HomeMy WebLinkAboutSIDEHILL, FILING ONE - FDP - 32-01C - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - REVISIONSAS previously indicated relocate the proposed fire hydrant or the proposed drive between lots 4 and
5. Maintain 10 feet of separation between fire hydrants and all drive ways.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 258 Created: 6/16/2003
As previously indicated, raise or lower storm sewers where possible to avoid water main lowerings.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding this submittal.
Page 12
Number: 180 Created: 2/12/2003
Work closely with the Shops at Rigden Farm development proposal to the south in order to properly
align the pedestrian crossing / refuge and access ramps at the Drake / Illinois intersection.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Plat
Number: 260 Created: 6/16/2003
Will the offsite sewer be in R.O.W. or easement? Both have been discussed; therefore, please
clarify.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Topic: Utility plans
Number: 259 Created: 6/16/2003
What is the 100-year water surface elevation at the outlet of the underdrain? Is this area a channel,
pond, river?
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: Utility plans
Number: 31 Created: 12/30/2002
As previously indicated, clearly define all water and sewer service sizes on the overall utility plans.
Provide fixture count information for the proposed multi -family buildings for our review.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 38 Created: 12/30/2002
Provide utility easements for proposed water and sanitary sewers in future roadways.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 39 Created: 12/30/2002
6/12/03 4/14/03 If all the irrigation ditches are to be abandoned, then will irrigation taps be required on
the domestic water mains. Show and label any and all proposed irrigation service on the utility plans.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 206 Created: 4/16/2003
The existing sanitary sewer in Drake Road has limited capacity available. Some of the sewers
included in Rigden Farm 6th Filing are needed to provide relief capacity for the sewer in Drake. If the
Side Hill project proceeds before Rigden 6th filing, Side Hill will be responsible for constructing the
needed sewers.
See Site, Landscape and Utility plans for other comments.
So noted. Thank you. Comments have been addressed.
Number: 256 Created: 6/16/2003
Fire hydrants may not be located in lowered section of the water mains. Relocate the fire hydrant at
the end of HayMeadow Way or lower storm sewer.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 257 Created: 6/16/2003
Page 11
Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Topic: General
Number: 238 Created: 6/12/2003
Lighting: Lighting falls below minimum of 0.5fc throughout parking lot areas and adjacent to building
entrance points. Also, lighting at driveway/sidewalk intersections falls below 1.0fc needed to mitigate
potential pedestrian/cycle/auto conflicts.
As per conversations with Planning Staff, a meeting with Joseph Gerdom, city staff and the
applicant's representative should be held to discuss the photometric plan. The applicant maintains
that lower light levels are desired around buildings and within parking lots and would like to retain the
photometric plan "as is." Security lighting is proposed at all building entries but is not shown on the
photometric plan. These lights will increase the lumens around building entries. The applicant would
also like to retain a maximum pole height at 12'. Additional wattage can be used per fixture or
additional poles can be added if necessary.
Department: Stormwater Utility
Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Drainage
Number: 261 Created: 6/17/2003
Second Submittal of Extran analysis for Sidehill Filing One Drainage Report comments
1. SWMM subbasin input and percent imperviousness does not agree with MODSWMM data table
information in the report appendix, particularly subbasins 108 and 109. Also, percent imperviousness
should be no less than 5 percent for subbasin 109.
2. Pertaining to the Extran schematic and input, where is the input for junction 101 and conduit
201, which are both shown on the schematic? Also, where are 90010, 90011, and 90012, which are
also shown on the schematic but not in the Extran output?
3. Pertaining to Extran output, please explain the warning statements on page 4 of 19 for junctions
505 and 326, "Warning ! ! ! Junction ... is not associated with any conduit." Also, on page 4 of 19,
please explain why the crown elevation equals the invert elevation for junctions 505 and 326.
4. Please verify the invert of pond B - Extran junction 532 - with the drawing set; the invert on the
drawing set did not appear to agree with the Extran input.
