Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWIFT ADDITION TO FOSSIL LAKE P.U.D. - COUNTY REFERRAL - 33-01(I) - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (4)2. Fossil Creek Sub -area Supplemental Regs I.F.4.F. requires a 1 acre park within 90% of the dwelling units. Based on the requirement that rear facades and rear yard of dwelling shall not abut more than 2 sides or more than 50% of the perimeter frontage of the park, none of the outlots shown on the plan satisfy this requirement. RESPONSE: As discussed with Troy Jones at the joint City/County meeting on July 9, 2002 the park as proposed with the Final Plat does meet the requirements of the Fossil Creek Sub -area Supplemental Regulations. City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Comments Dated: June 26, 2002 From: Tom Reiff, Transportation Planning 1. A road connection to the south from either Shallow Pond Drive or Shearwater Court still needs to be addressed until the undeveloped property is placed in a conservation easement, if and when the property is placed in the conservation easement, please identify and label this property on the site plan and adjust the conservation boundary line. (repeat Comment) RESPONSE: As discussed above, as the conservation easement appears immanent it is our position that the street connections that are requested would not be necessary or desired. 2. A road connection to the east from Shearwater Court still needs to be addressed until the undeveloped property is placed in a conservation easement, if and when the property is placed in the conservation easement, please identify and label this property on the site plan and adjust the conservation boundary line. RESPONSE: As discussed above, as the conservation easement appears immanent it is our position that the street connections that are requested would not be necessary or desired. 3. An 8-foot trail connection from Rocky Stream Drive through Outlot H needs to be designed and built with this project. RESPONSE: The trail connection that is requested will be provided by the Fossil Lake Estates project to the west of Swift Addition to Fossil Lake PUD. RESPONSE: Approvals from the ditch owner for the ditch improvements shall be obtained prior to recording the plat. 13. Maintenance for Pond Outfall, access easement. RESPONSE: Maintenance of stormwater facilities shall be addressed by the development agreement. Access easements to the stormwater facilities shall be addressed by the Plat and Development Agreement. 14. 100-year flow conveyance with spillway for western water quality pond. RESPONSE: A 100-year flow conveyance with spillway has been added to the plan set for Water Quality Pond 101. Matt, Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding these comments or responses. Thank you, Jim Birdsall Planner/Landscape Architect RESPONSE: An updated site plan for the Beard property is included with this submittal. As indicated on page 4, Section 4.3 of the Swift Addition Final Drainage Study, the C-value used in the calculations for sub -basins OS-1 through OS-3 are for developed conditions. 6. Please provide a note on the storm sewer profiles that all storm sewers and culverts shall be inspected by the City. RESPONSE: A note has been provided as requested on all storm sewer profile sheets. 7. Erosion control language in the development agreement is needed because the County does not require this in theirs. RESPONSE: Erosion control shall be addressed in the development agreement as requested. 8. Please add City of Fort Collins signature blocks. RESPONSE: City of Fort Collins signature blocks have been included on the cover sheet. 9. Please add depth marker for detention pond due to depth being greater than 3 feet. RESPONSE: Depth marker has been added for the detention pond. 10. Please specify number of columns and rows for the water quality outlet structure orifices on the detail sheet. RESPONSE: The number of columns and rows for the water quality outlet structure orifices are now shown on the appropriate detail sheet. 11. Please add outfall curb and gutter, curb cut, and pond spillway details to the plans. RESPONSE: Outfall curb and gutter, curb cut, and pond spillway details are now included in the plan set. 12. Please provide approvals from the ditch owner for the modifications to this ditch on the east side of the development. City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utilities Comments Dated: June 28, 2002 From: Wes Lamarque, Stormwater Utilities 1. Please place all storm sewers in tract rather than be located in the lots. Even if there is a'drainage easement on the lot, maintenance still becomes a problem when they are located there. Please either have a blanket drainage easement for the tract, or storm sewer specific drainage easements that are 20 feet wide with the sewer centered within the easement. RESPONSE: Storm sewers are now placed within tracts when not located within street right-of-way. 2. Please include the City of Fort Collins Standard Notes on the plans since this site will be annexed right after plan approval. RESPONSE: The City of Fort Collins Standard Notes have been included on the Cover Sheet. 