Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE FARMSTEAD - PDP - 8-03 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5). • , 3. The proposed box culvert must be able to carry flows of 90 cfs. The plan currently shows 60 cfs. 4. There is off -site storm drainage coming onto this property from the south that is at 60 cfs. 5. A spillway from the detention pond into Laporte Avenue is needed. Water/Wastewater A 30' wide utility easement is needed for the sanitary sewer. Traffic Operations The driveway access to Building #4, just south of Laporte Avenue, may not meet the parking separation requirement set forth in the City's Street Standards. 2. There was an issue raised about the need for a %westbound left turn lane into the project from Laporte Avenue and an eastbound right turn lane onto North Taft Hill Road from Laporte Avenue. Please see the attached copy of the position that Traffic Engineering is taking about this issue. Current Planning This development request is subject to an administrative (Type I) review and public hearing. The public hearing can be scheduled for any day as long as the required public notice is properly given. There are issues significant enough to warrant additional review prior to scheduling a public hearing; therefore, one is not being set at this time. This completes staff (and outside reviewing agencies) review and comments at this time. This proposal is subject to the 90-day revision re -submittal requirement (from the date of this comment letter, being October 21, 2003) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all of your red -lined plans when you re -submit. There are still some significant issues that must be resolved prior to this development request being scheduled for an administrative (Type I) public hearing. 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, VJ Steve Olt, City Planner cc: Cameron Gloss Marc Virata Page 11 Number: 109 Created: 10/ 14/2003 Provide a complete detail for the water main lowering at the box culvert (i.e. beginning elevation, lowered elevation, box invert elevation, lengths of pipe, etc.). Number: 110 Created: 10/ 14/2003 Look at tying proposed sanitary sewer main into the existing manhole on the south side of the new bridge in Taft Hill Road. Maintain a 18-inch minimum separation between the bottom of the cannel and the top of the sanitary sewer. If the sanitary sewer crosses the cannel, a concrete cap will be required on the. sanitary sewer main at the crossing. Number: 1 I 1 Created: 10/14/2003 See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Gary Lopez Topic: ZONING Number: 103 Created: 10/2/2003 The two Ash trees located at each side of entrance may be within the sight distance, thereby creating a hazard. The following comments were expressed at Staff Review on October 15, 2003: Engineering 1. A temporary turnaround at the south end of Pennsylvania Street, per LUCASS standards, is required. 2. Two utility coordination meetings should be held ... one before and one after the public hearing for this project. 3. What are the front sides of Buildings #2 & #3? If the north side of Building #2 is the front then why is there no sidewalk connection to the entries? 4. The New Mercer Ditch Company has to sign the subdivision plat. 5. The necessary request for the street design variance must be submitted to and accepted by the City before this development request can be scheduled for public hearing. 6. The detached sidewalk along Laporte Avenue must be 6' in width. 7. The future detached sidewalk along Noi-th Taft Hill Road must be shown (in dashed form) on the Site Plan. Stormwater 1. Building #4 must be excluded from the drainage easement on the subdivision plat. The building cannot be in the easement. 2. An off -site drainage easement is needed and a letter of intent for the easement must be provided to the City before this development request can go to public hearing. Page 10 Topic: Plat Number: 74 Created: 3/28/2003 10/14/03 Please add ditch company signature block on the plat. Building 4 should be shown to be within a building envelope on Tract B. Topic: Rip Rap Number: 96 Created: 3/28/2003 [ 10/ 17/03 ] Please call out riprap dimensions on the plans and provide a detail. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: General Number: 49 Created: 3/26/2003 Please show the necessary handicap ramp associated with the parking stall on all plan sets. (FOLLOW-UP COMMENT 10-14-03) The handicap parking stall south of building 3 doesn't show the ramp on the site plan. Please include the ramp as shown on the utility plans. Number: 61 Created: 3/27/2003 Is there a ramp for bikes to access the bike rack as shown on the plans? If so, please specify. If not, this will need to be included on future submittals. (FOLLOW-UP COMMENT 10-14-03) The site plan does not show the access ramp to the bike parking between Bldgs. #2 and #3. Please include the ramp on the site plan as shown on the utility plans. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: General Number: 104 Created: 10/ 14/2003 Show all water and sewer lines on the landscape and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Number: 105 Created: 10/ 14/2003 Provide a 30 feet minimum utility easement for all sanitary sewer mains and a 20 feet minimum easement for water mains. Maintain 15 feet minimum separation between water/sewer mains and all permanent structures. Show and label all required utility easements on the plat. Number: 106 Created: 10/14/2003 Show all gas and electric mains on the overall utility plans. Maintain 4 feet minimum separation between curb stop/meter pits and all gas/electric mains. Maintain a 4 feet minimum separation between meter pits and all building envelopes. Number: 107 Created: 10/ 14/2003 As previously indicated is a 1-inch water service adequate for a seven unit building? Provide demand calculations for our review. Number: 108 Created: 10/ 14/2003 Show and label all fittings and thrust blocks on the water mains. Page 9 Topic: Erosion Control Number: 87 Second Review October 13, 2003 Created: 3/28/2003 1. One or more of the previous sediment/erosion control comments have not been addressed. Please do so. March 7, 2003 1. Please provide an erosion control surety calculation. 2. Please delete the erosion control notes from the Larimer County Urban Street Standards and put the City of Fort Collins Standard Erosion Control notes on the erosion control plan (Sheet 5). 3. On the erosion control plan indicate that the water quality pond is to be utilized as a temporary sediment trap. Provide appropriate outlet protection there. 4. The area north of the ditch and west of your entry road from Laporte is already low, and your plan is to dig it lower to serve as a pond. What purpose does it serve to put silt fencing all the way around this area? Put a note on the plan that this pond is to be excavated as the first step in overlot grading. Some erosion control might be necessary to protect downslope areas from the pipeline out to this pond. 5. The southeast bank of the New Mercer canal is not protected by any silt fencing. This would seem to indicate that the triangular area near Taft Hill Road will not be disturbed by this project, although new sidewalks are shown here. Why is the canal not protected from these upslope constructions. Please correct appropriately. 6. What will protect Laporte Avenue from sedimentation during the construction of the new road construction that will act as a south to north funnel for stormwater and sediments? Topic: Grading Plan Number: 92 Created: 3/28/2003 [ 10/ 17/03] The buildings on site plan need to be dimensioned with distances to property lines or other buildings. Topic: Off -site flows Number: 117 Created: 10/ 14/2003 Please show how the contributing basins to the south will be routed through this site and into the ditch. Topic: Outlet frons pond Number: 119 Created: 10/17/2003 Please show the correct configuration for the existing CMP pipes that are coming out of the existing inlet on Laporte as shown on the redlined plans. Page 8 [Original Comment] Please use directional ramps for the sidewalk system at the Laporte/Pennsylvania intersection (LCUASS SD-1606) with the enclosed detail for the truncated domes. Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General Number: 112 Created: 10/14/2003 Lighting plan does not provide values (foot-candles) in plan view. Also, it would appear there is no lighting in the SE comer - trash enclosure area. Need some lighting for the parking and would suggest relocating trash enclosure to better allow access, reduce truck circulation, and improve surveillance. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Box Culvert Design Number: 114 Created: 10/14/2003 Please clarify how the size of the 4'x14' ditch box culvert was arrived at. The 60 cfs flow assumed to be in the ditch is not consistent with the master plan flows. According to the West Vine master plan, the ditch carries 90 cfs in the 100 year at Laporte, and 150 cfs at Taft after it picks up the off site basin to the south. Topic: Building location Number: 75 Created: 3/28/2003 Building 6 seems to be encompassed within Tract B. A detention pond is not allowed to be part of a Tract to be owned by a lot owner, this will create difficulties with respect to the maintenance responsibilities of the detention pond. Topic: Details Number: 78 Created: 3/28/2003 Please provide a water quality outlet structure detail that is specific to this site, not the general detail out of the Volume 3 manual. Topic: Drainage Number: 113 Created: 10/14/2003 Please use a concrete sidewalk culvert to direct flows off the road and into the concrete pan, rather than a metal chase. Topic: Drainage plan Number: 93 Created: 3/28/2003 [10/17/03) There was no drainage plan submitted. Please provide one. The drainage design is difficult to evaluate in the absence of a drainage plan, however it is noted that the drainage calculations in the report show a release rate of 17.9 cfs, this rate far exceeds the 2 year historical rate from this site. Your 2 year historic rate calculations show high numbers that are not reasonable. It seems that including off -site and on -site basins in the discharge rate calculations may have led to over -estimating the amount of runoff allowed to be discharged from the site. You need to separate the onsite generated flows and calculate the 2 year release rate based only on the 2 year discharge from your site. Off -site flows entering the site should be allowed to flow over the spillway. Page 7 M Number: 56 Created: 3/26/2003 [10/14/03] This was provided in both cases with the exception of the transition