HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTORYBOOK, 2ND FILING - FDP - 49-98C - CORRESPONDENCE -a. The utility plans do not show gas service and meter locations. The
developer will need to coordinate closely with all utilities to meet all
clearance requirements.
b. Public Service has an existing overhead electric distribution line along
the south boundary of the proposed ,project:! T-he-Cityinay: require• the
developer to underground said overhead line and this would be at the
developer's expense.. .... = .
2. Mike Scheid of ELCO is forwarding his comments on. red -lined plans that
are attached to this comment letter.
3. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, indicated that the Ohio Buckeye trees,
as shown on the Landscape Plan, must be changed to Kentucky Coffee
trees. His marked -up copy of the Landscape Plan is attached to this
comment letter.
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,
Steve Olt
City Planner
cc: Katie Moore _ =
Gary Mackey
Current Planning File #49-98C
Page 8
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
Number: 73 Created: 2/17/2005
[5/4/05] There is nothing shown on the erosion control sheet. Please contact
Bob Zakely for a short meeting on this project.
[2/17/05]
1. The Grading and Erosion Control tNotes on: plan sheet 2 are incorrect,
please delete and replace with the currint,,correct.City:of Fort -Col lins_notes.
2. The submittal is incomplete, please provide all the plans, details,
calculations, etc. required and resubmit.
If you have any questions, please call Bob Zakely at 224-6063.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill
Topic: Street Design
Number: 98 Created: 5/4/2005=
[5/4/05] No further comments:.: i.c.%, .,,a
Deportment: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols
Topic: Utility P/ons -:
Number: 14 Created: 10/22/2004
[4/13/05]
[2/4/05]
[10/22/04] Please note building height on elevations
os
This completes staff (and outsidt.reviewing agencies) review,and comments at
this time. Additional comments and red -lined plans may be forthcoming. Another
round of staff review is determined to be necessary. This proposal is subject
to the 90-day revision re -submittal requirement (from the date of this
comment letter, being May 10, 2005) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of
the Land Use Code. Be sure and returnnll of -your red=lined-glans when you re=
submit, The number of copies of: each document to re -submit is shown on the
attached Revisions Routing Sheet.
Additional City Staff and Reviewing Agency comments:
1. Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy (Public Service) offered the following
comments:
Page 7
I
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez
Topic: 6enero/ _.
Number: 15 Created: 10/25/2004 - -
[4/25/05]
[10/25/04] PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Approved numerals or addresses
shall be provided for all new and existing building in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property.1997
UFC 901.4.4
Number: 16 Created: 10/25/2004
[4/25/05]
[10/25/04] WATER SUPPLY: Residential (Within GMA)
No Residential building can be greater then-400 fleet -from a fire hydrant.
Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 800 feet along an
approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1000 gallons of
water per minute at a residual pressure�of 20 psi.,1997 UFC 901.2.2.2
Department: Stormwater Utility � -Issue Contact:! Wes Lamarque
Topic: Ora/nags
Number: 30 Created: 10/27/2004
[5/4/05] The north part of the site is still unclear and not shown properly.
See redlines.
[2/15/05] The spot elevations are unclear where they are located and there
still are unclear areas pertaining to -grading.
[10/27/04] Please combine grading plans and provide more clearly the flow
patterns. ;
Number: 72 Created: 2/17/2005
[5/4/05] REPEAT COMMENT
[2/17/05] A permanent slope easement is required for the off -site property to
the north where permanent grading"is prposed:
Page 6
Number: 101 Created: 5/6/2005
[5/6/05] For flowline profiles around corners, please label the true length of
the flowlines - they are shown the same as the centerline, but will be either
shorter or longer than the centerline: profile.: This•might.change .the slopes
shown for the flowlines.
Number: 102Created: 5/6/2005
[5/6/05] Maximum grade break allowed = 0.4%, please revise.
Topic: Utility Plaw
Number: 25 Created: 10/26/2004
[5/3/05] Please provide additionaLspotelevationsto show transitions, and
provide a detail to ensure that min:- 2'�beyond ba&,ofwdlk;,grades;will;be kept
at approx 2%.
[2/16/05]
[10/26/04] Please provide additional. ,information regarding the pond, along
Mountain Vista. Will the sidewalks, be graded .toward -or away from.the street
along this pond? If they're graded. toward he-po:nd;;please.show how they will.
transition to join walks that are graded toward the street at the ends of the
pond.
Number: 32 Created: 10/27/2004
[5/3/05]
[2/16/05] There's still a location where cover.over in. pipe is -a concern. Please
revise. I��_.�,
[10/27/04] When locating utilities in. the street; please; remember. the cover.
requirement: at least 2' of cover. between the. top:of-pipe and scarified .
subgrade (approx 3' to the top of asphaltfor:,the-road).
Number: 103Created: 5/6/2005
[5/6/05]The utility plan checklist is getting a bit crazy - please submit a fresh
one with your next submittal.
Department: Ught & Power Issue Contact: Monica Moore
Topic: Plat
Number: 96 Created: 4/25/2005
[4/25/05] Be advised that the gas services must be at least 5 feet from the
electric services.
Page 5
Number: 62 Created: 10/29/2004
[5/3/05]
[2/18/05] Please show sidewalks; and label that for. 2' from the back of walk,
the grade shall remain shallow (2%) before dropping off, and that the 4:1 shown
is a maximum slope.
