Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDTAIL RESIDENTIAL - PDP - 26-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (11)M�- - LVE, Scale = 1 "=80' ,: 1320' �DTAIL HAWK NEST BU FER 20% REDUCTION July 23, 2002 Mr. Troy Jones Page 10 of 10 your preliminary review. -- Wherever necessary pressure sealed joints have been included. Department: Zoniniz 149. N/A 150. N/A Included with this letter are sixteen (16) copies of the plat folded, nine (9) copies of the utility drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, and nine (9) copies of this letter stapled to the cover of each plan set. I have also routed one (1) set to the LFCWD/SFCSD for their review. Materials provided by others include the TIS update (Matt Delich), wetlands analysis (Cedar Creek), planning documents (VF Ripley), and several various modification and variance requests by the developer. Lauganitus Redtail, Inc. will provide materials not delivered by JR Engineering. I hope this letter adequately addresses the comments that are relevant to the utility construction drawings for this project. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JR Engineering, LLC John E. Tufte, P.E. Project Engineer jetUET cc: Jon Prouty, Lagunitas Redtail, Inc. attachments: Utility Construction Plans Redtail Hawk Boundary Storm Reports Appendix E-4 X:\3910000.all\3911607\Correspondence\Review Response Letters\Redtail Review Response Letter (Troy Jones)#l.doc July 23, 2002 Mr. Troy Jones Page 9 of 10 Topic: Site Plan 177. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. Department: Natural Resources 79. N/A. 81. N/A 83. N/A Department: Transportation Planning 94. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 100. N/A — addressed by Matt Delich 200. N/A — addressed by Matt Delich Department: Stormwater 170. The site layout has been revised. Drainage pattern issues should be resolved. 171. Grading offsite has been minimized. Where necessary, the Owner will acquire grading easements. 172. There will be no grading within the railroad ROW with the current site layout. 173. Where necessary, the Owner will acquire grading easements. 174. These items have been called out in the revised submittal 175. Grading offsite has been minimized. Where necessary, the Owner will acquire grading easements. -- Retaining walls have been depicted and graded on the plans. -- Wetlands have been identified on the drawings. -- We have attempted to better distinguish contours by line weights and label text style. — Existing grading is shown 50 feet outside this projects boundary unless cropped in order to fit the site to the page of paper. — 100-year HGL elevations are included in the storm report but have not been added to the plan and profiles. The HGL's will be added at the point in time when the alignments will not change. This is due to the work necessary showing the HGL's in the construction drawings. If you would like please contact Mark West (JR Engineering) and worksheets can be created for XA3910000.all\3911607\Correspondence\Review Response Letters\Redtail Review Response Letter (Troy Jones)#l.doc July 23, 2002 Mr. Troy Jones Page 8 of 10 148. N/A — provided by Matt Delich 163. Legend has been revised. 164. I believe this comment has been addressed due to the site revision: 180. The plat has been reviewed and revised. 187. Acknowledged Department: Likht & Power 10. Acknowledged Department: Police 151. N/A Department: Poudre Fire Authority 85. N/A 86. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 87. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 88. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 89. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 90. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 91. All building within this development will include interior sprinklers. The hydrants within public ROW will be capable of delivering 1500 gpm and are spaced according to standards. 92. All building within this development will include interior sprinklers. 93. All building within this development will include interior sprinklers. X:\3910000.all\3911607\Correspondence\Review Response Letters\Redtail Review Response Letter (Troy Jones)#l.doc July 23, 2002 Mr. Troy Jones Page 7 of 10 42. This project is not phased. 43. Erosion control measures are included on the Drainage and Erosion Control sheets. The previous sheet has been split into three (3) sheets with matchlines. 44. Line types have been edited according to JR standard line weights. 45. The intention of this project is not to encroach on adjacent properties. This revised site plan should not encroach. However, there are several areas where offsite-grading easements may be required to accommodate the new site layout and the adjacent developments. The developer will acquire those easements. 46. All access ramps, cross -pans, and details are included within this submittal. 47. Details have been updated. 48. Sidewalks have been dimensioned unless parallel to the public street in which they are per the standard x-section. 50. All driveways have been stationed and labeled in the plan and profiles. 51. See the response to comment number Engineering\Utility Plans\ #33. 52. General location of existing signs is shown in the existing topography drawing. 54. I am not sure what the reasoning is for this comment. Where is this information to be shown? 55. Utility crossings are shown in the plan and profiles. 