HomeMy WebLinkAboutED CARROLL MOTORS LOT EXPANSION - PDP - 5-98A - CORRESPONDENCE - (4)Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: Utility
70
REPEATCOMMENT: Provide an 18-inch vertical separation distance and concrete encase
the storm sewer if it is above the water main. Pothole the existing water main now and
provide pothole information on the plans.
96
Abandon existing water service at the main and install a new water service which is
perpendicular the the main. Include the standard general note to coordinate the
abandonment with the City Utilities.
97
Show and label curb stop and meter pit for proposed water service. Indicate the size of the
meter pit. Water service must remain the same size from the main to a point 5 feet
downstream of the meter pit.
98
All water fees must be satisfied for the proposed water service prior to activation of the
service. Is a 1.5-inch water service needed for the landscaping of this site?
99
See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
p ase feel free to call meat (970) 221-6750.
ours uly,
Tf OY ONES
City PI nner
Page 7
Electric Development Charges will apply at the time of development as a condition of
continued electric service to Ed Carroll Motors. These charges are estimated to be
$8000.00.
Department: Natural Resources Issue Contact: Doug Moore
Topic: General
4
No issues at this time.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Drainage
57
Please provide enough volume in the detention pond to account for the 40-hour extended
detention in addition to the quantity detention.
Repeat Comment - 9/17/02
58
Currently there is no freeboard for the detention pond. Please provide as much freeboard
as possible for the pond. Speed bumps or raised sidewalks on the eastern drives maybe
an option. Repeat Comment - 9/17/02 ,
60
Please provide the finish floor elevation for the building east of the site and show that the
building would not be inundated in a spill situation from the pond. Repeat Comment -
9/17/02
104
Please see comment on grading plan regarding sidewalk in detention pond.
Topic: Erosion Control
62
1. There are no erosion control notes/schedule on the plan.
2. The BMP's in the report don't show on the plan.
103
Previous comments have not been addressed.
Topic: Plat
101
Please provide documentation for the offsite drainage easement on the McClelland Office
Park property.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Topic: Plat
100
The additional foot of the 7-foot attached sidewalk needs to be placed in an access
easement on the plat and accurately reflected on the site and utility plans. The utility
easement should then be measured from the back of the sidewalk.
Page 6
35
3/20/2: Contact Bob Zakely at 224-6063 for drainage and erosion control notes.
38
3/20/2: Provide the following details, LCUASS 7-20a, 16-1, 16-2, 16-4d, 7-29a, 7-29b and
any detail as required by the design.
9/12/2: Please provide detail 16-4d.
48
3/20/2: Provide centerline stationing at all PCs and driveway intersections.
9/12/2: Repeat comment.
89
9/12/2: "Carroll' incorrectly spelled in the project title of the cover sheet.
90
9/12/2: Correct line 19 of the General Notes, remove the word "subdivision".
91
9/12/2: Sheet 2 of 4 - identify the transition or taper from VC to outfall C&G.
92
9/12/2: Section 9.4.2 requires that all driveways be perpendicular to the road for a minimum
of 25' before turning or tapering. Yours looks just a couple feet short. Also, need to call out
the beginning and end of the taper so that it can be laid out in the field.
93
9/12/2: See detail 7-29b for the attached sidewalk version of the pedestrian ramp. Design
the ramp as shown in this detail.
94
9/12/2: A trash enclosure is shown in the drainage and utility easement located in the NE
corner of the site and very close to the proposed storm line. No structures are allowed in
drainage and utility easements. Who owns this structure and which property is being
encroached upon? Is this a permenant structure?
95
9/12/2: Show and label the proposed drainage and utility easement in the NE corner of the
site.
102
9/12/2: The proposed grades show a 2 - 3' drop in the ramp in the northeast corner of the
site. This is not ADA compliant. Also, what is the slope on the sidewalk in the northwest
corner? Does this meet ADA requirements?
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: General
54
Page 5
Topic: Utility
12
3/20/2: "Cover Sheet: The vicinity map must be 16" x 10".
9/12/2: Repeat comment.
14
3/20/2: Provide the Construction Notes, see appendix E-2. Section A not shown - is it not
needed?
9/12/2: The notes shown are incomplete. Please email me at sjoy@fcgov.com and I will
email you back the complete set of notes.
17
3/20/2: Provide ROW, property lines and easements with dimensions and labels. Add to
legend.
9/12/2: Coordinate the ROW shown with the plat and show/dimension the existing RR and
Ditch Cc ROW and/or easements. Provide the off -site temporary construction easement to
tie into the existing storm drain on the NE corner of the project.
18
3/20/2: Dimension driveway width and location. Radii must be in accordance with Table 8-2
and widths must meet 7-29b. Label all radii. Driveway must also conform to standard
drawing 7-30.
9/12/2: Repeat comment. Radii must be 20' versus the 25' shown -See table 8-2. Is there
a particular reason you want the 25' radius?
23
3/20/2: Add the Utility and Access Easements to all sheets and show on plan.
9/12/2: Remove the 24' dimension from the Public Access Easement.
25
3/20/2: Provide the variance to the driveway separation requirements in line 48 of the
General Notes.
9/12/2: Submit a variance request for the attached versus detached 8' sidewalk along
McClelland and add to line 48 after its approved.
30
3/20/2: All offsite improvements require an easement. All offsite grading requires a
temporary construction easement.
9/12/2: Provide a temporary construction easement for tieing into the stormline that's in the
adjacent property owner's lot.
34
3/20/2: See redlines for other comments.
Page 4
Provide a Public Access Easement for the area that the attached sidewalk extends over the
existing ROW. Need to coordinate the various plan sets to present the same information.
19
3/20/2: Provide the date under the legal description.
9/12/2: Repeat comment.
