HomeMy WebLinkAboutJFK SENIOR APTS. - PDP - 61-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - (6)I
6. For the proposed condition, please show the development of the pond 488 rating
curve from the EXTRAN results.
RESPONSE:
7. Please include the discussion regarding the regional analysis and variance request
with the next submittal.
RESPONSE:
Erosion/Sediment Control Comments
Previous Comments
The erosion control report begins on page 10, not page 11 as stated in the table of
contents.
2. The report uses $500/acre as a reseeding cost; this should be $655/acre (as of Nov. 1,
1998). Also, the reseeding estimate is for 1.1 acres, it should be for the entire site, or
2.71 acres. The cost estimate for individual erosion control BMP's doesn't include
straw mulch, the EFF calculations so. Please add this to your cost estimate.
3. The plan needs standard erosion control notes and a project schedule. There should
also be a reference indicating the location in the plans of the erosion/sediment control
BMP details.
4. EFF calculations include straw mulching, there should be a note on the plan
indicating this is to be done, and where.
5. The pond has symbols indicating both straw bales and a sediment trap at the outlet.
Only one is necessary, the sediment trap (gravel filter per our standard drawings) is
appropriate.
Current Comments
1. The erosion control report begins on page 8, not page 11 as noted in your table of
contents.
RESPONSE:
31
JFKSrApts-2.doc
2. None of the previous comments have been addressed.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the redline plans and report for additional review comments.
JFKSrApts-2.doc
N
r
Utility Plan Comments:
Cover Sheet; Sheet 1 of 9:
❑ Minor revisions to the "General Notes".
Final Plat for JFK Senior Apartments:
❑ There is new plat language for The City of Fort Collins that shall be used for all projects
currently in the system. I have enclosed a copy of the new plat language for reference.
❑ The County Clerk's Certificate should be deleted.
Overall Utility Plan and Water Plan; Sheet 4 of 9:
❑ Please label and show the enhanced crosswalks. Also, reference the enhanced crosswalk
detail shown on sheet 9 of 9.
❑ Please show both driveways to be constructed with concrete within the R.O. W per
1.02.12(b)(4).of the Street Design Manual.
❑ Please label and show the access ramps at the driveways.
❑ Please label the removal and reconstruction of all curb and gutter, and sidewalk. Also what
is to be done with existing access point on JFK Parkway. Show the removal of the existing
access.
❑ There is an existing gap in the sidewalk just south of the intersection along JFK Parkway.
Please indicate the location of the gap and show sidewalk to be constructed.
❑ Please show the access for the Parkway townhomes across JFK Parkway.
Grading Plan; Sheet 5 of 9:
❑ The minimum grade on a cross pan at the flowline of the pan is 0.6% per 1.02.03.12(c) of the
Street Design Manual. The southern access does not meet this requirement.
Details; Sheet 9 of 9:
❑ .Please show the following details:
1. Show appropriate access ramp detail, D-12.1 -- D-12.7.
.2. Asphalt Paving Detail, D-25
3. Sidewalk repair detail
4. Sidewalk transition detail
❑ Please show complete cross section for the driveway detail as it is shown in the typical
driveway detail, D-15.
Ct NTcn vriouu? LSE mw6wup re ocmawr
R.%c"%Q&TV ► ccram CTDt . i- &%^0eLWSa 11 M. 3 pAwE Q
F
,-
DATE: March 10, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #61-98 JFK Senior Apartments-PDP-Type 1I
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, March 31, 1999
❑ No Problems
® Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
All Plans and Supplements Included:
1. Utility Plan
2. Site Plan
3. Landscape Plan
4. "New Plat Language" Handout
General Comments:
❑ See redlined comments on all sheets of the utility, site, and landscape plans. More specific
comments will be mentioned below.
(Comments cont. on the next page)
Date: 313//9f Signature:
Please send copies
of marked revisions
'C Plat X Site .
XUtility KLandscape NO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS
City of Fort Collins
10. Because flow is being released undetained from the site, the street capacities in JFK
Parkway should be assessed. Please provide calculations and documentation that
indicate street capacities are not exceeded downstream of the site. Also, please show
inlet and storm sewer calculations that show the downstream system is properly sized.
