Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK - PDP - 44-00 - CORRESPONDENCE -PFR FORT COLLINS LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT GWJ July 16, 2001 Mr. Steve Olt, Planner City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: #44-00 Fossil Creek Community Park Dear Mr. Olt, 0 SOUTH FORT COLLINS SANITATION DISTRICT The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed the above mentioned project and submit the following comments. The District is working with the Parks and Recreation Department and BHA with respect to the location of landscaping near existing utilities. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have any questions or require additional information. Respectfully, Mr. W. Farrill Systems Engineer , wLI xc: Mr. Michael,D. DiTullio, District,Manager. 5150 Snead Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Phone (970) 226-3104 Fax (970) 226-0186 19 Received no elevations for re -review Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750. Yo s Tr&LT S O City Planner 8 of 8 26 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Contact E. Brake in Traffic Operations regarding guidelines for new handicap striping methods. 27 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Note on site plan who is responsible for trail connection to Roma Valley Drive (K. Reavis) 29 Issue Contact. Tom Reiff Construct a raised enhanced x-walk where Fossil Creek Trail crosses the drive aisle near Fossil Creek Parkway (see red lines, K. Reavis) 30 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Transportation Planning needs to see the Lemay Ave. roadway plans I design, including the underpass design. 31 Zoning 14 15 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Trail connections to Lemay and the underpass need to include a ramps and connections to the Lemay bike lanes, northbound and southbound (see red lines, K. Reavis). Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols REPEAT COMMENT - Sheet 5 of 16 - HC space in upper right corner of lot needs an HC ramp Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols REPEAT COMMENT - Need to show HC ramps at entry off of Lemay. 16 Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Page 10 of 16 - parking aisle closest to basketball courts, entry feature has too many spaces. No more than 15 in a row allowed - need to add landscaped island to break it up. 17 Still not clear what an "interpretive Node" is. Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols 18 Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols I still recommend some benches picnic tables within the Adventure Island Play area and more picnic pavillions around the park 7of8 21 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Now that the plans are calling out a pedestrian bridge, is a design of the ped bridge needed from Stormwater and Natural Resources? No vertical alignment is shown, the plans don't call out any detail of the bridge, etc. 22 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Will the final plat show dedication of the necessary easements on the plat or will these be by separate document? 23 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Are access ramps being proposed for the connections into the park from the main driveway to Lemay out to the crosswalks? 24 Issue Contact: Marc Virata How does future grading for parking lot expansion work? Stormwater Utility 20 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Please provide a plat with all required information. 35 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Please provide a bridge detail for the pedestrian bridge crossing Fossil Creek. Include detailed grading around the footings and show lowest part of bridge is higher than the 100-year WSEL. 36 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Please show interim grading for area along Lemay Avenue where the future pedestrian underpass is to be constructed. 37 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Please see redline regarding WQ Outlet Pipe on Drainage Plan. Transportation Planning 12 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Design of the Fossil Creek trail underpass should be designed with the overall site plan. 25 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Confirm with Matt Baker in Engineering the Lemay underpass and realignment design and construction work. Utilize the new design guidelines for grade seprated pedestrian, bike and eqestrian structures. 6of8 concerns. Planning..... o. Is it likely that some wireless telecommunications company will want to co-habitate on light poles in this park? Maybe the poles should be designed to accommodate this equipment. P. What kind of public outreach and public information meetings has taken place to date, mostly relating to the lights for the ballfields? Will some of the elements in this park be somewhat intrusive to the surrounding neighborhoods and will it catch them by surprise? Engineering 4 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Shouldn't the underpass at Lemay be designed at, this time? Without having the design finalized at this time, does it leave to chance that the design might not work or be more difficult to construct with the onsite grading already established? 7/11 - Sheet 6 shows on a note that the exact location of the underpass has not been determined but on sheet 12 the grading and appearance of a wingwall seems to imply a location has been specified and will be constructed. Sheet 18 has the note that this is to be built in the future... how will grading be done in an "interim" basis so as to not cause a drainage problem? 5 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Distinguish on the plant the improvements that were previously approved. -A portion of the trail improvements shown on the plan set were previously approved as part of the Huntington Hills 7th P.U.D. This (as well as any previosuly approved improvements) should be delineated on the plan set, referencing the approved project utility plans. Issue Contact: Marc Virata Compare improvements to obligation in the Huntington Hills 7th DA. I would strongly suggest the Parks Department review the Development Agreement for Huntington Hills 7th Filing with regards to obligations for construction as well as reimbursements between the City, Andover, and MSP. The Huntington Hills Developer is currently obligated to construct several pedestrian path improvements. Details need to be worked out if the City (Parks) wants to construct the improvements ahead of the timeframes specified that Huntington Hills 7th developer is required to do in the D.A. 7/11 Are the improvements proposed on the northwest corner of the site being coordinated with the multi -family developer? 