Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD TOWN NORTH - FDP - 28-99C - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: May 17, 2001 TO: �foc 1 loml mew cAuf pfo�+ PROJECT: #28-99B Old Town North — Project Development Plan - TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: sup May 30, 2001 No Comment D. -Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** /1"7 Row -( �4eEo S I Eb--r t/4Sc-Airi..JJT 011aT6r 6,43 6,4 A ar r>-t cr n. T r s (Ji.! - I Cc.4 T ,4 1? /s /T 1a /�cr .SF4uw W fFAr lAAr C C /2��c,r.uo Raw /S E Xo!7-/A✓7 9 tikIAr �AAr- /I Meg j. � C v #eVE l3a /A MI s 11 N/C -Xr S/ iTc= /5 To-50rn4L,4 7a ��-�RaDucts (2GulU 4— r= D. Zo ? 1)TeK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVIS100ig ature: ,t'lat Site _ Drainage Report _ Other _ Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape �- City of Fort Collins ,,,>..., ,,. PROJECk 1 COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: January 10, 2002 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #28-99C Old Town North Final Compliance - Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff review meeting: February 6, 2002 Note - Please identify vour redlines for future reference _ 710, 4.A T S;._,� f 5- �4S l�v�a_ egSFnn��� Gavt �� 4- c.0 Y ct (. M L� St Go c��d��SSE�• J a,a l �t 7 Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other City of F�rt C _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 19, 2002 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #28-99A Old Town North PDP - Type .II (LUC) All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff review meetiner: April 10, 2002 No Comment ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** 1. GEGAL � c3vuND.+r�2y GoysE, , Row 311 0, ? We Skew Z5. N5vke Qt- - Goy, P�tS �ro qQ? 30I �e� KGB Fe►uq�7-Sl '—�.. (�ur2 ��GS SAY Ltirfc ti`v r� 4Ny rCi?rtc�. ar= A �S S!-fc::.t;^%� 'j'Hz✓ 57t3.�c-T 1�+�!%Vn:, i11Js� St-l�i.v c:., 'j t-{tir Si-�TuT � r IOC' 6'LtCiC-Z� �` LL� }'��vtQ�l�'ti� is 61,1 L✓J < c.te� � �b-� Z�kvY Ct C, die.C. �e S _� t li`S cL a , Date: Signature:_ CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS -Xlat _ Site _ Drainage Report _ Other Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape Fort possible to their existing sidewalk, if not, then work with City Engineering to determine a revised cross-section for striping the new improvements to Vine Drive. Department: Water Wastewater Topic: General Issue Contact: Jeff Hill 13 6/01/01 The City of Fort Collins Utilities standards require an 18-inch minimum separation between existing water/sewer lines and all storm sewers/box culverts. Per our previous meeting, please provide details of how this sanitary sewer and storm sewer conflict may be resolved. Provide details which will show that the existing/proposed pipe will not be located in the flow of the canal and that the proposed box culvert will not bare on the existing/proposed pipe. 16 4/15/02 Repeat comment, As previously indicated, provide complete details for all water main lowerings. 21 6/01/01 Several master utility plan notes located on sheet 7 do not correspond to items found the overall utility plans sheets. Please provide a quality review check of the plans prior to resubmittal. 2/13/02 Repeat Comment. 4/15/02 Repeat Comment. 43 4/15/02 Repeat, Repeat Comment; As previously indicated provide concrete encasement of all sewer mains (storm and sanitary) which cross above or within 18-inches vertically of water lines. 44 See utility, landscape and site plans for other comments. 54 4/15/02 Repeat Comment; Is the existing 12-inch water main to be lowered to accommodate the proposed box culvert? Provide all information necessary for the construction (i.e. sizing of gravity blocks, rebar, etc). Clearly define all connections on the existing and proposed 12-inch water main. 4/15/02 Due to the new12-inch water main alignment a air relief manhole will be required at the intersection of future Redwood and Cajetan (Include standard air relief valve detail on the detail sheet). Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any 9uestions regarding these issues feel free to call eat (970) 221-6750. Y urs Truly, i T CO City lann r or any other issues related to this project, please Page 9 196 The Drainage report is not consistent with Northern's report regarding the release rate of the detention pond. Please clarify. 217 It is unclear if there is enough retention in the pond to account for the use of a pump. There is only about .2 ac-ft of retention to the 100-year WSEL once you minus out the detention and WO volume. 218 Please clarify which storm sewers will be built with phase 1 and only include in the plan set the storm sewers to be built with this phase. Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control 192 1. Please put a note on the erosion control plan (Sheet 79) indicating where the erosion control notes and BMP details are located. 2. The silt fence directs storm flows down the two streets (Redwood and Jerome) and out onto Vine. Another BMP should be utilized to prevent this from happening. 3. Where is Appendix 11? Topic: Floodplain 219 1. Delete the Poudre River 500-year from the plat and plans. Adjust labeling of lines per Floodplain Plan (Sheet 66). Verify that lines on plat match those on Sheet 66. Repeat - 4/15/02 2. Sheet 66 - Fill is not allowed in the floodway. There appear to be several locations where fill is being placed in the floodway. Please review and revise as necessary. The following locations appear to be filling in the floodway: ? Culvert just east of future Redwood St. Repeat Comment - 4/15/02. All other locations that had fill are now ok. 5. Please include the table headings at the top of all tables on sheet 68. Repeat - 4/15/02 9. Drainage Report - please include a copy of the FEMA FIRM panel with the site location marked. Repeat - 4/15/02 Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford Topic: General 190 After doing some analysis of the future levels of service for Vine, Traffic is ok with the Old Towne North project not constructing the right and left turn lanes at future Jerome. The development still has the responsibility for the improvements, but the City's Traffic department is acceptable with the development providing the estimated costs for the improvements, in -lieu of constructing them. An estimate of the costs should be performed by the Developer and be submitted to the appropriate person in the City's Engineering department for review and approval, prior to final approval of the development plans. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Kathleen Reavis Topic: utility plans 184 Finalize plans for pedestrian connection between the Old Town North site and North College Avenue with Sheri Wamhoff of the City's Engineering dept. Work with Mister Money to see if ped easement is Pa,-e 8 2/13/02 Repeat Comment. 4/15/02 Repeat Comment. 32 6/18/01 Please include additional storage -discharge points on the pond -rating curve to reflect the spillway discharge in the report and on the plans. 2/13/02 Repeat Comment. 4/15/02 Repeat Comment - Also need storage -discharge point for the 100-year WSEL. Topic: Drainage 49 Please provide the HGL for all storm sewer lines on the profiles. The assumed HGL at the Lake Canal should be the WSEL at 150 cfs. Repeat Comment - 4/15/02 50 For the 310.4 cfs flowing in the Lake Canal during an overflow scenario, the wier that was sized for this flow is down stream from where the spill from the detention pond would take place. Can Lake Canal and the Box Culvert handle this flow between these two points. Please provide calculations/cross-sections for this area. 4/15/02 - For this comment, the only thing that has to be done is show that the flow will not flood any structures just south of the canal. The canal does not have to carry the full 310 cfs. 186 Please provide street calculations for the 2-year storm at design points 4 and 5. Only the major storm is included. 187 Please provide hydrology calculations for design point 8 and compare with street capacities. They were missing in the drainage report. 188 Please label all drainage features of the drainage plan. The curb depression and valley pan at design point 9 is one example of not being labeled. 191 Please see plat regarding a conflict of easement width between the drainage report alley calculations and the plat. 193 In Northern Engineering Services report, the justification for the variance of the release rate for the detention pond is not adequate. There needs to be more of a substantial reason for the variance. Would releasing at the designated release rate cause many lots to be lost, etc? The site restrictions are due to the site layout, design and number of lots? If a couple of lots were lost, then it may be warranted to still release at the master plan release rate. 194 Please provide a detail for the box culvert/sanitary sewer crossing as discussed in the meeting with City Staff. 195 In Northern Engineerings' report, the rating curve does not incorporate the spillway at an elevation of 60.55. Please revise. Page 7 166 Details - Provide an asphalt sidewalk section. Is this sidewalk have a slope, what is the pavement thickness are there any design detail that need to be shown? 4/16/2002 Repeat 203 Show the emergency access as a part of phase 1. 204 Add a note that the barricade is to be put in place once the emergency access easement is not longer needed. Add to overall utility plan and Jerome St. plan and profile. 