RESPONSE:
SWMM Comments
1. The results from the existing condition EXTRAN shows a local minimum for the
outflow hydrograph of the Harmony Centre Pond. The outflow hydrograph should be
smoothed to eliminate the local minimum when developing the rating curve for
SWMM. Please revise the SWMM rating curve to reflect the smoothed EXTRAN
results. Please contact Donnie Dustin (416-2053) if you have any questions regarding
this comment.
RESPONSE:
2. Please include the schematic for the EXTRAN.
RESPONSE:
3. The EXTRAN User's Manual recommends inflow hydrographs be run for one hour at
0 cfs before the actual hydrographs begin. Please revise the inflow hydrographs to
include this 1-hour at 0 cfs.
RESPONSE:
4. The inflow hydrograph from node 586 for the existing condition EXTRAN does not
match the SWMM output. Please verify the EXTRAN inflow hydrographs with the
SWMM output.
RESPONSE:
5. Points on the pond 488 rating curve used in SWMM do not match the rating curve
developed from the EXTRAN results. Please verify the SWMM rating curve with.the
rating curve calculations.
RESPONSE:
JFKSrApts-2.doc
3. Please provide a drainage summary table on the drainage plan.
RESPONSE:
4. Please update Section 3.2 of the text in the report to match the current plans.
RESPONSE:
5. Please provide a cross-section of the Swale that runs between current design points 2
and 3. This swale comes close to an adjacent building. It is recommended the swale
be moved away from the building to prevent flooding.
RESPONSE:
6. The current rational method calculations appear to match those of the previous
calculations, although the hydrology at the site has changed. Please update the
hydrology calculations to reflect the new site configuration. Use the updated flow
rates in the other calculations in the report (e.g., swales, inlets, etc.).
RESPONSE:
7. Please show that all swales at the site have adequate freeboard (1.33 * Qloo) and
include this information on the drainage plan. In addition, please show that the 100-
year WSEL of the swales don't. exceed the 1 foot freeboard requirement for buildings.
RESPONSE:
8. Please describe each UDINLET printout and relate it to the drainage plan (see redline
plans). In addition, there appears to be several 4' curb openings modeled, yet there
are only 2' curb cuts at the site. Please use the correct data.
RESPONSE:
9. Swale A -A has a slope of less than 2%, which can impede flows. Please install a
trickle.pan in this swale to cant' nuisance flows.
RESPONSE:
M
JFKSrApts-2.doc
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: Stormwater
PROJECT: #61-98 JFK Senior Apartments — PDP — Type II -
(LUC)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, March 31, 1999
❑ No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
to the redline comments in the report and plans.
Please provide written responses next he review process and making it more efficient. Thank You.
This will help in speeding
h the removal of the on -site detention pond, there are no longer water quality
1. With rovide water quality facilities at the site.
measurements at the site. Please p
RESPONSE:
sump condition) inlet on Troutman Parkway
tans the existing ( ro ect interfere
2. Please show in the p Will any of the flow enter
that is near the northeast corner of the site. Will the north entrance top
with this inlet? What will happen if this inlet is clogged?
the site? Please address these concerns and document it in the report.
RESPONSE:
Date:
CC. Sfcv�MavkQ'W("n
CHECg AEftE ff YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat site Dmiw Report i 0&u VULV i
UtEity Redme Unity �[ Leodscape V'Am6am � f 02
DATE: March 10, 1999 DEPT: Water/Wastewater
PROJECT: #61-98 JFK Senior Apartment — PDP — Type II
(LUC)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, March 31, 1999
➢ Coordinate landscape design with civil design and provide required landscape/utility
separation distances. Provide notes pertaining to landscape/utility separation distance and
locates on all sheets of landscape plans.
➢ Provide a minimum of 5-feet of separation between outside wall of meter pit and building.
➢ Eliminate all unnecessary fittings and thrust blocks on water mains.
➢ Provide utility easements for all fire hydrants and curb stops on plat.
➢ Will curbstop and meter pit locations create conflicts with other utilities?
➢ See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments.
