The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREDTAIL RESIDENTIAL - FDP - 26-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - (19)Be sure and return all red -lined plans if/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 221-6341. Yours Truly, AW� Steve Olt, City Planner cc: Susan Joy Dan DeLaughter Basil Hamdan North Star Design VF Ripley Current Planning file #26-01A Page 7 Number: 609 Created: 4 / 25 / 2006 [4/25/06] Sheet 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 24, 29, 29, 34, 35, 39, 40, and 41 - see redlines. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Easements Number: 597 Created: 12 / 27 / 2005 [4/ 17/06] Please provide an easement exhibit detailing all needed drainage easements. [12/27/05] Please provide all required drainage easements. Topic: Erosion and Sediment Control Comments: Number: 568 Created: 12/20/2005 [4/ 17/06] [12/20/05] Eighth Review (and Finally, the Last Review) December 20, 2005 1. Plan is OK. Topic: Flows into underground parking Number: 534 Created: 9 / 9 / 2005 [4/ 17/06] Please extend pipe to show how drainage ties to underground parking facility near Building N. [9 / 9 / 05] Please show and explain how the flows from ramps leading to the underground garages will be handled. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 598 Created: 12/27/2005 [4/ 17/06] [ 12 / 27 / 05] Please move the trees on the north and south side of Cameron Drive to provide 10 feet of clearance from the box culvert crossing. Topic: Storm Lines 3 and 4 Number: 599 Created: 12 / 27 / 2005 [4/ 17/06] Please provide a detail for the collar that would be placed on storm lines 3 and 4 as they cross the proposed retaining walls. Please reference such a detail on the utility plans. 112/27/05] It appears that the weight of the retaining wall will be bearing on the pipe. Please provide a design that will prevent the storm line from bearing the weight of the retaining wall. Page 6 Number: 616 Created: 4 / 26 / 2006 [4/26/061 Please return the plat redlines with the next submittal. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: Technical Services Number: 591 Created: 12 / 21 / 2005 [4/21/06] 1. Boundary and legal close but do not match, see redlines. 2. Block boundaries - see comment from 12 / 21 / 05. Block, Lot and Tract naming convention is still inconsistent. 3. Define "Sign Easement". 4. Remove the note about easement vacations - the city will not need to sign that. 5. Show vacated streets (dashed line) and city ordinance number. [ 12 / 21 / 05] 1. Boundary and legal close 2. Plat needs 2 notes: Vacating existing easements from existing plat, and Stating the city ordinance that vacates existing streets. 3. Vacation note on plat is wrong. 4. If using blocks, need to separate blocks w/ line type. 5. Lot and Tract numbering, naming could use work- confusing 6. Each block should stand alone- lots in that block start with the first number or letter (Blk l,.lot A, Blk 2, lot A). In other words, don't just continue the lettering across different blocks. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Utility Plans Number: 546 Created: 9 / 29 / 2005 [4 / 21 / 061 Please use grey scale for existing and dark line weights for proposed. Please correct plan sheets and legend. [ 12 / 21 / 05] Legend line type does not match what is shown on plans. [9 / 29 / 05] Please add a phase line to the legend. Number: 607 Created: 4/ 25/ 2006 [4/25/061 Sheet 3 - 5: Need to show phasing if the demo is being phased too. See comment 605 regarding phasing also. Number: 608 Created: 4/ 25/ 2006 [4/25/061 Sheet 6 and where applicable: Remove note 22 on all sheets. Note 18 doesn't match the tract table on the plat. Looks like the 12' access easement layer was accidentally turned off, needs to be shown (the plat does not have an access easement on this tract). Also, the storm sewer pipe 1-1 shown entering the newly proposed pool deck needs to be completed on this sheet, the storm plan & profile sheet, and all other applicable sheets. Will it have an inlet to drain any water that enters the parking garage, etc? Page 5 [5/7/04] Repeat. 8/ 14/ 1: Incomplete easements and ROW shown. 1/9/2: Repeat. 8/ 14/2: Third request. 