3. Backyard swale as the one proposed between lots 14 through 30 should be avoided whenever possible. The City does not allow backyard swa/es of this magnitude since we have had negative experiences with these, an alternate design to be discussed with the applicant is required. If the flow is to enter the property to the east, then flows must be less than historic, or a drainage easement would be required from the property to the east. RESPONSE: The existing irrigation ditch has been evaluated and is estimated to have adequate capacity to handle both the irrigation flows and the drainage flows from lots 14 through 30. As this ditch in on an adjacent owner's property an easement has been created for this off -site drainage flow. 4. Please show an overflow spillway from the detention pond. Please provide calculations and details for the spillway and indicate where the overflows will be directed. RESPONSE: The emergency overflow from Pond 100 will sheet flow southwest from the pond. Aaron Cvar, from Northern Engineering, discussed this with you by phone on July 29, 2002 and had an understanding that this was an adequate solution for handling emergency overflow. 5. Sub -basin OS-1 has a C-value for existing conditions. Please provide a C- factor with future proposed conditions or the land that consists of OS-1 can not develop as preliminarily shown on the plans. 44. Use correct drive -over curb detail 7-208. RESPONSE: Detail 7-20B has been included on Street Detail Sheet 53. 45. Correct the intersection approach detail so that they show the correct min/ max x-slope. RESPONSE: The intersection approach details have been corrected to reflect a minimum slope of 2% and a maximum slope of 3%. 46. Provide current street intersection detail 7-30. RESPONSE: Detail 7-30 has been included on Street Detail Sheet 54. 47. Provide ped/bicycle path connection detail 7-14. RESPONSE: Detail 7-14 has been included on Street Detail Sheet 54. 48. Provide detail 16-1. RESPONSE: Detail 16-1 has been included on Street Detail Sheet 54. 49. Items that will need to be placed within the development agreement for this site. The developer (homeowners) are responsible for the maintenance of the cul-de-sac islands and landscaping. RESPONSE: The homeowner's association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the cul-de-sac islands and landscaping. 50. Money will need to be put up for the removal of the temporary turn around, since all lots are buildable. RESPONSE: The removal of this temporary turn -around and the escrow of money to ensure its removal shall be addressed with the development agreement. 51. The soils report indicates that their maybe high groundwater on this site, but gives no indication of what high means. Need additional information on this. If the groundwater is encounter within 5 feet of the original ground surface a substance investigation report (hydrologic study) is required. RESPONSE: Please see the attached letter from Earth Engineering. RESPONSE: Crown transition elevations have been included in the intersection detail sheets. 39. Need to provide a design for Copper Springs Drive. RESPONSE: Centerline and flowline plan and profiles have been provided for Copper Springs Drive. 40. Where a cross pan is not used at an intersection the elevation at the intersection of the flowlines needs to be approximately 0.2 feet higher than the flowline at the middle of the PC. This elevation needs to be higher than the lip of gutter elevation or a low point in the street is created. RESPONSE: Intersection flowline elevations have been revised to reflect a minimum of 0.2 feet higher than the middle of the PC. 41. Cul-de-sac for Shallow Pond Drive does not appear to meet the x-slope design requirements as shown. Also might check the east side of Snowy Plover Court, as it may be less than 2%. RESPONSE: The cross slope design in the Shallow Pond Drive cul-de-sac is unable to meet the standard cross slope of 2%-3%. The 1.39% cross slope was accepted by the City on August 2, 2002. The east side of Snowy Plover Court has been reviewed and revised to meet LCUASS. 