HomeMy WebLinkAboutSIDEHILL, FILING ONE - FDP - 32-01C - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS9350010E MapChk.txt
Mapcheck Closure - (uses listed courses, radii, and deltas)
Error Closure: 0.02 Course: N 55-01-13 E
Error North: 0.014 East : 0.019
Precision 1: 934,735.50
Page 2
Parcel name: 9350010E
North: 65917.48
Line Course: S 06-04-34 E
North: 65590.00
Line Course: 5 01-42-38 E
North: 65469.92
Line Course: S 00-01-49 E
North: 65406.58
Curve Length: 20.29
Delta: 89-24-46
Chord: 18.29
Course In: N 89-58-11 E
RP North: 65406.58
End North: 65393.58
Line Course: S 89-26-35 E
North: 65392.18
Line Course: 5 81-48-45 E
North: 65368.13
Line Course: S 85-53-24 E
North: 65345.49
Line Course: S 89-26-35 E
North: 65339.99
Line Course: N 00-17-35 W
North: 67046.77
Line Course: S 76-41-35 E
North: 67038.31
Line Course: S 37-53-05 E
North: 66462.85
Line Course: S 50-15-05 E
North: 66228.57
Line Course: S 41-50-35 E
North: 66045.19
Line Course: S 49-49-35 E
North: 65812.76
Line Course: S 14-40-35 E
North: 65625.67
Line Course: 5 01-07-25 W
North: 65315.95
Line Course: S 89-26-35 E
North: 65291.15
Line Course: N 49-38-05 W
North: 69407.07
Curve Length: 366.13
Delta: 7-11-48
Chord: 365.89
Course In: N 40-21-55 E
RP North: 71628.05
End North: 69661.07
Line Course: S 00-13-56 E
North: 67963.10
Line Course: S 00-01-49 E
North: 67247.46
Line Course: S 02-26-23 E
North: 66415.85
Line Course: S 03-17-52 E
North: 65917.50
9350010E MapChk.txt
East : 60087.42
Length: 329.33
East : 60122.28
Length: 120.14
East : 60125.87
Length: 63.34
East : 60125.90
Radius: 13.00
Tangent: 12.87
Course: S 44-44-12 E
Course Out: S 00-33-25 w
East : 60138.90
East : 60138.78
Length: 144.20
East : 60282.97
Length: 168.86
East : 60450.11
Length: 315.93
East : 60765.23
Length: 566.23
East : 61331.43
Length: 1706.80
East : 61322.70
Length: 36.75
East : 61358.46
Length: 729.12
East : 61806.20
Length: 366.40
East : 62087.91
Length: 246.15
East : 62252.11
Length: 360.30
East : 62527.41
Length: 193.40
East : 62576.41
Length: 309.78
East : 62570.34
Length: 2551.31
East : 65121.53
Length: 6355.08
East : 60279.40
Radius: 2914.93
Tangent: 183.31
Course: N 46-02-11 w
Course out: S 47-33-43 w
East : 62167.27
East : 60016.03
Length: 1697.99
East : 60022.92
Length: 715.64
East : 60023.30
Length: 832.36
East : 60058.73
Length: 499.18
East : 60087.44
Perimeter: 18694.70 Area: 9,507,039 SF 218.25 AC
Page 1
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
Number: 290 Created: 9/10/2003
[9/10/2003] Please contact Bob Zakely to discuss the plan (phone call).
Response: A meeting was held with Bob on 9113103 and his concerns were addressed.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: General
Number: 278 Created: 9/5/2003
[9/5/2003] There are still several locations where the proposed trees are in conflict with the
proposed water mains or services. Please adjust trees or water lines to avoid these conflicts.
See Site, Landscape and Utility plans for other comments.
Response: Please refer to City Scape's response letter.
Topic: Utility plans
Number: 206 Created: 4/16/2003
[4/16/2003] As previously indicated; 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.
Response: NOTED
If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (970) 491-9888.
Sincerely,
eff Paulsen,
JR Engineering
Department: Light & Puwer Issue Contact: Monica Moore
Topic: General
Number: 277 Created: 9/3/2003
[9/3/2003] No comments.
Response: NOTED
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Drainage
Number: 291 Created: 9/11/2003
[9/11/2003] Please provide documentation on how the size of the orifice plate was determined
without running extran first. See tab in drainage report. If previous analysis from prior submittal
was used as a first iteration, then please include this information in this report and explain more
clearly the methodology in the text. If you have any questions, please call Sue Paquette at 221-
7214.
Response: The comment was discussed with City of Fort Collins (City) staff, through this
discussion City staff indicated that their concern with the report was that a second
ModSwmm analysis was not performed using the stage/discharge relationship from the
EXTRAN model output. A second ModSwmm model was added to the report using the
stage/discharge relationship from the EXTRAN output. Spreadsheets and graphs were
also added to the report to demonstrate how the EXTRAN data was extracted.
