HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDTAIL RESIDENTIAL - FDP - 26-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - (18)[5/4/04] The northern trial connection from the development to the MTC needs to be
constructed to an 8-foot width to safely accommodate bikes, pedestrians and any
other trail users.
Please provide a public access easement from the curve at the northern edge of the
sidewalk to connect to the future Mason Transportation Corridor project (see red lines).
(FOLLOW UP COMMENT 8-5-03) Due to timing of the Redtail and MTC Trail projects, the
trail will be constructed before the Redtail project and will be built on a separate alignment
and bridge crossing of the pond. The previous access easement along the north side of the
property will now need to be constructed as a 8 foot trail connection to the MTC Trail with
the Redtail project (see red lines for the trail connection alignment). Since the northern trail
connection will be built, the trail connection south of the pond can be reduced to an 8-foot
width or removed from the plan. There will also need to be bike/ped. access ramps added
from the roadway to the future MTC northern trail connection (see red lines).
Number: 289 Created: 3/28/2003
[5/4/04] The attached sidewalk along the northern portion of Conejos Road is acceptable,
but the width needs to be increased to 6-feet, NOT 4'6" as shown. Also the
directional ramps at Conejos and Fossil Blvd. should align with the sidewalks as
much as possible.
8/14/1: Provide a copy of the off -site drainage easement and Reception Number.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/13/2: Third time Repeat. Please see attached and/or call me if you still don't understand
what I'm asking for. 221-6605.
3/31/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open until the easement is
received.
Number: 438 Created: 5/4/2004
[5/4/04] Follow-up comment to Issue #296. Since there will be no parking permitted on the
bridge reduce the roadway width of the bridge to 22-feet from 24-feet, and increase the
sidewalk widths on each side of the bridge by 1-foot. No parking signs will also have to be
installed along the bridge.
Please return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750.
Sincerely,
Cameron Gloss
Current Planning Director
Page 13
1/14/02 Approval by the railroad company will be required for the grading shown within the
railroad Right Of Way.
8/12/03 It seems that all the retaining wall work in the vicinity of the railroad right of way
cannot be done without encroaching on that area, please provide a letter of approval from
the railroad company if work in their right of way is necessary.
Topic: Grading on existing Cameron Office Park lots
Number: 173 Created: 1 /14/2002
[5/4/04]
1/14/02 Some grading is shown on existing lots in the Cameron Office Park. Please
provide owners' approval for such proposed grading.
8/12/03 This is apparently still the case for several areas on the north and south side of the
site.
Topic: Pond Outlet
Number: 440 Created: 5/4/2004
[5/4/04] Please show a swale connecting the outlet from the northeast water quality pond to
the frontage road, including a detail.
Topic: Waterline Clearance
Number: 441 Created: 5/4/2004
[5/4/04] Clearance between the proposed 15" RCP and the water line seems very minimal,
please consider lowering the storm line at this location if possible without submerging it.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Topic: Easements
Number: 443 Created: 5/5/2004
[5/5/04] Is the walkway connection from the College Ave. sidewalk to the Fossil Blvd
sidewalk placed in a public access easement or is it in ROW?
Number: 444 Created: 5/5/2004
[5/5/04] Are the trail connections from Conejos Rd to the MTC placed in a public access
easement on the plat?
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Kathleen Reavis
Topic: Transportation
Number: 437 Created: 5/4/2004
[5/4/04] has grading of site changed along west side? Please verify that it is still the same as
previously provided to City. This is important because of the construction of the new MTC
trail adjacent to this site.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Topic: Transportation
Number: 288 Created: 3/28/2003
Page 12
Topic: Easement
Number: 439 Created: 5/4/2004
[5/4/04] Any off -site grading on property to the north would require an off -site grading
easement.
Topic: Erosion and Sediment Control Comments:
Number: 169 Created: 1 /14/2002
[5/4/04]
Please schedule a meeting with Bob Zakely 224-6063 to discuss the erosion control plan.
Second Review
January 2, 2002
1. Several of the previous plan review comments have not been addressed.
2. The erosion control plan does not protect some of the existing ponds from sediment
during construction, and there are no notes or directions on the plan with regard to how
the existing drainageway along and between the ponds is to be protected during utility
line and roadway construction there. Also, there are pipes which will be installed
draining stormwater into ponds, there is no sediment control shown for these
installations. The erosion control plan is difficult to read, and very disjointed for anyone
trying to execute it in the field.
8/12/03
Please contact Bob Zakely to discuss the Erosion Control Plan.
