Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAISING CANE'S - FDP - 6-04A - CORRESPONDENCE -Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Utility Number: 28 Created: 2/25/2004 [6/28/04] Define the connection to the sanitary sewer as a drop manhole connection. Provide the standard drop manhole and HEAVY duty cleanout details on the detail sheet. [4/9/04] [2/25/04] See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic:. zoning Number: 52 Created: 6/8/2004 [6/8/04] Sheet 3 of 4 indicates that the scale of the elevations is 1/8" = 1'. However, they are really drawn at a 1/4" = 1' scale. Need to change note to 1/4" = 1'. Number: 53 Created: 6/8/2004 [6/8/04] Since they once again show signage and painted mural on the elevations, they need to indicate that these are "possible" sign locations. As shown, they may not comply with the code and even though note #7 on the site plan states that signs will comply with the sign code, it avoids confusion later on if we indicate that we aren't giving approval to what they are showing on the plan. 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. i rs Truly, Ted Shepard City Planner Page 6 I Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 62 Created: 6/28/2004 Please provide an easement for the outfall pipe from the pond. Number: 64 Created: 6/29/2004 Please provide an outfall pipe detail at the curb. Number: 65 Created: 6/29/2004 All grades need to tie-in to existing contours along the perimeter of the site. At some retaining wall locations, it appears some off -site grading would occur, which would require off -site grading and temporary construction easements. Number: 66 Created: 6/29/2004 Please provide BOW and TOW elevations for the retaining wall on the grading plan. Number: 67 Created: 6/30/2004 Once drainage leaves the outlet pipe from the detention pond, flow needs to drain into the gutter of the private drive and turn north across a concrete pan at the intersection of the two streets rather than fan out onto the private drive. This will help with freezing issues in the winter as well as a "cleaner" outfall system. Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control Number: 68 Created: 7/1 /2004 1. There must be a project schedule on the plan. Don't use specific months, just week 1, 2, 3, etc. or moth 1, 2, 3, etc. 2. What will protect the College Avenue side of the project stormwater discharges during construction? 3. How is the silt fencing/retaining wall construction to work. Is there enough room to place the fence north of the wall construction and leave it? Or, once the wall construction is underway, there may not be a need for the fence? There should be a note on the plan defining this BMP/process. 4. It is unclear how the "haybales around three sides of the structure" at the pond outlet is supposed to work or do anything. It should be protected on the intake side of the structure, and since you have a pan in the pond and bales don't work on hard surfaces...? 5. Is the drive in the northeast corner of the site to be reconstructed? If so, what will be the protection for this construction? 6. What is the protection along the east side of the site, particularly on the north end just south of the existing drive? Page 5 I In doing so, it appears that only the southern half of the north half of Dartmouth would nee to be patched. Number: 58 Created: 6/17/2004 [6/17/04] In general, a main concern is the lack of information on how the proposed and existing grades tie into the retaining walls surrounding the site (see redlines). The wall on the east edge of the site does not appear to have enough depth so that the Tooter is deeper than the bottom of the pond and still retain enough to the existing grade of the parking lot directly east (the structural detail shows a 7' max wall while the contours seem to show a 9' height difference). Shouldn't it be shown on the north edge of the site that the existing wall is to be removed? Shouldn't there be proposed grade lines shown north of the new wall as fill will need to be added? Why isn't there top of wall and footer elevations shown throughout the grading plan? The structural design of the walls themselves appear fine, but there seems to be little to no information as to how this will be built in relation to the existing and proposed grades. At this point, there doesn't appear to be a way to determine if offsite easements are required from the property owner to the north. Number: 59 Created: 6/18/2004 [6/18/04] The construction drawings note an 8.8' PSCO easement but gives no indication as to its location and it's possible impact on the development. PSCO may - need to sign off on aspects of the project depending on its location and impact. Number: 60 Created: 6/18/2004 [6/18/04] With the outstanding issue of how the retaining walls tie ito proposed and existing grades, it would be beneficial to enlarge these areas as the existing contours offsite are difficult to read and anaylze near the property boundaries. With the need for top of wall and footer elevations as well as proposed contours being added to the plans, it will likely be difficult to read at the curent scale. Topic: landscape Number: 61 Created: 6/18/2004 [6/18/04] The street trees along College Avenue should be 5' from the sidewalk, not 10'. This helps ensure that any future widening of College to current standards will not result in a conflict with the tree placement Topic: Plat Number: 51 Created: 4/19/2004 [6/15/041 This comment was not addressed. [4/19/04] The plat does not have the latest maintenance/repair language as well as the entire "Notice of Other Documents" section. This can be electronically mailed if desired. Page 4 [6/15/04] Left as unresolved for reference. The City will meet with CDOT in late June to discuss the latest plan. [4/19/04] In reviewing the proposal, CDOT has offered the following comments: - Two access permits (one for each driveway) will need to be issued on one application. More information regarding the access permit(s) requirements will be determined as the design progresses. - No portion of a retaining wall is allowed in right-of-way (including footings). Excavation for footings cannot be within right-of-way. There may be concerns with the retaining walls onsite that run parallel to College depending on the final design. - Signs will be needed posted at the driveways indicating that