points on either side of the cross pan. This is no longer required prior to hearing. Please note that the spot elevations will not be reviewed now and will be reviewed with a final submittal in conjunction with a final submittal that includes flowline profiles. [Original Comment] Provide spot elevations in accordance to LCUASS standard details (7- 27) of street to street intersections. This is for the Laporte/Pennsylvania intersection as well as the mid block cross pan south of the bridge. Per the detail, include showing the transition point and the elevation at that transition point to remove the crown from the street. Number: 57 Created: 3/26/2003 [10/14/03) This comment is left as unresolved as flowline profiles and utility crossings were not shown. However, because of the new submittal requirements as a consequence of the "Zucker Report", the information provided is sufficient to constitute sufficiency under this process. This comment will need to be addressed after a public hearing for the project. [Original Comment] The street design for Pennsylvania Street is lacking. Flowline profiles are required for review. Show inlet locations and utility crossings in the profile views. Provide line/curve table on flowlines. Provide additional spot elevations on the plan view at points around curves. Offsite design for Pennsylvania Street needs to be continued for 500 feet beyond the proposed construction. The design itself for Pennsylvania Street needs to show a fully constructed street within the development (curb and gutter, sidewalk) in the ultimate condition, as well as the "current" condition with a temporary turnaround. Number: 58 Created: 3/26/2003 [10/14/03] This comment is required to be resolved until after hearing, however please note that the plans in their current form do not reflect meeting these requirements. [Original Comment] The box culvert needs to meet requirements set forth in LCUASS Chapter 11, three -sided structures are noted specifically in 11.5.7. The live load for the box culvert requires HS-25 loading and the design life of the structure is required to be 100 years. Number: 59 Created: 3/26/2003 [10/14/03] This comment was not addressed, however it is not required until a final plan submittal after public hearing. [Original Comment] Indicate on the grading plan high points and low points for spot elevations. Number: 60 Created: 3/26/2003 [10/14/03] Please ensure text shown on Sheet 3 is enlarged to be more readable. [Original Comment] Plan set has unreadable/unscannable text that needs to be adjusted. Number: 76 Created: 3/28/2003 [10/14/03] Engineering has since removed the requirement for truncated domes, thus this is no longer a requirement and the truncated dome detail can be removed. Please ensure that the previously mentioned drawing detail below is enclosed as a detail in the detail sheet with the final plan. Page 6 Number: 77 Created: 3/28/2003 [10/14/03] A meeting can be scheduled by Engineering in response to the applicant's response. Would such a meeting be appropriate now or more appropriate in conjunction with a final plan after hearing? [Original Comment] A utility coordination meeting is suggested to discuss utility design servicing the site. Number: 115 Created: 10/14/2003 The checklist submitted by the engineer indicates variance requests for minimum tangents between curves and at intersections for Pennsylvania Street. Were these intended to be submitted? The variance requests are required as a prerequisite to a public hearing. The variance requests need to justify why the standards cannot/were not met and how the proposed design is not a compromise to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. Note that if a covered bridge is an option the Developer wishes to pursue, this may have an impact on sight distance, which in turn might have an impact on how these variance requests would be evaluated by the City. Number: 116 Created: 10/14/2003 Laporte Avenue is required to be constructed with 6' sidewalk width, not 4' as shown. This is also the case with Taft Hill Road, although it may be more appropriate if sidewalk construction was deferred until a later date. Topic: Plat Number: 40 Created: 3/25/2003 [10/14/031 The site plan states this is also for residential lot access. This should be amended to indicate it is for residential bicycle and pedestrian lot access. [Original Comment] If the pathway connection out to Taft Hill is required for emergency services, an emergency access easement designation is needed on the plat in addition to the access easement designation. Number: 118 Created: 10/15/2003 The ditch company needs to be a signatory to the plat. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 52 Created: 3/26/2003 [10/14/03] This comment was not addressed but is not required to be addressed until after a hearing per our new review criteria. [Original Comment] On the cover sheet add the affirmation statement, typical street cross sections, Developer/Owner/Consultant names -address -phone, two benchmarks, per LCUASS. Number: 55 Created: 3/26/2003 [10/14/03] The utility plans still specify this as a metal culvert, concrete is required. Please see the attached drawing that should be used as the detail for the culvert. [Original Comment] A concrete sidewalk culvert is required where drainage leaves right-of- way at spot elevation (59.08). Page 5 temporary turnaround design, there may be concerns with how the site will function with the temporary turnaround in place (drainage, sidewalk connectivity, driveway approaches, etc.) Number: 39 Created: 3/25/2003 [10/14/03] This comment is left as unresolved but does not need to be addressed until after a hearing under our new submittal guidelines. With the parking spaces now eliminated and the sidewalk extending to the property line, this isn't as great of an issue, the only concern would be to demonstrate that the temporary turnaround condition and through conditions are both constructable and work for both the site and the surrounding properties. [Original Comment] An interim/ultimate design is needed for Pennsylvania Street. The development needs to show how the layout would work with the continuation of the Pennsylvania Street through to the south (parking spaces would be lost, the sidewalk needs to be continued to the property line, etc). Number: 42 Created: 3/25/2003 [10/14/03] The change of the title on the site & landscape plans are appreciated. This change wasn't made on the utility plans and building elevations and would further be appreciated. [Original Comment] It is suggested (not required) that the project name be changed from "The Farmstead" to "Farmstead" for the purposes of document tracking. Hopefully with all the agencies that may keep records on the project, only in the City's DMS will the project be filed under "T". Number: 68 Created: 3/27/2003 [10/14/03] This was addressed for the sidewalk on Laporte heading west, but not on Taft Hill for the sidewalk heading south. After further discussion internal to Engineering, it was discussed that it may be more appropriate if the sidewalk along Taft Hill was not constructed at this time and the developer provide for funds in lieu of constructing instead. [Original Comment] The public sidewalk in right-of-way needs to tie into existing sidewalks past the property, as well as tie into the existing Laporte/Taft Hill intersection. Number: 72 Created: 3/27/2003 [10/14/03] The applicant has indicated it is the intention of Lot 1 to use this access off Taft Hill for driveway access, which doubles as emergency access for PFA. Engineering is not concerned with this, provided that the physical obstruction (approved by PFA) to denote this as emergency access only is initially placed behind the right-of-way along Taft Hill and only relocated as shown on the plans at such time that the lot is developed into a residence. There will need to be restrictions placed in the development agreement with regards to fencing off the emergency access area, not parking cars within it, maintenance, etc. The pavement design report for the project will have to recommend a concrete sidewalk thickness that will handle the loading of emergency services vehicles using the site. [Original Comment] What is the development plan for Lot 1? Will future vehicular access to the lot take place from Taft Hill via the emergency access? Intentions regarding direct vehicular access from this lot to Taft Hill need to be understood. Page 4 Number: 139 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] The future detached sidewalk between Lot 1 and North Taft Hill Road must be shown on the Site and Landscape Plans. It should not be built at this time but the developer of the Farmstead project will have to put money in escrow for the future coristkucti6n of the walk. Number: 140 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] The parking distribution as shown on the plans is does not appear to provide for conveniently located spaces for all dwelling units. Especially the northerly 3 dwelling units in Building #1 will not have any close, convenient parking spaces available. Topic: Utilities Number: 120 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy (Public Service) offered the following comments: a. The same comments still apply as were stated on 3/14/03. They are: The developer is to supply and install the 4" sleeve in the proposed box culvert along the west side of Pennsylvania Street and a 4" sleeve across Pennsylvania Street just south of the box culvert. The meters will need to be stacked at the end of each building. No trees may be planted within 4' of gas lines. The gas feed will come from the north (Laporte Avenue). b. If meters are stacked at the ends of buildings then easements will be needed for fuel lines going through the adjacent units. C. Clearances will need to be met for water, sanitary sewer, and electric mains & services from gas mains & gas services. Number: 121 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] Dennis Greenwalt of Comcast Communications (cable television) indicated that they would like to see utility easements along the west, south, and east property lines. