbors/pergolas (not sure what is the correct term) for the sidewalk system along Mountain Home Drive east of Lemay Avenue was discussed internally in Transportation (I had originally assumed that these were bridges). Preliminarily, we do not have an objection to the creation of these pergolas, however this situation is unique and a verification on the approval process will need to be internally figured out. Upon initial discussion, encroachment permits are likely however this will still need to be verified. Construction & maintenance responsibilities will need to be documented somehow as being that of the HOA/Developer. The clearance underneath must be 10' (and should be scaled out as such on the site plan documents). Topic: Soils Report Number: 14 Created: 11/5/2004 [2/15/05] The response letter indicates this is to be addressed at the time of final engineering. This is sufficient, comment is carried over for reference. [11/5/04] The soils report will need to address whether street drain systems are recommended as was done in the Stanton Creek subdivision directly north. The general area has high swelling soils and fly ash was used with the recent work on Lemay Avenue. Topic: Subdivision Plot Number: 39 Created: 11/5/2004 [2/15/05] There appears to be an issue with regards to the maintenance of Tract D with Stormwater. [11/5/04] Indicate who is to own and maintain the tracts within the development. Deportment: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore Topic: 6WW4Vl Number: 69 Created: 2/15/2005 [2/15/05] Natural Habitat and Feature Buffer Standard - A 100' Natural Habitat and Features Buffer is required from Stanton Creek (Fossil Creek tributary). The applicant is willing to submit a Modification of Standards requesting smaller lot sizes backing up to the buffer allowing the prescribed distance to be maintained. Page 5 Number: 36 Created: 11/5/2004 [2/15/05] The response indicated that this request is being declined. I'd be curious to know why this wouldn't be a good idea. [11/5/04] Wouldn't a pedestrian connection be worth looking into between lots 1 and 32 to tie the internal development to the sidewalk on Lemay Avenue? It would appear to allow a more direct connection for many in the neighborhood to get to Fossil Creek Community Park who would otherwise have to back track along the public street network. Number: 38 Created: 11/5/2004 [2/16/05] The response letter indicated the applicant has questions on the validity of the easement. As it is shown on the documents for this project, the question of its validity needs to be addressed prior to a hearing and a letter of intent needed assuming it is valid. [11/5/04] A letter of intent also appears needed for the owner of the "Stanton Creek Easement". Number: 71 Created: 2/15/2005 [2/15/05] The sidewalk connection off the cul-de-sac for Woods Landing Drive was noted to be designed and built by the City. It is my understanding that this is to be the developer's responsibility and that the Parks Department won't construct or maintain the trail within the platted boundary, only north of the site. As such there needs to be some clarification on the responsibilities or changes to Tract D's boundary as this area falls under Tract D. Number: 73 Created: 2/17/2005 [2/17/05] There is a general concern on the design of the trail connection to Tract D as it is in the same general area as a drainage facility taking flows from Woods Landing Drive. There needs to be verification on the plans that the trail connection can fit in the same area with the standard access ramp and flaring out to the street. If the design shows that there is conflict between the trail and drainage facility, the width of the easement between the two lots may need to be widened which I do not know if it brings up lot size and density issues. Number: 75 Created: 2/17/2005 [2/17/05] The width of the trail from Wood Landing Drive is required to be 8' from a transportation perspective, which is standard for these trail connections. With this trail also being used for maintenance by Utilities, the trail should be widened out to 10' in width to ensure drivability and structural support, otherwise if kept at 81, 2' of structurally supportable material on either side of the trail would have to be ensured. It is preferred to widen the trail to 10' from a maintenance standpoint and will likely Page 4 Lane should transition to 36' from its intersection with Showline Road as this will allow 3 12' lanes to fit at the intersection, which in turn would create more room to allow in, left out, and right out operations for the residents. Number: 18 Created: 11/5/2004 [2/15/05] The response indicated that a letter of acknowledgement of the driveway reconfiguration from the property owner will occur once agreement is made on the plan set (approval?) The letter of acknowledgement will be required prior to any City approval on the engineering plans. [11/5/04] In general, it appears that there is sufficient right-of-way south of the site in order to allow for the work along Lemay Avenue. However, we'll need to get evidence from the property owners south of here that they are aware of their driveway configurations being changed by the project. (The construction plans need to show the newly configured driveways with the road improvements and grading to demonstrate that off -site easements are not necessary. Number: 19 Created: 11/5/2004 [2/15/05] The note on the plans is not clear as to where are the limits of undergrounding of the overhead electric. [11/5/04] There needs to be an indication on the plans that the overhead line adjacent to the site is to be undergrounded with the development. In addition, the work on