J
Date: Signature:
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
X Plat X Site _ Drainage Report _Other
X Utility X Redline Utility X Landscape
City of Fort Collins
�— to, —a
-4'- R I
T r y _ s
r r ro
r r
FRONT FRONT
f"=f0' f"=f0'
mow.-T'U�.1_ 12-�t9U�G�c�
Plants and Design
❑ 4. To the extent practical, plants with similar water requirements shall be grouped together on the
same irrigation zones.
❑ 5. The landscape shall be designed with efficient irrigation layout in mind. For example, the
dimensions of turfgrass areas should be in multiples of the radius of throw of the specified
sprinklers, and the geometry is such that overspray is minimized.
❑ 6. Steep grades shall be minimized. Where steep grades are necessary, the landscape shall be
designed to minimize water runoff and to take advantage of the water that does run off.
❑ 7. Where south -facing berms of 25% slope or greater exist, the plants used should be lower water -
requiring species.
❑ 8. Narrow landscaped strips (less than 8' wide) shall be minimized. Where necessary, such as
between sidewalk and street, they should be planted with lower water -requiring plant species.
City of Fort Collins
Project Name:
Date of Review:
Reviewed By:
Water Uti es
Stormwater • Water • Wastewater
Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes
COMMENT SHEET
J>= K Sig,
Laurie D'Audney, Utility Education Specialist, 221-6877
I have reviewed this landscape plan and it does not comply with the standards marked below.
Landscape Plan Requirements
❑ 1. The landscape plan shall contain a general note calling for the review and approval by the City
of Fort Collins of any required landscape irrigation system, prior to the issuance of a Building
Permit.
2. The landscape plan shall include the total area (in square feet) for each landscape category.
Landscape categories are distinguished by their water requirements and intended maintenance
level. Examples of possible categories include, but are not limited to, high water turfgrass, low
water turfgrass, low water planting beds, moderate water planting beds, and non -plant areas
(paved areas, etc.).
et
❑ 3. Mulches shall be used for planting beds. The mulch can be either organic or inorganic, and
shall be applied to a minimum depth of 3 inches. In order to prevent large expanses of barren
mulch, there shall be a minimum plant cover of 50 percent within 5 years of planting.
(more)
PO. Box 5SO • Fort Collins, CO SO52-1-0580 • (9 0) 221-66S1
LI
Protect:
IPlanner: cxa
fngineer:
Traffic Operation;: i�
Date:
ng
stewate
ite
�
Land
x
Mran*rt
Plat
,�
Items Requested
Utility
�er x
,�erationsnningesources
Drainage Rot
Other Items Required
Redlined Items Being Returned
Site [and Plat Utili Drainage R t Other Items Being Returned
'ark Planning
otais
Pte: All redlined items should be returned with the resubmittal/ revisions.
Revisions Boutin
Item:
Date: ae5�G
Crt%Vl�/L6Y�jST.GP.iIJP.� :
Q
� 'fly L�
�v tii a� q
FILE: PROJECT PLANNER
X
ENGINEERING: PAVEMENT
ZONING
x
.`
BUILDING INSPECTION
LIGHT & POWER
MAPPING / DRAFTING
FORESTRY
J�
FCLWD/ELCOBOXELDER
FIRE
POLICE
ADVANCE PLANNING
STREETS
R.O.W. PLANNING
WATER CONSERVATION
POST OFFICE
US WEST
PUBLIC SERVICE
SCHOOLS: POUDRE / THOMPSON
CABLE TV
STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
DITCH COMPANY
RAILROAD: UP or BN/CS
REA/DOE/PAPA
TOTAL 1;'�
Rev. S-07_97
oi� z7o-� 4�11�166;1 60C l tom "
Natural Resources
33. The trash enclosures as shown on the Site Plan and Landscape Plan are not
consistent with one another. The larger enclosure should be used to enable a
recycling container inside.
This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be
forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing
agencies.
Under the development review process and schedule there is no revision date
mandated by the City. The amount of time spent on revisions is up to the
applicant. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City
departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project
planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings)
following receipt. of the revisions. At this staff .review meeting the item will be discussed
and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board
for a decision. If so, will be scheduled for the nearest Board hearing date with an
opening on the agenda.
Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The
number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached
Revisions Routing Sheet. You may contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting to
discuss these comments.