[10/29/04] Please provide data and dimensions for the Mountain Vista Drive
cross -sections.
Number: 80 Created: 2/18/2005
[5/3/05]
[2/18/05]
The spot elevations required at intersections. are not all. -shown at, all
intersections, and spot elevations should be shown where the transitions to
begin the flattening of the crown begin.
Original comment 61 has disappeared, so here it is again:
When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest lane (SFL), they
should use at least 30' to the west of SFL to transition to meet the grades on
SFL. [resolved part of comment othitted] Please see redlines for more
information.
Number: 81 Created: 2/18/2005
[5/3/05] Please show details of all ramps to show that they meet ADA
requirements (show dimensions and spot'Aevations). Please'provide these
details for the south -most driveway on Deep Woods as well, since that driveway
is a substitute for a ramp and needs to meet ADA requirements.
[2/18/05] The ADA ramp detail. works when the_curb.return radius is 20' and
the ROW radius is 15'. At the knuckles -where' .the'curb return radius is 26.5%
please either show how the ramps will work, and possibly dedicate additional
ROW to accommodate them, or change the radius to 20'.
Number: 88 Created: 2/18/2005
[5/3/05]
[2/18/05] Provide station equations where plans from the 2nd filing tie to plans
from the 1st filing, and where the different street designs within the 2nd filing
connect.
Page 4
Number: 58 Created: 10/29/2004
[5/3/05] Please provide revisions to original Storybook utility plans now for
redesign of Little John intersections. These revisions must take place
concurrently with review of Storybook 2nd plans, and cannot take place after
Storybook 2nd is approved. The revisions to existing utility plans for grading in
the park must also be completed now.
[2/16/05] At all the intersections with Little John, the north flowlines at the
PC are about 6° higher than was approved for the first filing. What happened?
Were the streets not built as originally planned? If so, we should have received
as-builts and approved of the changes.
[10/29/04] At the intersection of Friar Tuck and Little John, the shown
grades do not match the original plans and are off by almost u foot in spots.
What is going on?
Number: 59 Created: 10/29/2004
[5/3/05]
[2/16/05]. Show how the proposed Chesapeake design ties into what is already
built.
[10/29/04] Chesapeake Drive design does not match the approved design - why
not? Isn't part of Chesapeake already built?
Number:61 Created: 10/29/2004
[5/3/05]
[2/16/05] Please provide additional spot elevations at intersections as required
per LCUASS figure 7-27.
[10/29/04] When the other streets intersect with Sherwood Forest Lane
(SFL), they should use at least 30' to the west of SFL to transition to meet the
grades on SFL. With the current design, a vehicle traveling south on SFL would
bump up and down at each intersection, which is exactly what we're trying to
avoid. SFL should have normal cross -slopes for its full length. Please see
redlines for more information.
Page 3
Topic: Plot
Number: 83 Created: 2/18/2005
[5/3/05] This applies to the street corners along Little John as well as the
rest of the project. Please revise.
[2/18/05] Please curve the utility easements to parallel the ROW at street
corners.
Number: 99 Created: 5/6/2005
[5/6/05] Please show the existing'easenient for the stormwater pond along
Mountain Vista and show which portions of the easement are needing to be
vacated by this plat. Please list the reception number for the easement as well.
Number: 100Created: 5/6/2005
[5/6/05] Please show the existing ROW for Mountain Vista, and note how it
was originally dedicated (reception # or book and page). The edge of the plat
should be at this existing ROW, not to the section line.
Department: Engineering `' -"Issue Contrict: ' Rick Richter
Topic: Soils
Number: 24 Created: 10/26/2004
[5/3/05]
[10/26/04] High swell soils will need mitigation.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Topic: Street Design
Number: 33 Created: 10/27/2004
[5/3/05]
[2/16/05] In some areas, the cross -slope minimums/maximums are not being
met. Please revise.
[10/27/04] Cross -slopes on new streets need to be between 2-3%, not between
2-4°/. '
o
Number: 55 Created: 10/29/2004
[5/3/05]
[2/16/051
[10/29/04] Certain vertical curve lengths do not meet the minimums required
in Figures 7-17 and 7-18. Please revise.
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
Stewart & Associates Date: 05/10/2005
c/o Jack Blake
103 South Meldrum Street
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
Staff has reviewed your submittal for STORYBOOK, 2ND FILING - FINAL
COMPLIANCE, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Engineering
Topic: Avz e i
Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Number: 12 Created: 10/21/2004
[5/3/05]
[2/16/05]
[10/21/04] Please review the scanability requirements for all plans found in
Appendix E of LCUASS. The plans will need to meet these standards prior to
the City accepting them for filing.
Number: 65 Created: 10/29/2004
[5/3/05]
[2/16/05]
[10/29/04] Please see redlines and utility plan checklist for any additional
comments.
Number: 86 Created: 2/18/2005
[5/3/05] These revisions need to take place now; 2nd filing plans will -not be
approved without them.
(2/18/05] For grading revisions to the park, and revisions to the segment of
Chesapeake previously approved with the 1st filing, please provide revisions to
the 1st filing utility plan set (bubble out, number, and note changes for
revisions).
Page 1