Topic: Grading
Number: 175
[5/10/04]
Created: 1 /14/2002
1/14/02 Please note that no encroachment would be allowed onto adjacent properties
without the proper easement or license to grade (in the railroad ROW). As currently
designed the plans show an encroachment at several locations (north, west and south).
Please correct or obtain appropriate easements.
8/12/03
The retaining wall detail is called out to be done by the structural engineer later, when will
such a design be done ??
Topic: Grading in Railroad Right of Way
Number: 172 Created: 1 /14/2002
[5/10/04]
Modular block wall should be constructed all within the property line to avoid dealing with the
railroad.
Page 11
Repeat Comment: Wetland Depiction- The wetlands on the south end of the site are drawn
as ovals, which does not correctly depict the delineation that was completed by the project
wetland consultant. This actual wetland delineation done for the project needs to be
accurately depicted on all related plans (landscape, grading, tree mitigation, etc.). Also
remove the labeling that refers to wetlands as being "High Quality". The LUC does not
acknowledge quality of wetland this information is pointless.
Topic: Retaining Walls
Number: 430 Created: 8/18/2003
[5/10/04]
Repeat Comment: The Retaining wall shown in the Utility Plans need to comply with LUC
3.4.1(1)(1-2). The walls should be design so that they appear to either look natural or
appear to be hidden. Their form needs to appear natural within the context of the features
character (grassy, wooded slopes above wetlands, a small stream channel with occasional
rock outcropping). The wall design needs to address the issue of the massing appearance
that is seen in the current design creates.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 469 Created: 5/10/2004
[5/10/04] Sheet 2 of 9- label printing in tract F reads '50'Wetland Buffer", this is incorrect
and needs to read Existing Wetlands. Oval graphics shown along the southern boundary of
the property need to be labeled "Exist. High Quality Wetlands" need to be removed and the
correct wetland delineation needs to be labeled as "Existing Wetlands" and shown leading
on to the City's Redtail Grove Natural Area.
Leader labeled Existing Wetland to point to the edge of the Wetland Delineation that runs
along the east side of tract E, not to the graphic depicting open water.
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 470 Created: 5/10/2004
[5/10/04] Due to the complexity of the grading plans. NRD will allow the L.O.D. (Limits of
Development and location of orange construction fencing) to be shown on the erosion
control plan with notes disclosing that this information is located on the erosion control plan
on all grading plans.
Number: 473 Created: 5/10/2004
[5/10/04] Sheet 11 of 43 Overall Grading Plan- 3:1 (typ.) slopes will not be allowed. This
ration creates to difficult of slope to maintain and establish. NRD will allow further
encroachment for grading into the buffers area to allow for 4:1 (typ.) slopes.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan
Topic: Box Culverts design
Number: 442 Created: 5/4/2004
[5/4/04] Box culverts on Conejos Drive seem to be submerged, what will be done to
maintain their viability over the long term.
Page 10
Sheet 40 - See attached for additional notes on the retaining wall and handrail requirements.
Select the appropriate notes and include them on this sheet. Show how the curb, gutter,
sidewalk, parapet, etc, in the typical culvert layout.
Number: 415
[5/7/04] Repeat.
Sheet 42 - See redlines.
Created: 8/12/2003
Number: 464 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Relocate the existing telephone pedestal shown in the proposed sidewalk at the
corner of Coronado Drive and the frontage road.
Number: 465 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Remove "PDP" from the project title.
Number: 466 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Sheets 16-19, see redlines.
Number: 467 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Sheet 25 - See redlines.
Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore
Topic: Details
Number: 471 Created: 5/10/2004
[5/10/04] Notes are needed on the details related to the retaining walls detailing the colors
of the wall material. All wall colors and materials must be approved by NRD.
Number: 472 Created: 5/10/2004
[5/10/04] A details explaining construction of L.O.D. fencing is needed.
Number: 474 Created: 5/10/2004
[5/10/04] Utility Plans sheet 13 of 43 Modular Block Retaining Wall Section F-F does not
give a height for the distance between the to of the wall and the height of the wall.
Number: 476 Created: 5/10/2004
[5/10/04] General Detail on riprap is need. Note that No red or pink colored material maybe
used on exposed location and the areas not exposed need to be buried with 6" of topsoil
and seed with the appropriate seed mix.
Topic: Erosion and Sediment Control Comments:
Number: 475 Created: 5/10/2004
[5/10/04] Erosion Control plan sheet 15 of 43 shows a grading contour not protected by silt
fence east of Conejos Road.