Sincerely
*Steph n Olt
Project Planner
cc: Engineering
Stormwater. Utility
Zoning
Water & Wastewater
Natural Resources
Traffic Operations
Transportation Planning
Advance Planning
JR Engineering
Project File
23. There may be some gaps in the existing sidewalks along the property lines. This
development would be responsible for filling any gaps in and repairing any
existing sidewalks that are damaged.
24. The enhanced cross -walk area at the north entry to the project needs to be
shown on the utility plans. Are there brick pavers proposed in the street right-of-
way? This would not be acceptable to the City.
25. With essentially all (or most) of the parking on -site being in carports, where will
the residents park their recreation vehicles/mobile homes if they will be allowed
on -site?
Planning
26. The Vicinity Map on the Site Plan now shows zoning district designations but not
boundaries. How can someone tell where the various districts begin and end?
27. More pedestrian connections are needed from the residential buildings to the
adjacent streets.
28. Building D needs to be oriented to have connecting walkways to a public street
sidewalk. A modification of the standard in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) in the LUC will be
needed. See the red -lined Construction Plan that is being forwarded to the
applicant.
29. Additional comments are included on a red -lined set of Site, Landscape, and
Building Elevation Plans.
Transportation Planning
30. There should be pedestrian connections from this project to the Somerset
Apartments to the east and the West property to the south. There is an existing
footpath in those areas.
31. The proposed on -site bicycle parking for the residential units and swimming pool
area should be shown on the Site Plan.
32. Show existing transit stops in the area on this Site Plan. What is existing in the
area?
12. A copy of the comments received from Mark McCallum of the Engineering
Department is attached to this letter. A copy of the comments, along with red -
lined plans, has been forwarded to JR Engineering. Please call Mark, at 221-
6750, if you have questions about his comments.
13. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort stated that there are no current public transit
services in the area; however, there is the potential for future service on JFK
Parkway from Harmony Road.
14. Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department has made comments on a
red -lined copy of the Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant..
The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly staff meeting on
March 31, 1999:
Stormwater
15. This project now proposes to utilize off -site detention in the pond on the Home
Depot site. The drainage report must analyze water flows down JFK Parkway
and the capacity of the drainage infrastructure between this site and the Home
Depot site.
16. How is this project addressing water quality and the capacity of the downstream
drainage facilities?
17. A grading easement along the east property line may be needed. How can the
grading from this site be tied into the existing grading along the east side? There
apparently is an existing fence there.
Engineering
18. Where is the Parkway Townhomes access to the west of this site? The access
(or accesses) must be shown on the Site Plan and the utility plans.
19. Label the enhanced cross -walks on the Site Plan and the utility plans.
20. The concrete driveways must extend from the street to the new rights -of way
lines along both JFK Parkway and Troutman Parkway.
21. Show and label access ramps on the utility plans.
22. Show limits of construction on the Site Plan and utility plans.
6. Representatives of the Mapping/Drafting Department offered the following
comments:
a. The subdivision plat must be tied to "Section" control.
b. Please show recording information for Troutman Parkway and JFK
Parkway on the subdivision plat.
7. A copy of the Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes - COMMENT
SHEET received from Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist,
is attached to this letter. Also attached is the general information regarding water
conservation standards for landscaping and irrigation systems.
8. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, indicated that he has no further comments at
this time.
9. Kim Kreimeyer, the City's Natural Resources Planner, offered the following
comments:
a. The trash enclosure detail (plan view) needs to be updated to reflect the
Site Plan. NOTE: The 6" concrete will encumber the use of the trash &
recycling bins. incorporate recycling (see attached).
b. The trash enclosures should be designed to be accessed easily, even for
pedestrians. The current plan has not door for pedestrian entrance (see
attachment).
C. Label both trash enclosures on the Site and Landscape Plans.
d. If any rip rap is used on the site it should be buried and seeded [Section
3.4.1(F)(2) of the LUC].
Please contact Kim, at 221-6750, if you have questions about these comments.
10. A copy of the comments received from Roger Buffington of the
Water/Wastewater Department is attached to this.letter. A copy of the
comments, along with red -lined plans, has been forwarded to JR Engineering.
Please contact Roger, at 221-6681, if you have questions about his comments.
11. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility
is attached to this letter. A copy of the comments, along with red -lined plans and
reports, has been forwarded to JR Engineering. Please contact Donald, at 221-
6589, if you have questions about his comments.
k. Remove the ground sign detail from Sheet 4.
I. If these are intended to be apartments for senior citizens, Buildings A & B
are not very accessible from the parking areas, especially for
handicapped individuals.
M. Is the fence to the east (along the property line) an existing one or will it
be replaced? If so, fence details are needed for review.
n. The construction plans, details, and specifications on the Landscape
Construction Documents plans do not need to be part of this submittal and
review.
o. Note #6 on the Site Plan says the parking stalls are 9'x17', but the plan
shows them to be 18' deep. Please clarify?
P. Providing building envelopes, in addition to the building footprint, is
recommended to accommodate building adjustments.
q. Several different building sizes are shown. Does one elevation represent
all of them?
Maximum heights for each building type should be shown on the Site
Plan.
S. It appears that a large percentage of the comments from the first review
have not been addressed. Please address each issue prior to submitting
for further review.
Please contact Jenny or Gary at 221-6760 if you have questions about these
comments.
5. Doug Martine of the Light & Power Department stated that his previous
. comments (dated 3/15/99) still apply. The comments are as follows:
a. The utility layout does not provide a location to install electric (and
probably gas) lines. A utility coordination meeting is recommended prior to
development approval to coordinate changes to accommodate all utilities.
b. Street tree locations must be flexible to provide 40' minimum clearance to
existing and planned streetlights.
Please contact Doug, at 221-6700, if you have questions about these comments.
A
department. No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a fire
hydrant. NOTE: Additional hydrants are required on -site due to
spacing.
Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments.
4. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments:
a. Why are there no handicapped parking spaces under cover, in the
carports? Since some senior citizens are registered as handicapped
space users, and rightfully so, the developer/manager should expect
some complaints. .
b. Will there be under -canopy lighting in the carports? There may be a safety
issue if the roofs create shadows along the east fenced/landscaped area
where intruders could potentially hide.
C. Note #10 on the Site Plan indicates bicycle parking to be provided, which
is good. However, no bicycle parking areas are actually being shown on
the plan itself. Where are they?
d. Show building envelopes, building envelope dimensions, and relative
distance to lot lines.
e. Please note that the Final Site Plan, when submitted (if/when this PDP
plan is approved), should not show topography lines.
f. The ground sign locations should not be shown on.the Site Plan.
g. There is only one trash enclosure noted on the Site Plan. More than one
enclosure is required due to the size of this project. Is there a second
enclosure planned just east of the southernmost building (Building E — 16
units) that is just not labeled?
h. The trash enclosure and fence elevations and details can be on the same
sheet as the building elevations.
i. The prior City review indicated that the carports were within the access
easement, which is not permitted. What does the new proposed
subdivision plat show?
j. The lack of labeling of plant materials on the Landscape Plan is very
difficult to read and follow. Show the number of .items in -groupings on the
plan. This is a very time consuming format when it comes to doing a
landscape inspection.
Commu y Planning and Environmental .vices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
April 6, 1999
Kaufman & Broad Multi -Housing Group, Inc.
c/o Janine Walkup
320 Golden Shore, Suite 200
Long Beach, CA. 90802-4217
Dear Janine,
Staff has reviewed your revisions for the JFK SENIOR APARTMENTS, Project
Development Plan (PDP) development proposal that were submitted to the City on
March 10, 1999, and would like to offer the following comments:
1. This development proposal, being in the HC - Harmony Corridor Zoning District,
is identified as a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review under the City's
Land Use Code (LUC). Residential uses are permitted uses subject to a Type II
review in the District.
2. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company (gas service provider for the project)
indicated that PSC has no further comments at this time.
3. Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments:
a. A fire lane is required through this site. This fire lane shall be visible by
painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall
be submitted for approval prior to installation. If a fire lane is not
provided, the buildings shall be fire sprinklered.
b. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property,
and posted with a minimum of 6" high numerals on a contrasting
background (example: bronze numerals on a brown brick are not
acceptable).
C. Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600' along an
approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,500
gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Hydrants shall
be of an approved type as defined by the water department and the fire
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020