56. Information is shown to the extent necessary to convey the design. In some locations it is less than 150 feet. 57. I am unsure of what this comment pertains to. 58. I believe that due to the site plan revision that this comment has been addressed. 60. I am unsure of what this comment pertains to. 72. Utilities should all have 10 feet of separation. 146. Offsite grading has been minimized to only a few locations. The developer will acquire the necessary easements. 147. A revised drainage report has been submitted with this project. X:\3910000.all\3911607\Correspondence\Review Response Letters\Redtail Review Response Letter (Troy Jones)#1.doc July 23, 2002 Mr. Troy Jones Page 6 of 10 Topic: Utility Plans 16. I am unsure which easement this comment might be referring to. 17. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 20. Setbacks are labeled on the project site plan. 25. General notes have been reviewed and edited to match those required by the LCUASS. 28. The typical street section has been included in this plan set in the detail sheets. The street section will be residential local. 32. Retaining wall details have been included with this submittal. Walls have been located in order to not require construction easements from adjacent property Owners. However, there are several off -site grading easements that will be required and the Owner will pursue those easements. The Owner has requested grading on lots owned by him. In addition, the existing retaining wall located on Tact V, Block 2 will require removal and reconstruction in addition to site grading due to the revised site layout. The necessary easements will be acquired through this project's developer. 33. Features at/or adjacent to the boundary of this project have been labeled. The amount of detail varies depending on what frontage is being reviewed. Some areas may have been cropped to fit the layout on the plan sheet. Contours are shown 50 feet outside the development boundary and design drawings by others for adjacent projects and topo for this project were used in the design of the proposed improvements. 35. Driveways along Redtail Court were provided by the developer and planner and should meet the minimum widths and separations. 36. The outlet to the lowest pond will not be disturbed by this project. 38: Contours do extend 50 feet outside the boundary for this project. 39. Spot elevations are included for buildings, curb and gutter, top and bottom of walls, and miscellaneous ground elevations for grading purposes. 40. This note has been added to the grading sheets per Appendix E-4. 41. Drainage drawings include flow arrows. Runoff is carried to a combination of inlets, gutters, and swales for collection and discharge to the existing ponds for water quality. X:\3910000.all\3911607\Correspondence\Review Response Letters\Redtail Review Response Letter (Troy Jones)#l.doc July 23, 2002 Mr. Troy Jones Page 5 of 10 Topic: Landscape Plan 63. The plat has been revised and included two (2) ties to section corners. 64. The plat has been revised and includes the ROW width requested by the developer and justified by the TIS. All necessary easements should be depicted on the plat. 65. The plat has been revised and adjacent properties are labeled. 77. The plat has been revised. 161. The plat language has been revised based on redlines and the photocopies previously provided to JR. 162. Due to the revised site layout, the tract labels have been revised and the easement label "and Emergency Access" has been deleted. 179. Our survey department has reviewed and revised the plat legal. The revised legal has also been added to the cover page of the utility drawings. 183. The railroad ROW has been shown on the plat. 186. The buffer, reduced by 20% per the Land Use Code, is south of this project by 194.7 feet and therefore is not reflected on this plat. See the attached exhibit. 191. The plat has been revised to reflect the new tract sizes and locations. The boundary closure has been verified. 192. There is no evidence of a recorded easement for sanitary sewer. 193. Replating of Cameron Park 2ad will be required but by the owner direction will be accomplished by separate document. Topic: Site Plan 70. Addressed by VF Ripley 145. Addressed by VF Ripley 152. Addressed by VF Ripley 160. Addressed by VF Ripley X:\3910000.all\3911607\Correspondence\Review Response Letters\Redtail Review Response Letter (Troy Jones)#l.doc July 23, 2002 W. Troy Jones Page 4 of 10 movement. Median for College Avenue will not be designed with this project due to concerns regarding safety and the future location. An accel/decel lane is not required by the Access Code based on the traffic volumes predicted by the site's TIS and the classification of College Avenue. The intersection of College Avenue and Fossil Boulevard has been graded to account for the existing College Avenue grades. A State Highway Access Permit will be submitted for routing and approval as this review proceeds. As a side note, I would suggest that the future alignment of College Avenue be reviewed internally. It would appear that shifting the centerline of College Avenue to the east could potentially minimize some elevation conflicts and ROW acquisitions. 155. The connections to the Mason Street Corridor and Fossil Creek Ped/Bike Connections have been shown with this project. However, I believe those projects will have significant influence on the elevation and location of those connections. 156. The revised site layout provided by the developer is intended to keep the issues pointed out in mind. 157. The site plan has been revised per the Owner's direction. lros�un: 181. The site plan has been revised per the Owner's direction. 