Topic: General
Number: 431
[5/10/04]
Created: 8/18/2003
Page 9
Number: 408 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] The street design over the pond does not match the typical street section shown.
Please see Appendix E6 for scannability requirements.
Sheet 22 - See redlines. The residential local street typical street section is provided for
Fossil Blvd and Cameron Drive. Provide a section where the sidewalk is attached north of
the bridge. Please label from "station _to station _" and show N,S,E,W. Please see
the comments from Tom Reiff, Transportation Planning.
Number: 409 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Scanning problems. Perhaps reducing the thickness of the line weight of the text
will help.
Sheet 23 - Correct overlapped labeling.
Number: 410 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Shaded areas will not scan. Suggest removing the shading and the striping
symbols and try using an outline with wide diagonal hatching instead of the shaded
areas to show limits of construction. Increase the width of the sidewalk and attach it
to the retaining wall instead of leaving an unmaintainable strip between the wall and
the sidewalk (if the location of the wall is staying and is agreed to by the utility
companies).
Sheet 29 - Scanability issues, see redlines. Show approximate area of the street cut where
the ramp is being installed. Add street cut note.
Number: 411 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Need to show the retaining wall in the cross sections whereever it occurs.
Sheet 32 - Label all slopes (4:1 max allowed).
Number: 412
[5/7/04] Repeat.
Created: 8/8/2003
Sheet 39 - Provide elevations at each corner of the box so that they can set it in the field
(this page or next, whichever makes more sense). Provide the size of the box culverts and
the structural information from the manufacturer. Show the roadway placement, cover over
the box, etc. (Keep in mind 12.2.2)
Number: 413
[5/7/04] Repeat.
Created: 8/12/2003
Page 8
tract, which you will need to do anyway, or no one will have access to their homes or
the open space areas.
(08/08/03) Sheet 12 - Provide a Public Access Easement for the portion of the drive aisle
shown on the lot to the south of bldg G and Garage 1.
Number: 403 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Please label the radius of the curb return. Additional offsite grading shown. Please
provide additional grading easements from the property owner. Scanning issues.
Sheet 12 - Please provide a detail of the area covered by the property line so that I can see
how the proposed ties into existing Fossil Blvd. Correct the overlapped labeling and provide
missing BW elevations.
Number: 404 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Repeat comment. Show limits of the grading easement needed from the property
owner to the north. Scanning problems with this sheet, please see Appendix E6.
See redlines for additional comments.
Sheet 13 - Please provide the Grading Easement shown and remove the word "temporary".
Correct the overlapped labeling and provide missing BW elevations.
Number: 405 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Repeat, shaded areas will not scan.
Sheet 14 and 15 - Some areas are too dark to scan properly.
Number: 406 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Please provide a detail of the street widening labeling all the dimensions shown in
detail 7-24. You do not need to add detail 7-24 to the detail sheets.
Sheet 16 thru 18 - Show and dimension all sidewalks. Dimension all radii and driveway
widths. Show and dimension all parking stalls. Provide a detail of the street widening per 7-
24. Show and label R1, R2, R3, W, PC, PCR, etc. You can put this detail here or on the
plan and profile sheets, whichever works best for you. Show and dimension all easements.
Correct all overlapped labeling. Project ID sign and viewing shelter must be located out of
the utility easement.
Number: 407 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Scanning issues remain. Please see Appendix E6.
Sheet 22 - Show all pipes and structures in the profiles (typ). Show curb returns (typ).
Provide intersection details for all intersections (typ). We will have trouble scanning this
sheet - please correct overlapped labeling and lighten the hatched areas.
All utilities and structures (culverts...) must be at least 2 feet below scarified subgrade per
12.2.2 or the pavement above the object must be in concrete.
Page 7
Show limits of grading easement to the property ownerjust east of Pond C. See
redlines for other comments.
Sheet 9 - Please contact Stormwater and Natural Resources regarding any grading shown
greater than 4:1. Offsite grading shown (discussed under "Letters of Intent'). See redlines
for other comments.
Number: 397 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Sheet 10 - Scanning issues. Areas exceeding the 4:1 max requirement must be
corrected. Refer to detail on sheet 40 for the culvert under Cameron. General
comment: Provide a complete design for the modular block wall where it exceeds
36". It can be designed by others, but it needs to be included in the utility plans
before we can route for signatures. Make sure that the foundation for the picnic
enclosure do not extend into the utility easement.