42. Need more information for the cul-de-sac with parking islands in order to determine if they are meeting the x-slope and design requirements. The 24-foot on the detail is a misprint; the minimum x-section width is 28 feet. RESPONSE: Additional spot grade and width information has been provided in the intersection details for the cul-de-sacs. The detail has been revised to reflect the minimum width of 28 feet. 43. Per section 12.2.2 a minimum of 2 feet of cover below scarified subgrade is required for all utilities. It doesnY appear that the stromdrains always meet this. RESPONSE: All utilities have been adjusted to meet this standard where possible. However, there are a couple of storm sewer crossing locations that are unable to meet this criteria. At these locations, we have designed the crossings with multiple tongue and groove elliptical pipes. We have also required the use of geogrid fabric as specified by the supplier. We have spent a significant amount of time analyzing these crossings and it is our position that the cover achieved above these pipes, in conjunction with the geogrid fabric, will alleviate the concern about differential cracking in the streets above these storm crossings. 32. Does the trail continue up to the comer of Lake Ranch Road and Muskrat Creek Drive? If so the ramps need to be built to the appropriate size when the curb and gutter is put in. If not show the standard sidewalk on the east side and label as future. RESPONSE: It is our understanding that the trail will continue north from Wild View Drive, along the east of Lake Ranch Road, but will be built with future Staley development. Ramps are included at the Lake Ranch Road intersections with Wild View Drive, Copper Springs Drive, and Muskrat Creek Drive to accommodate the future design of the trail way. 33. Show existing grades being tied into for the streets tying into existing streets. RESPONSE: Existing street tie-in grades are included in the street plan and profile sheets. Existing slopes are also included on sheets with this submittal. 34. Midblock cross -pans need to be a minimum of 12 wide. The midblock x- pan on Wild View Drive is only being shown as a 6-foot pan. Section 7.7.5. RESPONSE: The six-foot pan located at the intersection of Rocky Stream Drive and Wild View Drive has been revised to twelve -feet wide as requested. 35. Shearwater Court cul-de-sac, do not use a vertical curve in the cul-de-sac. A minimum slope of 1 % is required. RESPONSE: The 8-inch barrier curb in cul-de-sac medians have been labeled as such. 36. In accordance with detail 7-24A the entry neck flowline radii shall be 50 feet. This is not being provided. RESPONSE: Property line and flowline radii have been revised to comply with Detail 7-24a. 37. Need to show how will tie into existing grades at the end of Pelican Drive and Muskrat Creek Drive. RESPONSE: Pelican Drive ties into existing grades at flowlines and will be within a half of a foot of existing at the edge of the property boundary. Grading has been revised to reflect the tie into the existing Swale 3 from Fossil Lake Second Filing. 38. Provide transition elevations on the intersection details. 18. The curve between Sage Sparrow Lane and Sandy Shore Lane does not meet minimum standards as shown on the plat, but as shown on the utility plans it does. If the centerline radius meets min requirements nothing is required if it does not a variance is required. RESPONSE: Centerline curve in Sandy Shore Lane has been revised to meet the minimum radius standard of 165'. This revision is reflected on both the plat and the construction plans. 19. Plat- I believe it is the building setback line that is being shown on the estate lots, but you may want to label it as it is not clear what this is. RESPONSE: The building setback line for the estate lots is now labeled on the plat. 20. Need easements for all offsite grading and construction work? RESPONSE: Easements have been prepared and are included with this submittal for all offsite grading, drainage and construction work. 21. The signage plan will need to be reviewed and approved by City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations. RESPONSE: Signage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations prior to installation of signage. 22. There is a note on the utility plan that the existing irrigation ditch is to be removed. What happens to it? Is it relocated? Does it go away completely? If it is removed from here why is an easement being dedicated for it on the plat? RESPONSE: A portion of the existing irrigation ditch will be replaced with a buried irrigation pipe. 23. Need to provide curb return information for all intersections. RESPONSE: Curb return plan and profile sheets have been included in the plan set. 24. Per section 8.2.9.A, Table 8-2 the curb return radii shall be 20 feet. You are showing a curb return radii of 15 feet for all street intersections. Use of this radius would require submittal and approval of justification of why 15-foot radii are needed and work. RESPONSE: All curb return radii have been revised to 20 feet. RESPONSE: Street trees will be provided by the homeowner at the time of individual lot landscaping. Location of the trees will be coordinated at that time to avoid conflict with utilities and driveways. 