5. Please include in the appendix an outline/discussion of how and where (with sample
calculations) the Extran output was extracted to develop the SWMM pond 560 rating curve. The
information currently in the appendix is difficult to follow and verify, and it does not appear to agree
with the SWMM input. Also, the final SWMM output (with the Extran developed rating curve for the
ponds) should closely agree with the Extran output - pond volumes, elevations, and discharges.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
Number: 265 Created: 6/18/2003
1. The plans contain no notes indicating the ponds are to be utilized as sediment traps.
2. Some notes relating to sediment and erosion control are not with others.
3. Please schedule a meeting with Bob Zakely to discuss this plan.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Department: Transportation Planning
Topic: General
Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Page 10
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 255 Created: 6/13/2003
Sheet 58 - Temp access road typical section: Please show which way the crown goes and what
depth and material the road consists of.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Topic: Variances
Number: 247 Created: 6/13/2003
Your variance request to reduce the centerline radius for a portion of Sidehill Blvd was received.
Engineering is inclined to approve this request based on the logic presented within the request with
one small change to the variance request itself. Please resubmit the letter so that the second to the
last paragraph does not include the word "anticipated". Restate the sentence so that there is no
doubt that there will be any problems and the City can approve the request. This can be resubmitted
at any time and does not need to wait until the next submittal. Once received, we can process this
request within a couple of hours. This will need to be done before going to hearing. Please call me i
you have any questions! Thanks!
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Department: Excel Energy Issue Contact: Len Hilderbrand
Topic: General
Number: 271 Created: 6/18/2003
No further comments. Same comments still apply.
So noted. Thank you
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Monica Moore
Topic: General
Number: 234 Created: 5/29/2003
Lot 1 - Iowa Drive
The driveway is located over the electric service.
The electric service is not to be located under a driveway.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 235 Created: 5/29/2003
Electric service to Building G does not maintain minimum clearance of 10-feet from the water service
to Building F.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 236 Created: 5/29/2003
Developer needs to provide a detail drawing showing the building walls and the distances between
gas meters and electric meters located on these walls demonstrating that gas meters and electric
meters will be able to maintain the minimum distances required.
A detailed drawing was submitted to Monica Moore at the City of Fort Collins for her review. As per
conversations with Cityscape, this comment has been satisfied.
Number: 237
Created: 5/29/2003
Electric meters will be required to be located on the same side of the building as the service stub.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Page 9
713.1F
713.2F
1601
1602
In addition, the feds now require truncated domes on all pedestrian ramps. See attached for CDOT
specifications until the City has approved spec's in LCUASS.
4/18/3: Still missing details as listed above. The CDOT detail is no longer required, however, as the
city has determined that we will be using our standard detail until further notice.
6/13/3: Looks great! But still need detail 707 and detail(s) D10-D13 for the sidewalk chases. Also,
remove detail 709 because even though it's in LCUASS, it's not correct. They are supposed to be
taking that one out - sorry for the confusion!
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 231 Created: 4/21 /2003
See redlines for other comments.
Number: 248 Created: 6/13/2003
Sheet 12 - Please show the matchline referenced on sheet 57.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 249 Created: 6/13/2003
Sheet 13 - Who is designing and installing the retaining wall shown? If this wall needs to be there to
accommodate this project's grading than it will need to be designed and constructed with this project
(add the appropriate details to the detail sheet).
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 250 Created: 6/13/2003
Sheet 25 - What is the hatching for? Please correct the overlapped spot elevation.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 251 Created: 6/13/2003
Sheet 48 - Correct some overlapping labeling.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 252 Created: 6/1312003
Plan and Profiles - Show elevation and location of all proposed utilities.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 253 Created: 6/13/2003
Sheet 51 through 54 - Overlapping labeling, illegible spots.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 254 Created: 6/13/2003
Where ever a street cut is shown, provide hatched areas for the approximate area. Street cuts must
be shown to the middle of the drive lane or the center of the street depending on the circumstance.
See sheet 51 for example.
Page 8
5/9/3: Repeat comment. See redlines
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment
Number: 116 Created: 1/3/2003
Provide all typical street sections for each street type proposed. Sections include appropriate
horizontal and vertical dimensions and cross slopes. List each street in the development under the
appropriate street type.
4/18/3: Repeat comment. Please see John Lofton for further explanation.
6/11/3: Please identify E/N/S/W on the typical street details.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 119 Created: 1/3/2003
Incomplete or incorrect ROW, property lines and easements shown. Please provide and label with
dimensions and labels. Please provide all off -site ROW or easements by plat or separate document.
4/18/3: Your response is acknowledged. Item remains open.