the southern driveway is "Entrance Only" and the northern driveway has a "Do Not Enter" sign. These signs will need to be west of the sidewalk along College and angled facing southwest. The signs shall be situated such that sight distance is not being compromised. A One Way sign is also needed in the median in front of the northern driveway. -A warranty deed will be required for the right-of-way dedication on College. Number: 54 Created: 6/11 /2004 [6/11/04] The construction plans now show construction of a landscape retaining wall at the connection out to Dartmouth. What is this and does this fall inside public right-of-way or onto private property (no external property/right-of-way boundaries are shown on the plans, which should be provided)? Please provide a detail of this proposal. Note that a 2' clearance is required between the wall and the sidewalk in accordance with Chapter 19 of LCUASS. Number: 55 Created: 6/14/2004 [6/14/04] The sidewalk along College north of the northern driveway shows a very steep longitudinal slope (22%), steeper than the same section along the roadway, which doesn't meet LCUASS 16.2.1.H. Also, the 2004 contour line here does not appear correctly as it continues straight across the access ramp, which should adjust for the change in grade through the ramp. Number: 56 Created: 6/15/2004 [6/15/04] Provide construction details of the barricades and signage along College. Coordinate location and number of bollards between the construction and site plans as they conflict. Number: 57 Created: 6/15/2004 [6/15/04] The sewer line connecting out to Remington Street is problematic in that the entire south half of Dartmouth would need to be patched (at a minimum) because the proposed patching is not per standard. In checking with water/sewer, it is suggested that instead of tying into the existing manhole, use a saddle fitting and tie 2' north of the manhole than extend the service parallel to Dartmouth into the site. Page 3 M Number: 38 Created: 3/1 /2004 [6/14/04] It is still not clear to me how the northernmost sidewalk connection is to be constructed. By moving the 2002 contour to the northern boundary, it appears you're adding fill up to the property boundary, thus the sidewalk (and the area in general) will not tie vertically into the existing development to the north. How will this area work? [4/13/04] The response indicates that proposed contours tie into existing grades. I don't seem to see this, for instance there's a proposed 5004 contour that appears to tie into a 5003 contour at the northernmost access ramp. [3/1/04] With more information as to how the proposed frontage along College Avenue ties into the proposed grades and roadways to the south and to the north, additional comments may be made. Number: 39 Created: 3/1 /2004 [6/14/04] Without knowing the grading north of the northern retaining wall, it is unknown whether the design is affecting the northern property owner to require an offsite easement. [4/13/04] In addition, letters of intent appear to be needed with the existing properties to the north and south as they are affected by the retaining wall replacement/reconstruction. [3/1/04] A letter of intent from the Ditch Company agreeing in principle to the development proposal is required. Number: 44 Created: 4/12/2004 [6/14/04] This comment is still viewed as not fully addressed. [4/12/04] As a general comment in reference to previous comments, the plans and the narrative really need to give more detail with regards to how the development will tie into the existing uses considering there are roads on both side of the development off of College as well as retaining walls on both sides of the property. A thorough explanation of the intent regarding the removal and replacement of the retaining walls is required. Constructed "by others", who are "by others"? Has permission from the adjacent property owners been looked at? (Letters of intent from the surrounding property owners are required.) How can the walls be removed but not replaced in sections? Designs of the walls and structural calcs are needed as these may affect public right-of-way. Number: 47 Created: 4/19/2004 Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Citpof Fort Collins V.F. RIPLEY ASSOC. Date: 07/01/2004 C/O AMY JOHNSON 401 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. #201 FT. COLLINS, CO 80521 Staff has reviewed your submittal for RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLAN, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 7 Created: 2/16/2004 [6/7/04] It appears (by the indication of parallel lines on the drawings) that some sort of physical separation is now being provided. Please indicate (label) on the plans what this is and reference an appropriate construction detail in the details sheet of the construction plans. [3/24/04] The response letter states "Curb has now been turned on. See plans." The plans don't indicate any curb and gutter to be installed along the northern and southern boundary of the site directly east of College Avenue. The utility plans also do not indicate this. Is there some other means (landscape edging?) in which the new turf and the existing asphalt are separated? From my perspective, curb and gutter should be installed to help define the edge of the roadways, but other options may be available? [2/16/04] The landscape plans indicate turf up to the property lines directly east of College Avenue, shouldn't curb and gutter be installed so that turf doesn't tie directly into asphalt? Number: 23 Created: 2/24/2004 [6/14/04] Please coordinate between the different plan sets on the right-of-way dedication along College Avenue. The right-of-way should now only be dedicated to the back of walk. Some of the drawings show additional right-of-way behind the sidewalk. Assuming the plat followed the original intent of additional right-of-way behind the sidewalk, the plat should now have a slightly reduced area for dedication. [4/12/04] With the response noting that the new wall will be out of the right-of-way, it would be beneficial to have a preliminary design to help understand how this will work. [2/24/04] Sheet U1 notes retaining wall layout and design by others, is it intended to remove and replace the existing retaining wall? If such is the case, when redoing the retaining wall, please ensure it is outside of the new right-of-way. Page 1