12. The sidewalk connection between Shallow Pond Drive and Rocky Stream Drive along the west boundary of the property needs to be made with this project. Since you are not putting in a street connection a sidewalk connection needs to be made at this time. RESPONSE: The trail connection that is requested will be provided by Dr. Beard's project to the west of Swift Addition to Fossil Lake PUD. 13. The parking stall areas within the cul-de-sac island shall be concrete in accordance with detail 19-01A, please show as such. RESPONSE: Parking stall areas have been revised to reflect a concrete area in accordance with detail 19-01A.. 14. At a T-intersection on the side where there is not a pedestrian ramp remove the directional ramp.on the comer across from this. Where a directional ramp is provided a ramp across the street from it much be provided. RESPONSE: Pedestrian ramps have been revised as requested at all "T" intersections. 15. Plat- Who is to own the irrigation easement? Need to have the owner sign the plat. RESPONSE: The irrigation easement shall be owned by Louis Swift. A signature block has been added to the final plat. 16. Plat- the agreement will probably be between the developer, the County and the City. RESPONSE: The plat has been revised as requested. 17. Was the row for Lake Ranch Road (both sides) dedicated with the 20d Filing plat? Was the row for the portion of Muskrat being shown to be built already dedicated? If not this needs to be dedicated with this project as well as any easements needed to construct the improvements shown. RESPONSE: Only the western half of the Lake Ranch Road right-of-way was dedicated with the Fossil Lake 2"d Filing Plat. The remaining portion of Lake Ranch Road shall be dedicated with this final plat. preliminary plat, but if at the time of final plat submittal the adjacent property) to the south and east) is not in a conservations easement a street connection (s) needs to be provided to the property. Thisl these connections need to be made as a street on public row. An easement across 4 projects is not acceptable: as the access point will need to be public street to serve the amount of developable land available there. Street designs for the connection (s) will need to be provided. The design will need to include any crossings of drainage ditches, irrigation ditches or channels that exist. The connection (s) would not be built now, but money for the connection (s) will need to be placed in escrow prior to the development agreement for this site. RESPONSE: It is our understanding that a conservation easement is nearly finalized for this property. It is our understanding that Louis Swift the property owner is waiting on final documentation from the City of Fort Collins. As this easement appears immanent it is our position that the street connections that are requested would not be necessary or desired: 7. Outlots D, 8, C, A, E, F and H need to be access easements for the sidewalk placements as shown. RESPONSE: Outlots D, B, C, A, E, F and H are now indicated as access easements on the plat. 8. Provide 3 ramps at all "T' intersections. Per Section 16.3.1.2. RESPONSE: All "T" intersections have three handicap ramps provided. 9. The trails need to line up with the ramps being provided and the ramps need to line up across the streets. RESPONSE: Trails have been adjusted to line up with ramps across the street. The sidewalk that connected with Sandy Shore Lane between Lots 85 and 86 was offset from the handicap ramp. This sidewalk connection has been evaluated and it has been determined that this connection is not needed to meet the connectivity standards required by the supplemental regulations so the sidewalk has been eliminated. 10. The 10-foot trail needs to be designed according to standards, see Chapter 17. All radii need to meet standards (min r-95 ft.) RESPONSE: The 10-foot trail has been revised to meet the required minimum radius standards. All radii meet the standard min radius 95ft. 11. Are street trees not required? No street trees are shown. May need to show how the street trees, utilities and driveways work on the lots with small frontages. City of Fort Collins Engineering Department Comments Dated: June 29, 2002 From: Sheri Wamhoff, Transpprtation Planning 1. Provide current general notes and all applicable construction notes. RESPONSE: General notes and construction notes have been updated and included on Cover Sheet of Final Utility Plans. 