Sheet 10 - Correct overlapping labeling. Offsite grading shown. Please provide location
and dimensions of the retaining wall along Pond B so that they can lay this out in the field.
Contact Doug Moore with Natural Resources regarding the height and appearance of the
proposed retaining wall.
Number: 399 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Repeat comment.
The bridge needs to be designed in accordance with details 1107 and 1108. See comments
regarding sheet 39-41.
Number: 400 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Scanning issues, grading shown exceeding 4:1, label the R of the curb return at
Conejos and Fossil Blvd., offsite grading shown at the western property line (either
pull it back on the property or obtain a grading easement from the RR), and label the
slope ratio in the area of section C-C.
Sheet 11 - Please see the comment given by Tom Reiff, Transportation Planning, regarding
the ramps and detached sidewalk on the south side of Redtail Court (north side of the
pond).
Number: 401 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Repeat.
Sheet 11 - See redlines. Correct overlapping labeling.
Number: 402 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Public Access Easement now shown, just need to provide us with a copy of the
recorded document and label the plans with the reception number. Will not need to
do this as a separate easement if you put a public access easement on the whole
Page 6
Number: 458 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Correct the sight distance triangle label to read "Sight Distance Easement".
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 32 Created: 8/14/2001
[5/7/04] Keeping this comment open until resolved. This comment ties in with the new
comment under General.
8/6/3: This comment is mentioned elsewhere, so please forgive the duplication. We will
need the property line shown on the various cross sections so that we can determine
whether or not construction easements are necessary. Also, more cross sections along the
various sections of walls are necessary. Some of the walls are pretty high and will need to
be designed. Details will need to be provided even if "by others". This may be done during
final compliance.
3/31/3: Your response is acknowledged. This item will remain open until the easements are
received.
8/14/2: Third request: It does not appear that you will be able to construct these retaining
walls without going onto neighboring property. Please provide construction easements as
requested.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/1: Provide detail, dimensions for the retaining walls on the north and west sides of the
project. Will you need a construction easement to do the work?
Number: 381 Created: 8/5/2003
[5/7/04] Repeat.
See Appendix E6 for scanning requirements.
Number: 390 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Correction required, see redlines.
Sheet 2 - Fill in line 48 with the approved variances. State section and code being varied
and then what the variance was granted for.
Number: 394 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Shaded areas will not scan. Suggest using an outline instead.
Sheet 6 and 7 - See redlines.
Number: 396 Created: 8/8/2003
[5/7/04] Please see 7.7.2.A for grading requirements. Several areas exceed the 4:1 max
requirement. Please provide a section through the wall on the west property line
identifying the block dimensions, property line, etc. An additional easement may be
requirement if you can't construct the wall entirely on the Redtail property. Provide
BW elevations for the retaining wall at the southern entrance to the parking garage.
Provide riprap at the end of the stormpipe or refer to the detail shown on sheet 42.
Page 5
Number: 450 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] From Technical Services: What is the use of the area of the lots outside the
building envelopes? Utility easements? What about Public Access Easements?
Number: 451 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] The Public Access Easement on the south side of Conejos Court does not match
the sidewalk location.
Number: 452 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Sheet 4 - rotate labeling to the reader.
Number: 453 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Cover Sheet - See redlines for other corrections.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 308 Created: 3/31 /2003
[5/7/04] Comment still applies.
See redlines for more comments.
Number: 378 Created: 8/5/2003
[4/30/04] Repeat comment. The utility plans have moved the shelter and ID sign but the
site plans have not. Please coordinate the site plan with the utility plans.
Repeat comment from previous redlines - The viewing shelter and project ID sign cannot be
located in the utility easement.
Number: 379 Created: 8/5/2003
[4/30/04] Repeat comment. The site plan is still not scannable and will not be approved
until it is.
(08/05/03) See Appendix E6 for scanning requirements.
Number: 389
[5/7/04] Repeat.
Created: 8/8/2003
Sidewalks must be a minimum of 5.5' wide where attached.
Number: 454 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Please correct all incorrectly spelled words.
Number: 455 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Please remove the utilities from the Site Plan.
Number: 456 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Remove "PDP" from the project title.
Page 4
8/14/2: Third request.
3/31/3: REPEAT COMMENT
Number: 314 Created: 3/31 /2003
[5/7/04] Boundary and legal close. Boundary and legal do not match, see redlines.
From Technical Services: Plat and legal close, typo redlined in legal.
Number: 367 Created: 8/5/2003
[5/7/04] Repeat comment.
8/6/3: Please provide legals and exhibits and put them on disk. We can start working on
this now but the actual vacation will occur after public hearing.