Lemay south of the site will cause additional sections of line to be undergrounded. Please indicate on the construction plans where the undergrounding in proposed to begin. Number: 20 Created: 11/5/2004 (2/15/05] Carried over for reference, as it appears the utilities have not been contacted thus far. It is suggested that this issue be verified earlier than prior to construction as it may result (worse case scenario) in having to modify plans that were previously approved. [11/5/04] The utility companies will all need to allow the fencing, columns, and planters which are proposed within the utility easement along Lemay Avenue. Number: 22 Created: 11/5/2004 [2/15/05] The response indicated that the necessity of a subdrain system is to be addressed at final engineering. This is of concern, as if a subdrain system is to be proposed, without a preliminary design at this time, it cannot be verified that a suitable outfall for the subdrain can be designed without perhaps needing to daylight onto property outside of this development (when a letter if intent would be required prior to going to a hearing) or needing to redesign the site after the hearing. The question of a subdrain system needs to be resolved prior to a hearing. [11/5/04] The soils report mentions a perimeter drain system, will an actual subdrain system be proposed by the development? A groundwater report may be required. Page 3 Avenue Estates development and the centerline of Stanton Creek, let alone the westerly top of bank of the creek. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 82 Created: 2/24/2005 [2/24/05] The language proposed in the Design Team Responses to Comments letter for the installation and maintenance of trees is acceptable and should be added to the Landscape Plan, replacing Planting Notes 19, 20, and 20. This note should be expanded, however, to state who will be responsible for the on -going maintenance of the trees. Is the developer still going to install the street trees adjacent to the common, open space areas? Lastly, the "first" Planting Note 20, regarding phasing, should remain on the plan. Topic: Plot Number: 81 Created: 2/17/2005 [2/17/05] The Technical Services Department indicated that the outside boundary and legal description on the subdivision plat both close. Nice job, it looks OK Topic: subdivision Plat Number: 24 Created: 11/5/2004 [2/24/051 CARRY-OVER COMMENT. This is being carried over just a reminder that the requirement must be met and is being addressed with a request from the applicant/developer for a modification of the standard. [11/5/04] Lot 13, close as it is to at least 1/2 acre in size, must be enlarged slightly for it to meet the LUC requirement in the Urban Estate District. Either side lot line could be shifted a little to accommodate this. Topic: Ut///ty P/ans Number: 80 Created: 2/17/2005 [2/17/05] Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy indicated that they have a 4" PED pounds medium system and a 6" intermediate pounds system gas line along the easterly edge of South Lemay Avenue in this area. This system is adequate to serve the proposed subdivision. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: 6Wn l Number: 16 Created: 11/5/2004 [2/15/05] The response indicated some concern on this requirement. It is a requirement as it will help ensure that three lanes can comfortably fit. There isn't a need to provide striping on Mountain Home Drive. [11/5/04] The width of Rawah Lane being 30' is perhaps not as ideal with it intersecting onto Lemay Avenue because of Lemay's high speed and volumes. Rawah Page 2 City of Fort Collins M. Torgerson Architects c/o Troy Jones 223 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Date: 02/24/2005 Staff has reviewed your submittal for LEMAY AVENUE ESTATES, PDP - TYPE I (LUC), and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Deportment: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Bike Trail in the Erosion Buffer Zone Number: 79 Created: 2/17/2005 [2/17/05] Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department indicated that the trail extension (on the Lemay Avenue Estates property) will not be designed nor constructed by the City of Fort Collins. This is the responsibility of the development. The trail should be brought to the north property line of Lemay Avenue Estates, at the northeast corner, and the City will connect from there to the main trail. This is the typical process used for numerous trail connections. Topic: 6enemi Number: 9 Created: 11/4/2004 [2/24/051 CARRY-OVER COMMENT. The trail will now occur between Lots 20 & 21, continuing to the north property line at the northeast corner of this development. The developer will be responsible for the design and construction of this trail to the property line, where the City will pick up responsibility. [11/4/04] Craig Foreman of the City Parks Planning Department has indicated that the City trail will be located just north of this development on the west side of Stanton Creek. From Woods Landing Drive, between Lots 21 & 22, the City should have a 5' wide sidewalk to the north property line for a trail connection in Tract D. Number: 45 Created: 11/8/2004 [2/24/051 CARRY-OVER COMMENT. The applicant/developer is requesting a modification of the standard pertaining to the minimum lot size requirement to satisfy the buffer requirement. [11/8/04] On the second page of the Statement of Planning Objectives, item (vii), there is a statement that says "A 100-foot buffer is planned from the top of bank of the creek". If the scale on the Context Diagram is correct (1" = 100'-0") then there is only 58' to 80' of separation between the back of the proposed lots in the Lemay Page 1