2. Indicate that the minimum garage door setback is 20 feet from the property line. This needs to be noted on the site plan. —Setback is noted, unless otherwise required by planning or the codes the 20 feet setback applies to the garage door. The actual building can be closer. RESPONSE: The Final Plat will indicate that the minimum setback to the front of a garage door is 20 feet from the property line. The front setback for the building shall be 15' 3. Need to indicate who is to own and maintain the tracts/ outlots. Plat RESPONSE: The plat indicates who is to own and maintain the tracts/outlots. Also the development agreement indicates who is responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater facilities. 4. The radius at the entry to the cul-de-sac should be 39.5 feet not the 30-foot shown per 7-24A. Property line radius=39.5 ft, Flowline radius=50.0 ft. RESPONSE: Property line and flowline radii have been revised to comply with Detail 7-24a. 5. Need to identify the areas that are to be access easements for the trails and sidewalks that go through the site. Plat RESPONSE: Tracts/outlots that are utilized for trails and sidewalks are now identified as access easements on the plat. 6. Per I1.86 needs to provide street connection(s) to the eastern and southern properties. It has been discussed that this property will be put into a conservation easement. If that occurs than the property is not considered the August 20, 2002 Matt Lafferty Larimer County Planning Department P.O. Box 1190 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Responses to City of Fort Collins Comments on the Swift Addition to Fossil Lake PUD - Final Plat. Dear Matt, These comments from the City of Fort Collins are in response to our final plat submittal for the Swift Addition to Fossil Lake PUD. These comments are based upon input from Northern Engineering and King Surveyors. Please review the revised site plan and comment responses and let me know if you have any questions or comments. We wish to move forward as soon as possible with the public review process. Please let me know if you need any additional information before you feel comfortable with allowing us to proceed. City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Comments Dated: June 26, 2002 From: Troy Jones, City Planner 1. Shearwater Court doesn't extend to the southern property line. Has there been a conservation easement established for the property just south & east of the southeast corner of this site? If not, street connections to the southern and eastern property lines are necessary. RESPONSE: It is our understanding that a conservation easement is nearly finalized for this property. It is our understanding that Louis Swift the property owner is waiting on final documentation from the City of Fort Collins. As this easement appears immanent it is our position that the street connections that are requested would not be necessary or desired. Corporate Offices ,010 youth i:;;!le_t Aetnue • For. Collins • Cokrado • >05 Maifin__ Addr.:s� FI?. Bo, 1 Fnr, Collin; • Colorado • :r,�_- 25. Label the trail crossings on the plan and profile sheets as enhanced x- walks. RESPONSE: Trail crossings on the plan and profile sheets have been labeled as enhanced cross walks. 26. It will not be required for this project, but for the exceptions mentioned in the standards. Flowline stationing will not be accepted for the exceptions mentioned in the standards. RESPONSE: Comment is recognized and the flowline stationing will remain with this project. 27. Correct the locations where the PCR elevations do not match between the plan and profile sheets and the detail sheets. RESPONSE: Elevations have been revised to eliminate discrepancies between sheets. 28. Show the inlet locations and sizes on the profiles. RESPONSE: Storm sewer inlet locations and sizes have been included in street profiles. 29. Correct the typical x-sections; the maximum x-slope is 3% not the 4% as shown. RESPONSE: Typical cross sections have been revised as requested. in plans. 30. Correct the typical x-section for Lake Ranch Road to reflect the trail and its location. RESPONSE: Lake Ranch Road cross section now includes the trail location. 31. Need to identify where the transition from vertical curb and gutter on Lake Ranch Road to the drive -over curb on the adjacent streets is to occur and what the transition distance is. RESPONSE: A detail for the transition of vertical curb gutter to drive -over curb and gutter has been included in the street detail sheets and they are labeled on the plan and profile sheets.