3/31/3: REPEAT COMMENT Number: 545 Created: 9 / 29 / 2005 [4/21/06] Drainage and access easements need to be dedicated to the city. Comment below still applies. [9 /,29 / 05] Sight distance and drainage easements need to be dedicated to the city and the offsite portions of these easements need to be redone, resigned, and re -recorded. Topic: Site Plan Number: 379 Created: 8 / 5 / 2003 [4/21/061 The grey scale used is too light to scan. Please darken slightly to meet minimum requirements in Appendix E6. [12/21/051 Some lines still look too light. [9/ 13/05] Please see JR in Tech Services. [2/2/05] [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: 536 Created: 9 / 13/ 2005 [4 / 21 / 06] [9 / 13 / 05] Please show the complete sight distance triangle including the piece on the Woodley's property. Number: 601 Created: 4 / 21 / 2006 [4/21/061 Need to coordinate the easements with the plat so that all plan sets show the same information. Number: 604 Created: 4 / 21 / 2006 [4/21/061 Label/show what is happening on the south side of building N. The utility plans are showing a pool and a type of deck structure from what I can tell. Topic: Site/Lanctscape Number: 606 Created: 4 / 25 / 2006 [4/25/06] Please include the College Avenue/Cameron Drive intersection and see comment 605 regarding phasing. Topic: Technical Services Number: 615 Created: 4 / 26 / 2006 [4/26/06] Please see Tech Services regarding plat comments. Page 4 Number: 593 Created: 12 / 22 / 2005 [4/21/061 [12/22/051 FYI: Transportation Development Review fees are effective 01 / 01 / 06, and would apply to any easement or ROW dedications and vacations not received by that date. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 380 Created: 8 / 5 / 2003 [4/21/06] [9/ 13/05] [2/2/05] (05/05/04) Repeat comment. Please see Tech Services before resubmitting plans to make sure that plans are scannable. See Appendix E6 for scanning requirements. Number: 538 Created: 9/ 13/2005 [4/21/061 Repeat comment. Please match the utility plans. [9/ 13/05] Cameron Drive, north side - the sidewalk is attached here to widen it out in front of the parapet walls. Please remove the landscaping and match the utility plans. Number: 539 Created: 9/ 13/2005 [4/21/06] [9/ 13/05] Show the ENTIRE sight distance easement offsite. Number: 602 Created: 4 / 21 / 2006 [4/21/06] Need to coordinate the easements with the plat so that all plan sets show the same information. Number: 603 Created: 4 / 21 / 2006 [4/21/06] Label/show what is happening on the south side of building N. The utility plans are showing a pool and a type of deck structure from what I can tell. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 594 Created: 12 / 22 / 2005 [4/21/061 Please add Conejos to sheet 6 of 9. [12/22/05] Please add street names for all sheets on landscape plan. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Plat Number: 64 Created: 8/ 14/2001 [4/21/06] [9/ 13/05] All easements dedicated by separate document that must be dedicated to the city (Sight Distance, Drainage) will need to be brought through the city's acceptance process and be re -recorded. The reception numbers will change. Page 3 Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: CDOT Permit Number: 512 Created: 2/ 14/2005 [4 / 21 / 06] [9 / 13 / 05] Just keeping the comment alive. [2 / 14 J 0.5j,. CDOT Permit; required for the work done in College. Please submif "the app''1]catifrectly to Gloria at CDOT with an approved set of plans. Topic: General Number: 165 Created: 1 / 7/ 2002 [4 / 21 / 06] Kaye and I went through the easements together and found 3 more that need to be dedicated to the city. She is in the process of getting those documents to along with $250 per dedication. [9/ 13/05] I have received the information below and have it under review. I will get back to you shortly. [2 / 11 / 05] Still waiting for all offsite easements, legals, reception numbers. An email was sent to North Star Design on January 1 lth outlining the row vacation process and what needed to be turned in. Still waiting for all appropriate documents. See comment 226 as well as others. 