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 38 Created: 3/25/2003 [10/14/03] The applicant has elected to dedicate a temporary turnaround on the plat but not agree to construct said turnaround. The response indicates that PFA does not require the turnaround and that dedicating (but not constructing) meets the provision of 3.6.2(C). While PFA does not require the turnaround, Engineering still requires it. The applicant may be able to prove that the intent is met by 3.6.2(C), however, not constructing said turnaround is also not compliant with LCUASS 7.6.4.C. The applicant would require the approval of a variance request to not meet this standard, it is not likely the City Engineer would support such a variance. [Original Comment] A temporary turnaround is required to terminate public right-of-way in accordance with L.U.C. 3.6.2(C). Provide and accommodate into the design of the site, a temporary turnaround (can be done off -site with easements). Depending on the layout of the Page 3 Number: 129 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] What is the Existing Tree Mitigation Schedule on the Landscape Plan? It looks like a normal "Plant List" for new trees and shrubs to be provided in the project. The plan does not show any trees to be removed that require mitigation. Number: 130 Created: 10/21/2003 (10/21/03] Based on the graphic representation for the proposed Albert Holden Lilac on the Landscape Plan there appear to be many more of these shrubs than the 37 that are indicated in the "Plant List". Number: 131 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/031 Landscape Note #16 appears to have a contradiction. The landscaping in the street right- of-way (greenbelts & detention pond) is to be maintained by a Home Owner's Association. Parkways adjacent to residential front and side yards shall be maintained by the landowner. There does not appear to be any parkways outside of the street right-of-way. Number: 132 Created: 10/21/2003 [ 10/21/03] Please see the red -lined Landscape Plan for needed additions to the LANDSCAPE ASSURANCES statement. Number: 133 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] There are inconsistencies between the Landscape Plan and the Site Plan. The trash enclosure near the southeast comer of the property is shown in two different locations. The outline of the 5 parallel parking spaces along the south property line on the east side of Pennsylvania Street is different on the two plans. Topic: Site Plan Number: 134 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] There is no driveway shown on the Site Plan for the carport on the south side of Building #4. Also, are 3 parking spaces needed for the 1-bedroom loft unit in this building? Number: 135 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] The "President of Ditch Company" signature block is not needed on the Site Plan. Please remove it from this plan. Number: 136 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] The 21'-0" long parallel parking stalls shown on the east side of Pennsylvania Street along the south property line do not meet the parking standards unless they are all compact car stalls. If this is the intent how can it be enforced? Number: 137 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] The required temporary turnaround at the south end of Pennsylvania Street, shown to be 80' in diameter, will cause the elimination on several parking spaces. This project is currently showing the absolute minimum number of required parking spaces for the bedroom counts in the 19 dwelling units. The loss of any spaces will put it below the required minimum. Number: 138 Created: 10/21/2003 [10/21/03] There are some inconsistencies between the Site Plan and the Landscape Plan. Please see the red -lined plans that have been forwarded with this comment letter. Page 2 6a STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Citvof Fort Collins MTA Architects Date: 10/21/2003 c/o Mikal Torgerson 223 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Staff has reviewed your submittal for the FARMSTEAD. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) - (Type I, LUC) #8-03, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Drainage Design Number: 122 Created: 10/21 /2003 [10/21/03] The New Mercer Ditch Company representative has indicated that conceptually this is approved. A formal agreement must be negotiated for potential storm water impacts and the bridge crossing. Topic: Landscape Number: 123 Created: 10/2 1/2003 [10/21/03] The two Ash trees located at each side of the main entrance to the development, from Laporte Avenue, may be within the sight distance triangle, thereby creating a potential hazard. Number: 124 Created: 10/21 /2003 [10/21/03] Staff comments 62, 63, 64, and 65 have not been addressed on the revised Landscape Plan. Please see the copy of page I of your response letter dated 9/26/03. Number: 125 Created: 10/21 /2003 [10/21/01] The revised Landscape Plan does not adequately address the full tree stocking, foundation planting, and interior parking areas requirements. Number: 126 Created: 10/21 /2003 [10/21/03] The combined Landscape Plan and Lighting Plan is very awkward. The plans are identical, with just a name change on each plan. The lighting information makes the Landscape Plan difficult to read. Number: 127 Created: 10/21 /2003 [10/21/03] The Landscape Plan shows a 6' cedar fence along the property line. Is this fence to be all around the property, or at least around the portion south of the ditch, adjacent to the multi -unit buildings? The Site and Landscape Plans need to be more specific. Number: 128 Created: 10/21 /2003 [10/21/031 The Landscape Plan needs to note the existing trees and whether they are to remain or be removed. If removed they probably must be mitigated for. Page 1