6/11/3: The legals have been received but you will need either a Letter of Intent from the individual
property owners stating that they will grant the easements or the actual recorded easement document
itself before you can go to hearing.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 120 Created: 1/3/2003
This project will need to coordinate this design with the project to the west and show enough
information on this plan set so that we can determine how the streets will line up across Timberline.
4/18/3: Open item.
6/11/3: Your response is acknowledged, however, you still need to provide the information on the
actual plan sets.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 128 Created: 1/3/2003
All existing features must be shown for a minimum of 150' beyond the project limits. (This includes all
historic structures, various buffers, etc).
6/11/3: Your response indicates that there are no buffers to show, however, the site plan shows
multiple buffers in the future filings. These buffers must be shown on the grading sheets.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment. The Context Diagram on
the site plan set identifies the proposed buffers as well.
Number: 134 Created: 1/3/2003
Update all the old details to the new. Provide these details and any other as required by the design:
16-2 1413
703 1606
707 1607
708 D10 - D13 as needed
Page 7
Number: 243 Created: 6/13/2003
Under Fence Restriction Notes: Add a note restricting the lots with the sight distance easements on
them.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 244 Created: 6/13/2003
Correct the project title to match the utility plans.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 262 Created: 6/17/2003
Need the distance and bearings for Sidehill Blvd. The ROW must be dedicated as such.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 263 Created: 6/17/2003
Sheet 3 - How can these driveways be located? Use typicals or some other means to locate without
cluttering the plan sheets.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 264 Created: 6/17/2003
Sheet 4 - Use the same note as shown on Sheet 3 for the driveway locations.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Topic: Street Names
Number: 106 Created: 1/3/2003
Please refer to Chapter 13 of LCUASS for street naming requirements.
4/18/3: Repeat comment.
6/11/3: Repeat comment. Have the street names been approved by the appropriate city
departments/agencies?
As per conversations with Planning Staff, all of the departments that have reviewed these plans have
approved the street names because said departments have not stated otherwise. The major collector
formerly referred to as "SideHill Boulevard" has been changed to Nancy Gray Boulevard.
Topic: Utility plans
Number: 109 Created: 1/3/2003
Cover Page - Correct the index, see redlines.
4/18/3: See redlines.
6/11/3: The plat pages have been numbered separately as requested, however, the utility sheets
need to be renumbered to reflect the correct number of total pages. See redlines.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 113 Created: 1/3/2003
Line 41 and 48 of the General Notes require corrections.
4/18/3: Lines 47 and 48 require corrections.
Page 6
Number: 239 Created: 6/13/2003
Correction required to note 23. See redlines.
Note 23 was amended per the redlines provided by City Staff.
Number: 266 Created: 6/18/2003
1 did not receive sheets 1-5 of the Landscape set, but make sure that the filing/phasing matches the
utility and plat sets.
The site planning documents only reference the Filing One Project Development Plan area. Any
platted area that deviates from the extents of the Filing One Project Development Plan area will be
shown only on the plat. This variation has been confirmed by conversations between JR Engineering
and the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department and has been deemed acceptable to both
parties.
Topic: Plan and Profiles
Number: 86 Created: 1/3/2003
Provide intersection details per 7-27, 7-28 and 3.3.4.
4/18/3: Please make the intersection details a little larger so that I can read the spot elevations
better. Thanks very much!
6/11/3: The spot elevations are overlapped in some of the intersections details and I couldn't
read/review them. Other details appear to have a low spot. Please see redlines.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment
Topic: Plat
Number: 93 Created: 1/3/2003
Please provide the missing plat language as shown on the attached document (cert of dedication,
maintenance guarantee, repair guarantee, notice of other docs, sight distance, etc.). See redlines
and the checklist E4.
4/18/3: Repeat comment, see redlines and attached plat language.
6/9/3: Repeat comment. Corrections are still required to the plat language. Please see redlines and
attached plat language document.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 240 Created: 6/13/2003
From Technical Services: Vicinity Map should only show what this plat is subdividing.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number:.241 Created: 6/13/2003
From Technical Services: Sheet 2 should be clear as to what is included in this subdivision.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 242 Created: 6/13/2003
The plat has divided the property in half and then described both boundaries. This must be corrected
so that only one single outside property boundary is described.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Page 5
Number: 54 Created: 1/3/2003
This project is responsible for the ultimate design of the Sharp Point connection. To insure that future
street improvements will meet City Standards, the centerline flowline, and cross sections of all streets
(Sharp Point connection and all stubbed out streets) shall be continued for 500 feet beyond
construction or as far as necessary to show that the design will work. Please provide an engineer's
estimate for the cost of the Sharp Point connection for the City's review. Once the final cost has been
approved by the City, it shall be included in the Development Agreement and a portion collected over
each phase to assure that this connection is made in the future.