5 of 8 The following comments were expressed at Staff Review on Wednesday, July 11 the Engineering..... a. What is the status of the proposed Lemay Underpass at the southeast corner of the site? The grades are being shown on the grading plan. Who will build this underpass and when will it be built? b. A design of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Fossil Creek, at the northwest corner of the park, needs to be submitted to the City for review. C. The required subdivision plat has not yet been submitted to the City for review. Will the necessary easements be dedicated on the plat or will they be dedicated by separate documents? d. More detail is needed on the handicapped access ramps at the main entry to the park and the entry to the maintenance yard. e. The utility plans do not clearly show the second phase of parking. f. Parks Planning should check with Huntington Hills, 7th Filing about coordinating the trail and bridge connection to Roma Valley Drive. Stormwater..... g. Stormwater needs to see the required subdivision plat. h. A design of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Fossil Creek, at the northwest corner of the park, needs to be submitted to the City for review. Transportation Planning..... i. Please clarify the trail connection to Roma Valley Drive and how the park is coordinating the construction of this trail with Huntington Hills, 7th Filing. The appropriate note(s) should be added to the Site and utility plans. j. Where should the major pedestrian crossing of South Lemay Avenue be located? This issue will be discussed at a Thursday staff meeting for Transportation Coordination. k. The design for the realignment of and improvements to South Lemay Avenue will be discussed at a Thursday staff meeting for Transportation Coordination. Traffic Operations..... I. Some of the berming and landscaping may create sight problems for vehicles vs. pedestrians. M. The City does not wan the painted crosswalk on Lemay Avenue in the location shown. n. - The proposed setbacks for the sidewalk where it crosses the entry drives into the park is awkward and may create visivility and safety concerns. 4 of 8 34 3 of 8 Issue Contact: Steve Olt Current Planning 28 32 33 Issue Contact: Steve Olt Ward Stanford of Traffic Operations offered the following comments: Previous, unaddressed comments..... a. What is the timing of the expected South Lemay Avenue improvements? b. Provide an estimate of the expected peak volume the sit emight generate from a large sports function. C. The Lemay Avenue access should provide a 3-lane cross section, an in - lane, plus left- and right -out lanes. Further comments..... d. An access location letter from Matt Delich discusses sone sight distance issues at the right- in/right-out Lemay Avenue access and the Fossil Creek Parkway access. Nothing further has been provided to address these sight distance issues. Please evaluate and provide documentation regarding the resolution of these items. e. The access location letter from Matt Delich also cites a traffic study for the project. Has a TIS been submitted for review? f. Please remove the painted crosswalk crossing South Lemay Avenue at the main entry to the park. g. One several sheets of the Site Plan there are "site triangles" shown that seem to vary in their application. Please provide the guidelines/criteria used for their application or used to determine their placement. h. The non-standard location of the access road crosswalk at the main Lemay Avenue access needs to be placed in -line with the sidewalk or information must be provided that demonstrates that no landscaping or structures will block the view of pedestrians or cyclists in the crosswalk from motorists approaching and turning into the access drive. Issue Contact: Steve Olt Pete Wray of the Advance Planning Department indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. Issue Contact: Steve Olt A representative for AT&T Broadband (cable TV) indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 2 of 8 mi io STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Cihvof Fort Collins BHA DESIGN Date: 7/19/01 ROGER SHERMAN 4803 INNOVATION DR FT. COLLINS, CO 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for FOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK PDP - TYPE 1 1 of 8 outstanding issues must be resolved so that the item can be scheduled for public hearing or revisions re -submitted with the 90 day period. You may contact me at 221-6341 if you have questions about these comments or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss them. Sincerely, 6- *tee Olt Project Planner xc: Engineering Zoning Stormwater Utility Transportation Planning Traffic Operations Natural Resources JR Engineering Project File #44-00 Comm, ty Planning and Environmental 2rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins July 19, 2001 BHA Design c/o Roger Sherman 4803 Innovation Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Roger, Staff has completed a review of your revisions for the Fossil Creek Community Park - Project Development Plan that were submitted to the City on June 20, 2001. A copy of the STAFF PROJECT REVIEW comment letter is attached. The letter is from our new Development Management System (DMS). It obviously needs some formatting modifications and we are working on that. The most significant outstanding issues seem to be the need to review the subdivision plat for the property that is yet to be submitted, the status of the Lemay Underpass, the Lemay Avenue pedestrian crossing(s), and the trail and pedestrian crossing of Fossil Creek (and how it relates to Huntington Hills, 7th Filing). Another full round of review may not be necessary; however, the stated issues must be resolved before the item can be scheduled for a public hearing. There will be additional comments and red -lined plans forthcoming. Also, this development proposal is still subject to the City's 90-day turnaround period (as set forth in the Land Use Code) that begins on the date of the comment letter prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. In this case the date is 7/ 19/01. The 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020