182. The site plan has been revised per the Owner's direction. 184. Railroad ROW has been shown on the plans as the western boundary of this project. 185. Based on a conversation Cathy Mathis (VF Ripley) had with Doug Moore, the Hawk Boundary does not need to be shown on the construction drawings due to its location. The 1320 feet buffer minus the 20% reduction if radius length is located 194.7 feet south of the south property line of Redtail PDP. See the attached exhibit. 189. Acknowledged Topic: Landscape Plan 69. N/A 158. N/A 159. N/A X:\3910000.all\3911607\Correspondence\Review Response Letters\Redtail Review Response Letter (Troy Jones)#l.doc July 23, 2002 Mr. Troy Jones Page 3 of 10 194. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 195. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. The current layout connects Fairview Drive to College Avenue via Fossil Boulevard. 196. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. i IAW01.1 198. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 199. Redlined plans have been reviewed for civil engineering related comments. Those comments have been addressed to the extent that they are still applicable to the site layout included in this submittal. Department: Advanced Planning Topic: General 18. Included with this submittal is a completed checklist (LCUASS Appendix E-4). Comments have been included where applicable. 19. Necessary striping and signage is included on the Horizontal Control sheets. 30. The site has been coordinated with the Mason Street Corridor (MSC) Plan to our best ability. At this time connections are shown schematically in certain cases due to the uncertainty of the MSC project. With that project there will need to be significant design that may impact certain connection points so it seems somewhat premature to design for something that is still in very conceptual stages. 71. Acknowledged 78. This item has not been addressed. This item seems much more applicable to the Mason. Street Corridor project. 143. Acknowledged, due to this large site plan revision and the amount of work necessary due to site layout revisions, the previous comments were not reviewed. 144. As depicted on the plat for this submittal, additional ROW is being dedicated with this project. The intersection of Fossil Boulevard and College Avenue is shown as a right in -right out movement. An island has been designed to force this X:\3910000.all\3911607\Correspondence\Review Response Letters\Redtail Review Response Letter (Troy Jones)#l.doc July 23, 2002 Mr. Troy Jones Page 2 of 10 107. N/A 108. N/A 110. N/A 111. N/A 112. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured to connect Fairway Lane to College Avenue via Fossil Boulevard. Fossil Boulevard will have an intersection located based on the South College Access Control Plan. 113. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured to connect Fairway Lane to College Avenue via Fossil Boulevard. Fossil Boulevard will have an intersection located based on the South College Access Control Plan. 114. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured to connect Fairway Lane to College Avenue via Fossil Boulevard. Fossil Boulevard will have an intersection located based on the South College Access Control Plan. The Owner has indicated to me that they will write the modification request for this item. 115. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured to connect Fairway Lane to College Avenue via Fossil Boulevard. Fossil Boulevard will have an intersection located based on the South College Access Control Plan. The Owner has indicated to me that they will work with PFA regarding additional site access if necessary. 117. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. The Owner will work with PFA to account for a future emergency access between public roads. 118. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 119. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 137. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 138. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. 140. By the Owner's direction, the site has been configured as depicted within this plan submittal. X:\3910000.all\3911607\Correspondence\Review Response Letters\Redtail Review Response Letter (Troy Jones)#l.doc -July 2 023Ju1y 02' J•R ENGINEERING - ---1 A Subsidiary of Westrien 39116.07 Mr. Troy Jones Project Planner Community Planning and Environmental Services City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 Reference: Redtail PDP, Second Filing — 90 % Submittal Dear Mr. Troy Jones: This letter is regarding the January 24, 2002 Staff Project Review, City of Fort Collins review comments received for the referenced project. This letter will attempt to address all the comments in your most current summary letter and plan set redlines. I will respond to the questions or comments as they are listed in your letter. This letter will only respond to comments that are related to the civil engineering aspects of the project. As you will notice from review of the drawings, the site has been revised substantially from the initial site layout. Therefore, there are several comments that do not pertain to the current site. Responses Issues• Department: Advanced Planning 103. N/A Department: Current Planning 104. N/A 105. N/A 106. N/A 2620 Fast Prospect Road, Suite 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-491-9888 • Fax: 970-491-9984 • w Jrengineering.com