From Technical Services: Streets must be vacated by Council Action.
Number: 369 Created: 8/5/2003
[5/7/04] Repeat comment. Correct the sight distance label to read "Sight Distance
Easement", not Sight Distance Triangle.
Please provide the rest of the sight distance easement by separate document.
Number: 372 Created: 8/5/2003
[5/7/04] The easement is now shown, however, please label with who owns it if not
dedicated to the city.
Show the existing power line easement along the southern property line.
Number: 445 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] From Technical Services: Please remove "PDP" from the name of the plat.
Number: 446 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] From Technical Services: The Public Access Easements must be a minimum of
12' wide.
Number: 447 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] From Technical Services: How do lots 1 A, 1 B, G, K, I, L, L, M get access?
Number: 448 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] From Technical Services: There is no building envelope detail for Lot G, Lot 1A, Lot
1 B, and the north side of Lot 0.
Number: 449 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] From Technical Services: A note refers to Lots 2 thru 11, where are lots 3 thru 11?
Page 3
Number: 462 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Handrails are required anywhere the retaining walls exceed 30".
Number: 463 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Retaining walls are shown on the west and north side of the property. Please
confirm the depth of the modular blocks and that you will not need a temporary or
permanent easement from either the RR or the property owner from the north.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 69 Created: 8/14/2001
[5/7/04] Correct the sight distance triangle label to read "Sight Distance Easement'.
8/14/1: Show all existing and proposed ROW and easements.
1/9/2: Repeat.
8/14/02: REPEAT COMMENT. Still missing all the easements, sight distance, and hawk
buffer zone.
3/31/3: REPEAT COMMENT. Please provide and label all existing and proposed ROW,
easements, and buffer zones.
8/6/3: REPEAT COMMENT. STILL missing the easement along the southern property
boundary, ROW incorrectly shown on the north side of Fossil Blvd, and need to differentiate
between the existing and proposed ROW using different line weights.
Number: 159 Created: 1 /7/2002
[5/7/04] Repeat comment.
1/7/2: Reflect the changes asked for under the General, Site and Utility Plans sections.
3/31/3: Coordinate the various plan sets so that they present the same information.
8/6/3: The Site, Landscape, and Plat were resubmitted two weeks into the 3 week review
and no longer match the utility plans. Please coordinate the plan sets so that they present
the same information.
Number: 312
[5/7/04] Repeat.
See redlines.
Created: 3/31 /2003
Number: 380 Created: 8/5/2003
(05/05/04) Repeat comment.
See Appendix E6 for scanning requirements.
Number: 457 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Remove "PDP" from the project title.
Topic: Plat
Number: 64 Created: 8/14/2001
[5/7/04] Repeat.
8/14/1: Incomplete easements and ROW shown.
1/9/2: Repeat.
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins �
LAGUNITAS REDTAIL, INC. Date: 05/10/2004
C/O JOHN PROUTY
3944 JFK PKWY #12E
FT. COLLINS, CO 80525
Staff has reviewed your submittal for REDTAIL RESIDENTIAL PDP FINAL PLAN, and we
offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: General
Number: 305 Created: 3/31 /2003
[5/7/04] Repeat comment. A retaining wall is now proposed in the 15' utility easement
along College and is not allowed without the utility company's permission.
(03/31/03) No buildings, footings, overhangs, or structures of any kind are allowed in utility
easements OR the FCLWD's exclusive sanitary sewer easement. Several areas currently
shown with buildings (residential and viewing shelter), footings, retaining walls, etc, in these
easements.
Number: 309 Created: 3/31 /2003
[5/7/04] Repeat comment.
CDOT will want to know whether or not you are increasing water into College Avenue.
Number: 377 Created: 8/5/2003
[5/7/04] Repeat comment.
The area in front of the retaining walls on the north side of Cameron Drive is
unmaintainable. Widen the sidewalk out to the wall to fill in that area with concrete.
Number: 459 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] The site and landscape plans show phasing. Are the utility plans being phased as
well? If so, the utility plans will need to reflect that.
Number: 460 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] The various plan sets need to be coordinated so that they all present the same
information. For example, some easements are shown on some plans but not on others.
Suggest preparing an exhibit with all of the easements (both on and off site) shown so that
everybody gets on the same page.
Number: 461 Created: 5/7/2004
[5/7/04] Please provide a copy of all of the recorded offsite easements by separate
document along with their reception numbers. Label the reception numbers on the plans.
Page 1