1 / 7/ 02 Easements provided are on the wrong form. Please see attached. Number: 605 Created: 4/ 25/ 2006 [4/25/06] The College intersection improvements will be required with the first phase and the plan sets need to reflect that. Right now the plans have it in neither. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Dan DeLaughter Topic: General Number: 569 Created: 12 / 21 / 2005 [4/25/06] [12/21/05] Sheet 6: Provide reception # for grading easement if existing. If not existing, provide easement with mylars. Number: 570 Created: 12 / 21 / 2005 [4/25/06] The drainage easement vacation has been corrected; however, the tract table on the plat doesn't match the other plan sets. [12/21/05] Several easements do not match up with what is shown on the plat: refer to redlines. (5'/ 10' drainage easement, portion of vacated sewer easement) Number: 574 Created: 12 / 21 / 2005 [4/ 21 / 06] [ 12 / 21 / 05] Provide reception #s for all existing easements, and easement documents with mylars for any dedicated by separate document. Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins Lagunitas Redtail, Inc. Date: 05/01/2006 c/o John Prouty F.J. 4-6*,� 3944 JFK Parkway, # 12E Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for REDTAIL RESIDENTIAL - FINAL PLANS, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Building Floor Elevations Number: 613 Created: 4 / 25 / 2006 [4/25/06] Is this the first time City staff has seen building elevations for the Townhome Buildings A - F? No other elevations for those buildings are in the Final Compliance project file. Topic: Site Plan Number: 610 Created: 4 / 25 / 2006 [4/25/06] For the first time ever, on any of the plans, there is now an "optional pool" shown on the Site Plan. There are potential impacts of this pool that have not been evaluated because no information has previously been, nor is now, provided. It appears that the Site Plan is the only place where it is shown. The Site Plan cannot be approved and recorded as such. As a minimum, it would have affects on the retaining walls and some landscaped areas. Number: 611 Created: 4 / 25 / 2006 [4/25/06] A Maximum building Height of 43'-8" is shown as General Note 2 on the Site Plan. Has the required Special Height Review for buildings over 40' been submitted, reviewed, and approved? Number: 612 Created: 4/ 25/ 2006 [4/25/06] The construction schedule shown in General Note 7 on the Site Plan, to begin summer 2005 and complete winter 2006, is no longer possible or valid and should be changed. Number: 614 Created: 4/25/2006 [4/25/06] General Note 16 should be removed from the Site Plan. The retaining walls have been designed. Page 1 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins Lagunitas Redtail, Inc. Date: 05 / 01 / 2006 c/o John Prouty 3944 JFK Parkway, # 12E Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for REDTAIL RESIDENTIAL - FINAL PLANS, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Building Floor Elevations Number: 613 Created: 4 / 25 / 2006 [4/25/061 Is this the first time City staff has seen building elevations for the Townhome Buildings A - F? No other elevations for those buildings are in the Final Compliance project file. Topic: Site Plan Number: 610 Created: 4 / 25 / 2006 [4/25/06] For the first time ever, on any of the plans, there is now an "optional pool" shown on the Site Plan. There are potential impacts of this pool that have not been evaluated because no information has previously been, nor is now, provided. It appears that the Site Plan is the only place where it is shown. The Site Plan cannot be approved and recorded as such. As a minimum, it would have affects on the retaining walls and some landscaped areas. Number: 611 Created: 4 / 25 / 2006 [4/25/06] A Maximum building Height of 43'-8" is shown as General Note 2 on the Site Plan. Has the required Special Height Review for buildings over 40' been submitted, reviewed, and approved? Number: 612 Created: 4 / 25 / 2006 [4/25/061 The construction schedule shown in General Note 7 on the Site Plan, to begin summer 2005 and complete winter 2006, is no longer possible or valid and should be changed. Number: 614 Created: 4 / 25 / 2006 [4/25/06] General Note 16 should be removed from the Site Plan. The retaining walls have been designed. Page 1