207 Widen out Jerome as discussed. 208 Alley Y needs to connect out. Need to provide a paved connection from the alley out to a public street. This connection can be within the row or can go across the lots. A connection is needed in order for the lots that take access from this alley to be developed. Show how this is to be done on the plan and profile sheets, detail sheets and grading sheets. This connection needs to comply w/ stormwater criteria. This is the first time this non connection was shown. 210 Osiander - need to get the sidewalk put in place and as much curb and gutter as possible adjacent to lot 20 block 9. Need to have a finished edge in order to develop this lot. Don't need to put in the pavement that can be escrowed. This curb, gutter and sidewalk was previously shown being installed, this is the first time this has been shown this way. 212 Storm line A appears to be off the property boundary - on sheet 41 - where is the property line? Need to provide an easement for this if it is out side of the property boundary. Could also move the line onto the property and provide an easement for it there. 215 Still need some information to verify that off site easements are not needed for the drainage pipe on the east side of the site. Per my review of the information provided two small easements are still needed here. 216 Variances are under review 220 Major items still of issue at this time are: 1. Sidewalk connection out to College. Can this be accomplished across the Mr. Money site? 2. Off site easements needed. All offsite easements will be needed in final format prior to acceptance of mylars. A. 1 utility or drainage easement on the west side for the stromdrain pipe. B. 2 drainage easements on the east side for the culvert construction and for the connection of the stormdrain pipe into the canal structure. C. Temporary emergency access easement. D. Temporary pedestrian access easement for sidewalk connection to college. 3. Alley Y connection to a street if the lots being served by it are to be developed. 4. What lot frontage improvements can be made adjacent to lot 20 block 9. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque 27 6/18/01 Please revise the pond rating curve to reflect the new WSEL and spillway elevation and make sure the report is consistent with Northern Engineering's report. Page 6 88 Are their any utility easements that are needed adjacent to Jerome that need to be dedicated by separate document in order to get utilities to the site. 4/16/2002 Repeat 91 See additional comments on the plans. 4/16/2002 Repeat 197 Provide easements around the right-of-way stubs. No longer showing the row being platted to the west property boundary for Cajetan and Pascal. Without the row need easements in place for utilities to use if needed to serve this development. 198 Need to indicate that it is just the private easement that is a recorded easement and that somebody would need to see that document for the ownership description of the private easement. The public easements would need to be dedicated on the plat. 199 Need to show the off -site emergency access easement and indicate that it is to be dedicated by separate document. 200 Missing lines for the temporary emergency access easement within the property boundaries. 201 Tract b needs to be an access easement. Repeat comment on plans 202 Need to provide a drainage easement for the storm drain pipe at the SW corner of the property. It appears that this pipe is outside of the property boundary. Provide easements and /or move the pipe onto this property. Topic: Site Plan 56 What are the lots with only alley frontage for? What is to be on these lots? If they are garages for other lots how are they going to be tied to the other lots? How are you identifying that the G lots are associated with the other lots and can not be sold separately and are for garage use only. Don't see anything on the site plan or the plat discussing parcel links. Add the same note that is to be on the plat onto the site plan. All G lots are to be sold with the same numbered lot, no G lot shall be sold separately. Garage lots are for garages only no dwelling units can be provided on these lots. 4/16/2002 Repeat Didn't see any notes reflecting the tie between these lots on the plans. Topic: utility plans 161 Grading plans - Show all locations of rip -rap that were identified at the end of street improvements to protect the street end from undermining. 4/16/2002 Repeat 162 Details - Make changes to alley approach. detail. 