In response to the written staff comment the following explanation is provided. The
orifice for the initial ModSwmm model was sized using the orifice outlet equation
(Q=Cd*A*(2gh)^O.S) with no downstream hydraulic grade line. This was determined
to be acceptable through discussion with City staff since the outfall pipe discharges
into the City storm sewer at a drop manhole. Any downstream hydraulic grade line
produced by the pond discharges through the orifice would have a negligible
backwater affect on the discharge capacity of the orifice.
Number: 294 Created: 9/12/2003
[9/12/20031 The easement, which acts as the outfall for the site and where the off -site sub -drain
is located, needs to be obtained before the approval and signing of the Side Hill mylars.
Response: NOTED
Number: 295 Created: 9/12/2003
[9/12/2003] Please explain why the sub -drain travels the distance it does off -site. The sub -drain
just needs to be higher then the 100-year WSEL at the location where it discharges into the
swale.
Response: We cannot get above the 100-year WSEL until the location as shown on the plans.
Number: 288 Created: 9/9/2003
[9/9/2003] Sheet 51 - scanning problems, overlapped labeling.
Response: The plans have been revised to make them more legible.
Number: 289 Created: 9/9/2003
[9/9/2003] Please see Appendix E6 for scanning requirements.
Response: NOTED
Number: 292 Created: 9/11/2003
[9/11/2003] Provide a signature block for the ditch company on any sheet that effects their ditch
(including the cover sheet).
Response: There is no private ditch company involved here. This irrigation ditch is for Cargill
site only.
Number: 298 Created: 9/15/2003
[9/15/2003] Sheet 15 - matchline missing. Sheet 16 - where does the underdrain go on the
profile?
Response: The under drain shown on sheet 15 begins at that location. Caps are now shown
on the under drain profiles.
Number: 299 Created: 9/15/2003
[9/15/2003] Offsite Underdrain System - see page 7 of the subsurface report. It appears that the
underdrain system's outfall is below the 100 year storm
Response: The report has been revised.
Number: 300 Created: 9/15/2003
[9/15/2003] Sheet 31, 33, 34, 35, 36 - Please label the slope ratios (4:1 max allowed)
Response: Slope ratios have been labeled.
Department: Excel Energy Issue Contact: Len Hilderbrand
Topic: General
Number: 271 Created: 6/18/2003
[9/8/2003] Same comments, same redlines.
Response: NOTED
[6/18/20031 No further comments. Same comments still apply.
Topic: Utility plans
Number: 119 Created: 1/3/2003
[9/9/3] Repeat until documents received.
Response: NOTED
[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.
[4/18/3] Your response is acknowledged. Item remains open.
[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.
Number: 126 Created: 1/3/2003
[9/10/3] Sheet 49 - show the irrigation line crossing under Windrow. Keep in mind that it must
have at least 2' from bottem of scarified subgrade. The pipe itself must be constructed with
watertight joints (like a C900 or RCP R4 joint).
Response: This is shown on sheet 44.
[1/3/03] Show all utility crossings on plan and profile.
Number: 283 Created: 9/9/2003
[9/9/2003] Sheet 9 - The shaded areas are too dark and will not scan. Would a light hatching
work a little better? This comment applies to other sheets as well.
Response: The shading has been lightened.
Number: 284 Created: 9/9/2003
[9/9/2003] Sheet 23, 24 and 25 - Correct the overlapped labeling.
Response: The plans have been revised to make them more legible.
Number: 286 Created: 9/9/2003
[9/9/2003] Sheet 47 - scanning problems.
Response: The plans have been revised to make them more legible.
Number: 287 Created: 9/9/2003
[9/9/2003] Sheet 49, 50, 52, 53, 54 - correct overlapped labeling.
Response: The plans have been revised to make them more legible.
[4/18/3] Please make the intersection details a little larger so that I can read the spot elevations
better. Thanks very much!
[1/3/2003] Provide intersection details per 7-27, 7-28 and 3.3.4.
Topic: Plat
Number: 280 Created: 9/9/2003
[9/9/2003] From Technical Services: Boundary and legal do not close. See printout included
Response: We found one course of the boundary that was labeled with an incorrect distance.
It has been revised to reflect the correct distance and the boundary now closes. See attached
map check sheet.
Number: 281 Created: 9/9/2003
[9/9/2003] From Technical Services: Street names need to be approved by PFA. Street does not
meet requirements for a Boulevard.
Response: Street names have been revised on the plat sheets to reflect new names.
Topic: Stormline Profiles
Number: 301 Created: 9/16/2003
[9/16/2003] Please use ductile iron pipe in the ROW (instead of the RCP currently shown)
where the concrete encasement does not meet the minimum cover requirements (2' below
scarified subgrade).
Response: Ductile iron pipe has been used where the concrete encasement did not meet the
minimum cover requirements. Inmost cases the entire pipe run, from structure to structure,
was changed. In one location, sheet 41, we specified a 20 IF DIP centered over the water
line. We specified an RCP x DIP adapter to connect the two pipe types, see detail sheet 63.