20
3/20/2: The 24' access easement is not labeled correctly - it is not a consistant 24' across
for the entire length of the drive. Please label as "Public Access and Utility Easement".
9/12/2: Repeat comment.
88
9/12/2: Remove the word "subdivision" from the project title.
Topic: Site
87
9/12/2: Remove Note #1 from the Project Notes. This information must be shown on the
Site Plan.
Topic: Site/Landscape
39
3/20/2: Dimension the sidewalk widths.
9/12/2: The utility plans show that the existing sidewalk is 8' - not 6' as shown on the site
and landscape plans. Also, the new sidewalk must be 8' to match existing - not the T shown
on the site and landscape plans. The sidewalk ramps at the drive entrance do not match
the utility plans. Need to show on all plan sets how the proposed sidewalk transistions into
the existing sidewalk on McClelland, on the south side of the project. The comment made
on the last round of review regarding the proposed sidewalk on the NE corner still remains -
what is this tieing into?
40
3/20/2: Show, dimension all easements, property lines, ROW, and utilities.
9/12/2: The 50' ROW shown does not scale out to 50'. The 10' utility easement shown
must be 15' from the back of walk as stated in comment 49 from the last round of review.
43
3/20/2: See redlines for spelling error in the crosswalk label and correction to the Property
Description, Attorney's Certificate and the Planning & Zoning Approval certificate. See
attached.
9/12/2: Repeat.
86
9/12/2: Remove the 24' dimension from the access drive and call it a "Public Access and
Utility Easement".
Page 3
109
Where are the shrubs labeled "ex. shrubs to be relacated" along the south side of the
property going to be relocated to?
110
This submittal didn't include specifications for the lighting fixtures. This needs to be
submitted so that it is clear what fixtures the approval is for, and so that any inspection of
the site after construction can check to see whether the approval has been satisfied.
Include specification sheets of the proposed fixtures, and elevations of the proposed poles,
and clarify where and on which fixtures the light shields are being used.
111
Is the existing trash rectangle on the site plan straddling the north property line going to stay
in the location shown? If not, please revise the drawing.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: General
49
3/20/2: Provide a detached sidewalk, additional ROW and 15' utility easements along
McClelland. Exact ROW requirements are to be determined in a meeting this Friday.
Contact myself at 221-6605 or Tom Reif in Transportation Planning 416-2040.
9/12/2: Research by the city staff has shown that the this particular lot has already
dedicated 50' of ROW in 1978 with the McClelland Special Improvement District. The
additional 28' of ROW required to improve McClelland to a minor arterial will be purchased
by the city at a later date. However, the project will need to continue to keep those future
improvements in mind when designing the site as they have been. Just a few things that
need to be coordinated on the plan sets, however. The plat is currently showing the 50'
ROW but the utility plans are showing only 40'. The Site/Landscape plans call out 50' but do
not scale out as 50'. All plan sets will need to be coordinated to show the correct ROW, as
well as the existing RR and Ditch Co. ROW and/or easements. The project will still be
required to dedicate a 15' utility easement from the back of walk. The project would need to
submit a variance request to install attached 8' sidewalks to match the existing attached
walks and Engineering would be favorable to granting that request. A Public Access
Easement would need to be dedicated on the plat and shown on the plans sets for the area
that the sidewalk extends past the existing ROW. This project must also provide the
temporary construction easement to do the off -site work on the storm line. Please don't
hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Topic: Plat
6
3/20/2: Make corrections to the Statement of Ownership and Notice of Other Documents -
see redlines.
9/12/2: Repeat comment.
9
3/20/2: Clearly define all existing and proposed easements and ROW.
9/12/2: Show and dimension the exisiting RR and Ditch ROW and/or easement. Show all
off site drainage and utility easements to the north and provide the reception numbers.
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
v
JIM SELL DESIGN, INC. Date: 09/25/2002
C/O BRAD SAUCERMAN
153 WEST MOUNTAIN AVE
FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
Staff has reviewed your submittal for ED CARROLL MOTORS LOT EXPANSION PDP, and
we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Topic: General
85
Revisions based on these comments must be submitted to the Current Planning Department
within 90 days of the date of this letter or the project becomes null and void. A 30 day
extension is available, but must be requested.
105
Several of the proposed light poles are shown between 10 and 12 feet away from proposed
trees required within landscape islands. This sets up a potential problem for the trees in the
future in that when they mature, they will block the light from the pole, and Ed Carrol Motors.
will be put in a situation where they will have to choose between the tree or the functionallity
of the light. Although cutting down the tree in the future to avoid this conflict would not be
allowed by the city, and would put the site in a zoning violation, it would be difficult for the
city to enforce. The tree/light pole configuration needs to be slightly modified in such a way
as to distance the light poles from the trees so that this problem doesn't arise. Although we
applaud the use of as many trees as possible, it may be appropriate, when a pole and tree
share a landscape island, to reduce the number of trees on that landscape island to one. If
the tree is on the far eastern side of the island and the light pole on the far west, or vice -
versa, the problem may be solved. Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(c) of the land use code only requires
one tree per landscape island.
106
Please specify what type of material the proposed perimiter fence is made of. If it is chain
link, it needs to be vinal clad, and the plans need to specify something to that effect.
107
Engineering, Water/Wastewater and Stormwater Departments have indicated that the
project is not ready for hearing, and will need another round of review. Many of the
comments from these two department were not addressed by Stuart & Associates in the
resubmittal.
108
Because there is no building associated with this PDP, fee's usually collected at the time of
building permit (such as stormwater fees, water/wastewater fees, Light & Power fees, etc.),
will need to be collected using a different trigger mechanism. The development agreement
will need to address the timing of the payment of these fees. Coordinate this with Susan
Joy in Engineering.
Page 1