4/16/2002 Repeat 165 Details - Need an outfall curb and gutter detail with a 2 foot pan for where the curb transitions out to outfall at the x-pans. 4/16/2002 Repeat Page 5 150 Alleys general - Provide radius information for all curves including pavement edges. 4/16/2002 Repeat 151 Curb return profiles - Have a few places where things do not match the plan profile sheets. 4/16/2002 Repeat 152 Curb return profiles - Missing curb return information for: Blonde] and re -aligned Vine and Redwood and Cajetan. 4/16/2002 Repeat 205 Redwood - add notes - Tie bike path to street sidewalk. Type III barricade with phase 1 construction. End phase 1 street construction. Repeat comment on plans 206 Interim redwood - a 2-foot patch will not meet standards. Just note that a patch to standards will be needed. Patch was not previously labeled. 209 Blondel - show how the end of improvements ties into existing grades. 211 Off -site Cajetan and Pascal - Add preliminary not for construction to the plans. This was on the sheets originally. 213 Alley L - need to show how the end of improvements tie into existing grade. What is the temporary turnaround to be, asphalt, rd base? Repeat comment on plans 214 Alley plan profiles - Add B1 to the legend. This is a new easement that was not a part of the plat or plans previously. Topic: Plat 72 Need to identify who is to own the private access easements. Easiest might be to reference the reception number for the filed document that contains the explanation. Monica said she had a three - page document that explained the easement that will need to be filed at the county. This should be filed and the document referenced on the plat by its reception number. 4/16/2002 Repeat 78 Need to show the off -site easements that are needed and indicate that they are to be provided by separate document. 4/16/2002 Repeat 79 How are you identifying that the G lots are associated with the other lots and can not be sold separately and are for garage use only? - Add to note #7 All G lots are to be sold with the same numbered lot, no G lot shall be sold separately. Garage lots are for garages only no dwelling units can be provided on these lots. 4/16/2002 Repeat We discussed this make changes as discussed. Page 4 Indicate the material, min slope and direction of slope for all parking spaces located adjacent to the alleys. Is the double line curbing? If so it needs to drop to a 0" curb height at its intersection with the alley. 4/16/2002 Repeat Topic: Phasing plan 97 Need to show that the off site sidewalk is to be build as a part of Phase 1. Also need to include the path connection and ultimate redwood street work within Phase 1. 4/16/2002 Repeat 98 Provide a design for the offsite sidewalk connection to college. Need something that shows where it is to be located and what elevations it is to be at. Will need easements for this if it is not constructed in the existing row. 4/16/2002 Repeat Topic: plan and profile sheets 103 General - Have several locations where the elevations shown on the plan and profile'sheet do not match the detail sheets 4/16/2002 Repeat 107 Redwood street - Remove 'for reference only' this plan is not for reference only - this project is responsible for the construction of a portion of this street. 4/16/2002 Repeat 116 Interim redwood Add a note so that it is clear that the path connection to the north is to occur regardless of whether interim or ultimate phase 1 improvements are constructed. 4/16/2002 Repeat 118 Jerome - Add note about the fence and gate setback at the outparcel. 4/16/2002 Repeat 121 Jerome - Show the barricades across Pascal and Cajetan being located right behind the cross -pan as this is where we want them located and they will place them where you show them. 4/16/2002 Repeat 123 Jerome - Provide a detail of the depressed curbing. What does this look like? 4/16/2002 Repeat 126 Blondel - Need to provide curb return information for the connection with re -aligned vine. 4/16/2002 Repeat 134 Baum - Provide a note indicating that the sidewalk and the ramp on the north side are future. 4/16/2002 Repeat 145 Alley K- Identify the sta where the valley pan depression is to occur. 4/16/2002 Repeat Page 3 4/16/2002 Technical Services still has many problems with the plat. See their latest handwritten, sheet. Topic: Site Plan 181 In accordance with the CDP comments, the portion of this PDP that abuts the future realigned drive will need to have street trees. Such street trees are the responsibility of this PDP. Coordinate with Sheri Wamhoff about how this will be arranged in the Development Agreement Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff Topic: box culverts 185 Provide copies of structural calculations for our files with the submittal 4/16/2002 Repeat Topic: General 55 Variance has been received for Redwood Street and is under consideration. 