Carder Concrete can fabricate this adapter.
Topic: Street Names
Number: 106 Created: 1/3/2003
[9/9/3] Repeat comment. See comment under "Plat" regarding street names as well.
Response: See response #281.
[6/11/3] Repeat comment. Have the street names been approved by the appropriate city
departments/agencies?
[4/18/3] Repeat comment.
[ 1/3/2003] Please refer to Chapter 13 of LCUASS for street naming requirements.
[4/18/31 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.
[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.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 239 Created: 6/13/2003
[9/9/3] Repeat comment.
Response: Please refer to City Scape's response letter.
[6/13/20031 Correction required to note 23. See redlines.
Number: 279 Created: 9/9/2003
[9/9/2003] See comment #278 from Jeff Ell/Water Wastewater.
Response: See response #278.
Topic: Plan and Profiles
Number: 80 Created: 1/3/2003
[9/9/3] The ultimate is shown clearly and a note for tying into the EOP is shown, but it is not
clear what will be built in the interim. Are you proposing a temporary asphalt patch from the
curb return to the existing Timberline road? If so, please show.
Response: A temporary asphalt connection to Timberline Road is now shown on sheets 48 &
50.
[1/3/2003] Show how the streets will tie into the interim and ultimate Timberline design.
Number: 86 Created: 1/3/2003
[9/9/3] There appears to be a low spot in the intersection detail - see redlines, sheet 53.
Response: Water flows in a SE & SW direction from the spot indicated on the redlines.
[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.
Response: NOTED
[4/18/3, 6/11/31 Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open until the interim
and ultimate design for Timberline is submitted.
[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.
Number: 51 Created: 1/3/2003
[4/18/3,6/11/3, 9/9/31 Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open.
[1/3/2003] The actual ROW required along Timberline is unknown until the ultimate design of
Timberline is complete. .
Number: 54 Created: 1/3/2003
[9/9/3] The estimate for Share Pointe has been received and forwarded to Street Over sizing for
their review. Comments to follow.
Response: NOTED
[6/11/31 Please provide an engineer's estimate for the cost of the Sharp Pointe connection for the
City's review. See above.
Number: 303
Created: 9/16/2003
[9/16/2003] The lighting plan is now satisfying both Current Planning and Police Services.
Response: NOTED
Number: 304
Created: 9/16/2003
[9/16/2003] As stated previously, the Adequate Public Facilities requirement triggers the need
for improvements to the Prospect and Timberline intersection. On Tuesday, Sep. 2, 2003 the
City Council chose not to put on the November ballot, the redirecting of funds from other road
projects to these intersection improvements. City Attorney staff has advised Current Planning
staff that a condition MUST be placed on the Final Compliance approval for this project
requiring improvements to the Prospect Road and Timberline Road intersection. This condition
will be a formal letter from the City to the applicant, and will also be reflected in the
Development Agreement
Response: NOTED
Number: 305
Created: 9/16/2003
Please re -submit paper copies of the following items: 6 site plans; 6 plats; 6 landscape plans; 6
utility plan sets; 1 drainage report; 6 response to comment letters from both JR Engineering and
Cityscape; all easements; and the Timberline design.
Department: Engineering
Topic: Easements
Number: 245
Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Created: 6/13/2003
[9/9/3] Repeat comment. The mylars cannot be approved until the recorded off -site easements
are received.
Response: NOTED
[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 OR at the very minimum, signed Letters of Intent from the property owners
stating that they will sign the easements must be submitted.
Topic: General
Number: 50
Created: 1/3/2003
[9/9/3] This issue continues to remain open until the ultimate and interim design for Timberline
has been received. An internal meeting was held on 9/11/3 and it was determined that this
development is still responsible for the interim and ultimate design for Timberline along its
frontage plus a 1000' of preliminary design north of their northernmost boundary. In no case will
any building permits be issued until the Adequate Public Facilities requirements have been met
for this development.
October 28, 2003
Troy Jones
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
281 N. College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
J-R ENGINEERING
A Subsidiary of Westrian
RE: Side Hill Filing One PDP & Final Compliance — Type 1(LUC) #32-01B&C
Dear Mr. Jones:
This letter is in response to the staff project review comments dated 09-16-2003. Our responses,
in italics, follow the City comments.
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Topic: General
Number: 273 Created: 6/18/2003
[9/16/2003] Take the word "typical" out of the note explaining the shaded driveway areas, and
add another sentence to the note that reads "Any variation of driveway location can only be
approved by the City Engineer.
Response: The note explaining the shaded driveway areas has been revised as suggested in the
comments.
(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.
Number: 302 1 Created: 9/16/2003
[9/16/2003] The City Clerk does not sign the plat. Take off the City Clerk signature line from
page I of the plat
Response: The City Clerk signature line has been removed from page 1 of the plat.
2620 East Prospect Road, Suite 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-491-9888 - Fax: 970-491-9984 - w jrengineering.com