4/18/3: Item still open. Please provide 500' of off -site design or as far as necessary to show that the
design will work with existing. It was determined in a meeting with JR Engineering that the cross
sections asked for above were not necessary.
6/11/3: Please provide an engineer's estimate for the cost of the Sharp Pointe connection for the
City's review. See above.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 66 Created: 1/3/2003
Coordinate the comments given under various sections so that all of the plan sets present the same
information.
So noted. Thank you
Number: 223
Created: 4/21 /2003
Dedicate the ROW and utility easements required for the future traffic circle. You will need to account
for this in the placement of any utilities.
6/11/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will stay open until resolved and it may be taken
care of during Final Compliance
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter addressing this comment.
Number: 267 Created: 6/18/2003
The phasing/filing needs to match the utility and plat sets.
The site planning documents only reference the Filing One Project Development Plan area. Any
platted area that deviates from the extents of the Filing One Project Development Plan area will be
shown only on the plat. This variation has been confirmed by conversations between JR Engineering
and the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department and has been deemed acceptable to both
parties.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 75 Created: 1/3/2003
3.2.1.K requires 10 feet between trees and water or sewer lines. 4 feet between trees and gas lines.
4/18/3: Has this requirement been met in all instances?
6/13/3: An alternative compliance request has been submitted. This item will remain open until
resolved.
So noted. Thank you. Troy Jones stated that the alternative compliance request for a reduction in
separation distances was approved by the City of Fort Collins. Please note that the recently
approved Supplement 13 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code has provided an amended tree/utility
separation standard that is only six (6) feet between wet utilities and street trees. The previous
standard separation distance was 10 feet.
Page 4
OR at the very minimum, signed Letters of Intent from the property owners stating that they will sign
the easements must be submitted.
Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter regarding this item
Topic: General
Number: 50 Created: 1/3/2003
The following is a summary of the conclusions reached at the City's Transportation Coordination
meeting on Thursday, December 19, 2002:
Sidehill is responsible for the full design of Timberline along the property frontage.
Timberline also needs to be designed offsite to the north through the intersection at Prospect,
showing the horizontal and vertical alignment, the centerline profile of Timberline, and any further
information needed to verify that the design will work to City Standards. This design should maintain
the current elevation of the railroad tracks and, if possible, should accommodate any trees that the
City Forester requires to be maintained. In addition, it is anticipated that the proposed roadway
coming into the crest of the hill will be 3 to 5 feet lower then the existing elevation.
The redesign of the Prospect/Timberline intersection will need to be included as well, holding the east
curb line in its current location.
It is highly encouraged that the engineers from Sidehill coordinate with the engineers of the Mansion
Park development directly across Timberline for the design of Timberline, and Development Review
Engineering will schedule a meeting to facilitate this coordination.
The PDP for Sidehill may be approved with conditions pertaining to the APF issues by the Planning
and Zoning Board /or Hearing Officer after the above designs have been completed, However, the
Final Compliance will not be approved and plans signed off , nor will a Development Agreement be.
started, or filing of the plat will occur until the APF issues at the Timberline -Prospect intersection have
been solved by the design and construction of improvements to the intersection either by the City or
by private development, or the City has appropriated a Capital Project to construct the required
improvements.
4/18/3, 6/11/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open.
So noted. Thank you.
Number: 51
Created: 1/3/2003
The actual ROW required along Timberline is unknown until the ultimate design of Timberline is
complete.
4/18/3,6/11/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open.
So noted. Thank you.
Number: 52 Created: 1/3/2003
The Drake Road design has already been completed by the Ridgen Farm development. The actual
construction may either be done by that developer or through the City Street Oversizing Program in
the summer of 2003. Sidehill must coordinate the plan sets so that this project will tie into the Drake
Road design. Sidehill is also responsible for repaying the construction costs along their frontage of
Drake Road as well as repaying the small portion of Timberline that has been built to the ultimate.
4/18/3,6/11/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open.
So noted. Thank you.