4/16/2002 Repeat 92 The culvert work under Redwood can not be done until the condemnation for the property is complete and the City and/ or Monica owns the property. The timing of this may not work for the applicants schedule therefore we talked about providing a temporary second point of access until this construction work can be done. If this is to be done a plan showing the design, location and grading (if any) needs to be provided with this set of plans. A temporary emergency access easement is needed for the location of this drive on site and offsite if it is not within existing row and/ or an existing emergency access easement. All easements by separate document need to be signed, in acceptable format and received prior to acceptance of mylars for signature. 4/16/2002 Repeat 93 Need easements for all grading and construction work that is outside the platted boundaries and not within the existing row. All easements by separate document need to be signed, in acceptable format and received prior to acceptance of mylars for signature. 4/16/2002 Repeat 96 See additional comments on the plans 4/16/2002 Repeat Topic: Intersection details - 153 `Provide information requested on Plans.. 4/16/2002 Repeat 154 Missing some transition elevations and locations. 4/16/2002 Repeat 155 Add a note regarding transition elevation and where it is measured from. The notes in your response letter were not added to the sheets. They would be fine once added to the sheets. 4/16/2002 Repeat 157 For cross pans not located at a 4 legged intersection need to identify what portion of the curb is to be outfall and where the transitions occur and over what distance they occur. Need to provide a detail for an ouff all curb and gutter with a 2-foot gutter. Then verify that these now work and that a low spot is not created. 4/16/2002 Repeat 158 Alley intersection details - Page 2 �_ STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Cityof Fort Collins BHA Design Date: 04/17/2002 4803 Innovation Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff has reviewed your submittal for OLD TOWN NORTH, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FC & MODIFICATIONS OF STANDARDS, #28-99A & 28-99C, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Troy Jones Topic: General 189 Please note in comment #190 how the Traffic Operations department would like to resolve the issue of the left turn lane on Jerome. 221 This submittal was the first time we have seen detailed grading information. The Stormwater Department has indicated to me that the detention pond capacity is far less than what it needs to be, and that loosing a few lots to increase the size of the detention pond may be one of the only viable solutions. To that end, if it turns out that the only way to solve this stormwater comment is to loose a few lots, lots 19 through 21 of Block 5 and/or lots 34 and 35 of block 5 may be the best ones to eliminate from a site planning standpoint. Note that in comment #176 from the previous round of review I stated "Be aware that because the next round of review will be the first time we see the detailed grading, if there are substantial problems discovered with that grading information, this may require the need for an additional round of review." There are substantial problems! The capacity of the detention area is too small. This cannot be construed to be a new comment, and it is not the fault of City Staff that this issue has come up so late in the review process. This comment is a direct result of the decision to redesign the grading after the hearing, and to wait until this round of review to provide detailed grading information. 222 The proposed construction phasing lines have changed since last round of plans (dated January 2002). Where the plans previously showed Alley M connecting with Osiander Street, and Alley Y connecting to Blondel Street, this latest submittal has neither alley connecting where they previously had been shown to connect. In both cases, this may affect the ability for the end lot of the row of four single-family attached lots [lots 17-20 of block 2 and lots 17-20 of block 10] to be constructed in this phase. The alleys cannot be dead-end [3.6.2(C)], so temporary access drives would need to connect the end of those alleys out to the street. This comment is only based on changes made by the applicant since the last time we reviewed the plans. 223 Please see Current Planning redlines on sheet 1 of 6. 1 have discovered the need to remove one of the signature blocks and to add a general note. Topic: Plat 182 2/15/2002 See the Technical Services handwritten comment sheet. There are many problems with the plat from their perspective. Page 1