Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM, 11TH FILING, BROOKLYN PARK ROW HOUSES - PDP - 56-98AD - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (3)1. Building envelopes (no part of) cannot encroach into utility easements. Response: All building envelopes are outside of any easement. 2. The meter pit must be at least 4' away from the stairway. Response: This comment has been addressed. Transportation Planning: 1. A 5' wide detached sidewalk is needed along Custer Drive, Response: This has been corrected. 2. A 6' wide sidewalk is needed in front of the surface parking spaces on the east side of the development. Response: See response to comment #60 above. Page 8 [6/30/05] Maintain 4 feet minimum separation between the meter pits and all permanent structures. Response: The plans have been revised per this comment. Number: 63 Created:6/30/2005 [6/30/05] Provide an enlarged detail showing the water service configuration as discussed at our last utility coordination meeting. Response: An enlarged detail has been provided on the drawings. Number: 64 Created: 6/30/2005 [6/30/051 See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Response: Thank You. The following comments/concerns were expressed at staff review meeting on June 29rn: Engineering: 1. A couple of variance requests are needed. Response: All variances have been approved. 2. More information is needed on the construction documents. Response: Additional information has been provided on the construction drawings. Stormwater: 1. A maintenance agreement with the church is needed for the storm line along the south property line. Response: Basil Hamdan with the City of Fort Collins will be drafting up this agreement and providing it to Marc Virata. Water/Wastewater: Page 7 this, and the existing walks are 5'-011 , thankfully. Please correct to avoid any confusion. Thanks. Response: Our most recent submittal now calls out 5 feet sidewalk widths along Custer. Number: 60 Created: 6/28/2005 (6/28/05] Please refer to "guest parking" area. LUC specifies that walkways adjacent to head -in parking shall be at least 6' in width to account for vehicle overhang. This one is measuring in at slightly over 3'. Please revise. Also, it appears to me that a vehicle parked in either of the southern two spots here will totally block access to the "up" ramp access to the common area in the middle. Perhaps I'm reading the plan wrong, but I would appreciate some clarification. Thanks. Response: This issue has been resolved. In an e-mail to Troy Jones on 8/30/05, David Averill wrote, "The wheel stop option is OK with me, provided these are not compact stalls located in long term parking that we are talking about. There must be a 4 ft. clear space maintained otherwise the handicap access will not work, regardless of what type of parking this is designated as or the implications for the site. I was referring to 3.2.2(L)(4) which calls out Figure 5 as an illustration of how the clear space can be maintained using wheel stops for Standard Size Parking stalls. Its an oddly specific drawing to reference in such an inclusive section of code — My reading of LUC Section (3.2.2 L 4) makes me believe that it refers to all sections "above", which would be sections 1,2, and 3 of 3.3.2 L which precede it, but the drawing specifically states that it references Standard Size Stalls. I was not referring to the "elevated walkway" standard that you mention ( 3.2.2 C 5 A), for clarification. So, hopefully that answers your question. In short, yes on wheel stops with the caveat(s) that you are not reducing the length of a compact space and you will get the 4 foot clearance that you need from the change." Our plan has been revised to accommodate David's interpretations. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: P/at Number: 61 Created: 6/30/2005 [6/30/05] Building envelopes are not permitted with in the utility easements. Response: All building envelopes are outside of any easements. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 62 Created: 6/30/2005 Page 6 [6/28/05] [4/26/05] We need to discuss how maintenance would occur for the storm sewer on the south end of the property and the one on the east end of the property. A maintenance agreement between City and Developer will be needed. Maintenance and access to the east sewer line will be difficult, as the south line can be accessed from the church parking lot. Will need to coordinate with the' Colony development access in Rigden Farms to the east line. Response: We have started discussions with Marc Virata on the Development Agreement. We anticipate this issue will be formalized in the Development Agreement. Topic: Utility Plans Number: 39 Created: 4/28/2005 [7/1/05] [4/28/05] Pipe profiles are not required until final submittal, however, you may want to check and make sure that the proposed grades will provide a minimum one foot cover for the pipe along the south property line. Also check and see whether the depth of the pipe will allow the pipe to be dug up for maintenance purposes at a 1:1 slope from the edge of the pipe to the proposed stairways. Response: A profile for the storm pipe along the south property line has been provided. Number: 57 Created: 6/28/2005 [6/28/05] The proposed gas line to the east of the buildings is shown to be only 5 feet from the existing storm line, please provide a 10 foot separation if possible. Response: The proposed gas line has been revised to provide 10-feet of separation. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 59 Created: 6/28/2005 [6/28/05] Site plans calls out the existing sidewalks on Custer as being built as 410", which would be a bit scary as it is a new street built to current LCUASS that calls for 5'-0" sidewalks on a Collector. I went out to the field to check Page 5 Response: This note has been added to the plat. Number: 54 Created: 6/20/2005 [6/20/05] The plat does not appear to be dedicating (and actually vacating) utility easement behind the right-of-way of Iowa Drive, with the exception of a 30' x 30' utility easement towards the middle of the site. A variance request will be required to not provide the 9' of utility easement behind Iowa Drive with acceptance by the utilities. Response: The 9-foot utility easement along Iowa Drive has been vacated per Marc Virata. Number: 55 Created: 6/20/2005 (6/20/05] Is it intended to limit Tract A from being an easement? Response: The plat has been revised to clarify this issue. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Eroding Pions Number: 65 Created: 7/1/2005 [7/1/05] It does not look like the swale cross-section as shown would be able to fit between the sidewalk and the property line to the south. Please adjust grades to ensure that no drainage from this site flows onto the church property. Response: We have revised the sidewalk location to resolve the issue. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 58 Created: 6/28/2005 (6/28/05] Have the Timberline Church and the Colony development approved the placement of the proposed trees on their property ? Response: The church has granted us permission to plant trees in accordance with their approved landscape plan. A letter from John Sailer of Timberline Church, granting permission, was included in the previous submittal. Topic: Storm Line Maintenance Number: 20 Created: 4/26/2005 Page 4 Response: All :variances have been approved. Number:41 Created 4/29/2005 [6/20/05] The utility/horizontal control plan shows telephone vaults between the sidewalk and curb and gutter in the right-of-way. Do flush mounted telephone vaults exist? Both the electric and telephone vaults should be shown as flush mounted, since these are not allowed to be raised in right-of-way. [4/29/05] The plans need to ensure that no above ground pedestals are located in between any public sidewalk and curb and gutter of the associated public street. Response: Flush mounted telephone vaults do exist per Qwest. I have added "flush mounted" to the note on the plans to better clarify. There will be no above ground structures in the right-of-way. Number: 42 Created:4/29/2005 (6/20/05] The vaults mentioned in the previous comment appear to be less than 2' from the sidewalk, which again need to be indicated as flush mounted. [4/29/05] The plans need to ensure that any above ground structures are separated 2' from any public sidewalk. Response: There will be no above ground structures in the right-of-way. Topic: 6rading Number: 56 Created: 6/21/2005 [6/21/05] The construction plans and site plan need to both illustrate the limits of proposed construction for the sidewalk that connects to the development to the east. It needs to be understood at this time how the two developments will coordinate this connection and letters of intent are received for any offsite construction. Response: We have added a note that clarifies that we are responsible for the walkway on our property and the neighboring development is responsible for the walkway on their property. Topic: Plat Number: 53 Created:6/20/2005 (6/20/05] Please add a note on the plat regarding private drives as attached to the Engineering comment sheet. Page 3 c. Why not make all of the building envelope lines solid lines? d. The subdivision plat is confusing. Tract A & easement lines. Is everything in Tract A outside of the building envelopes? Response: All plat comments and concerns have been addressed. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Construction Pons Number: 22 Created: 4/27/2005 [6/20/05] Please place the Qwest and Xcel Energy approval blocks also on the cover sheet. Ensure that Light & Power is added to the City approval block on each sheet. (4/27/05] Given the notes 4-6 on Sheet 5 it would appear to be appropriate to have City Light & Power added to the City's approval block and have individual approval blocks for both Xcel Energy and Qwest. Response: The appropriate title blocks have been added to the plans. Number: 26 Created: 4/27/2005 .[6/21/05] The revised drawings at 5% helps address the issue. A variance request is still required, however we've discussed internally in Transportation that the request can be supported. (4/27/05] The longitudinal grades for the driveway entrances past the sidewalk along Iowa Drive are in the 11% range which exceeds the criteria specified in LCUASS Figure 847 which requires no more than 4% grade for a distance of 65' from the flowline of Iowa Drive. Response: All variances have been approved. Number: 28 Created: 4/27/2005 [6/21/05] Carried over pending the receipt of the variance request. (4/27/05] The variance request regarding the driveway separation is acceptable. The variance regarding'depth to the first parking stall is likely acceptable, though I would like to verify the resolution of ID 26 before committing to the approval of this variance request as there seems to be some inter -relationship between the two. Page 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Date: 09/13/2005 RIGDEN FARM, 11TH FILING, BROOKLYN PARK ROW HOUSES - POP, ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 67 Issue Contact: Steve Olt Created: 7/7/2005 [7/7/05] The landscaping in the reduced setback along the east side of the property, next to the driveway and parking, needs to be enhanced. There are not enough tall, dense shrubs in this area to provide proper screening of the vehicular area from the homes in the Colony project to the east. They are 3.5' higher than the surface of this vehicular area and will look right over the Potentillos. Need to provide the 6' height and 75% opacity per Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) of the Land Use Code. Response: See the revised landscape plan. We have enhanced / increased the quantity and changed the species of the shrubs for proper screening of the vehicular area. Number: 68 Created: 7/7/2005 [7/7/05] There are a total of 39 trees being proposed on the Landscape Plan. Any one species/variety of tree cannot exceed 33% of this total, or 13 trees, per Section 3.2.1(D)(3) of the Land Use Code. The plan shows 15 5erviceberry. Please make the necessary changes to the trees on the plan. Response: We have revised the quantities of the various tree species to address the comment. Topic: Plot Number: 66 Created: 7/7/2005 [7/7/05] The Technical Services Department offered the following comments: a. The outside boundary and legal description close. b. There is missing data and an incorrect bearing on the emergency access easement. Page 1