Page 3
Number: 268
Created: 6/18/2003
There are only a few items to clear up before we are ready to go to hearing. These items won't
require a full formal submittal, however the items do need to be resolved prior to scheduling for the
hearing. Here is a list of the items:
(1) Susan Joy needs a revised plat informally submitted to her that addresses her plat comments;
(2) Susan Joy needs the variance request resubmitted with the correction asked for;
(3) The Sidehill Boulevard right-of-way, as it crosses the valley wall, may or may not have grading
encroachment into the required natural habitat buffer (see issue # 146 dated 1/6/03), and needs to be
coordinated with Doug Moore of Natural Resources at 224-6143. Doug needs the grading sheets of
the utility plans with the buffer zones shown in order to complete his review;
(4) Letters of Intent or the actual easements themselves for all off -site easements (all we have so far
is legal descriptions).
The plat and the variance were revised by JR Engineering and submitted to the City of Fort Collins on
7125103. A mitigation plan for slope restoration adjacent to SideHill Boulevard was submitted to Doug
Moore on 8101103. The client and the City of Fort Collins agreed that since all easements were
private not letters of intent or actual easements would be need securing prior to hearing.
Number: 269 Created: 6/18/2003
The driveway location for Lot 1, Block 2 is different between the plat and the alternative compliance
diagram. Please double check that this information is correct for all other lots, and fix the discrepancy
for this lot.
The location of the driveway on the plat was incorrect. The driveway location on the site plan is
correct. Please refer to JR Engineering's response letter regarding this item
Number: 270 Created: 6/18/2003
The alternative compliance to "reduce the required separation distance between street trees and
driveways and between street trees and utilities" is acceptable to staff. A staff recommendation of
approval of this request will be forwarded to the hearing officer as part of the staff report on the
project.
So noted. Thank you.
Number: 273 Created: 6/18/2003
On page 3 of 6 on the plat, add to the note explaining the shaded areas that "these driveway
locations shall not be varied." Please clarify this in the general notes on sheet 4 of 15 also.
This text was added to the General Notes as requested.
Number: 274 Created=6/t812003
The owner's certification signature block on the site plan shows James Construction Company as the
owner, and the plat shows Spring Creek Farms as the owner. These should be the same, and if
there is a lien holder, such lien holder should be listed. The owner's certification block on both the
site plan and plat needs notary certification language (which was provided on the plat, but not on the
site plan).
The site plan signature block has been changed.
Department:. Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: Easements
Number: 245 Created: 6/13/2003
The legal descriptions for the off -site drainage easements have been received. In order for this
project to go to public hearing, either the copies of the recorded easement itself must be submitted
Page 2
August 27, 2003
Troy Jones
City of Fort Collins
Community Planning and Environmental Services
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: SideHill — Final Compliance Plans
Dear Troy,
coM@caa P* urban design, inc.
3555 stanford road, suite 105
fort collins, Colorado 80525
(970) 226-4074
fax (970) 226-4196
e@cityscapeud.com
Included below are the comments received from City Staff regarding the third round of Project
Development Plans for SideHill. An explanation (in italics) of how issues have been addressed
follows each comment.
The redlined drawings you provided the applicant have been included in this resubmittal set
ISSUES
Department: AT&T Broadband Issue Contact: Dennis Greenwalt
Topic: General
Number: 272 Created: 6/18/2003
No comment.
So noted. Thank you
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Topic: General
Number: 202 Created: 4/10/2003
[6/18/03) This "FYI comment" still applies.
[4/10/03] On April 8, 2003, voters did not pass the proposed transportation taxes, therefore we have
no City money to improve the Prospect/Timberline intersection. The requirement of Adequate Public
Facilities is therefore still a major obstacle for this project. This issue won't prevent PDP approval,
however final compliance approval cannot occur until funds are allocated for the Prospect/Timberline
intersection improvements. For clarification, final compliance approval is basically the administrative
process of signing the mylars, recording them, recording the development agreement, and officially
logging the project into the system as an approved project.
So noted. Thank you
Number: 203 Created: 4/10/2003
[6/18/03] Thank you for providing building elevations for the bathhouse. In accordance with
3.5.3(D)(6)(a) a base treatment needs to be articulated on all 4 facades of the pool house.
[4/10/03] Elevations of the bathhouse building must be included on the building elevation sheet(s).
Make sure materials, colors, and dimensions are included.
The base treatment has been added to the bathhouse to match on all four facades. Please see sheet
15 for the design.
Page 1