HomeMy WebLinkAboutJEFFERSON COMMONS PUD - FINAL - 50-95A - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)I'?
14. Please show an additional cross-section of the proposed channel upstream of the
culvert. The proposed channel cross -sections must show the 100-year water surface
elevation, freeboard, side slopes, and the proposed wetland channel bottom. The channel
must be shown to have capacity for 1.33xQ100 or Q100 plus one foot of freeboard,
whichever gives the most conservative cross-section.
Response:
15. Please specify seeding methods and types for the proposed wetland channel.
Response:
16. Please plot the 100-year floodplain on the final plat. The floodplain and freeboard
must be within a dedicated drainage easement.
Response:
17. The proposed detention ponds must be within drainage easements.
Response:
18. Please show the location of all erosion control measures on sheet 8. Details of all
erosion control measures and a table of recommended vegetation / cover crop species are
needed on sheet 8.
Response:
Please refer to the redlined report and plans for additional review comments.
a
S. Please provide further details of the pond outlet structures. The pond #144 outlet
shown on the plans does not reflect the outlet dimensions assumed in the drainage report
calculations. The other two pond outlets must be shown on the utility plans. Also, more
details are needed on the outlet transition to the proposed channel. Please show the
channel sides and bottom. Erosion protection is needed at the pipe outlets.
Response:
9. Please provide swale cross -sections between buildings 3 and 4, 11 and 12, and the
information center and building 2. Please indicate, on the cross -sections, the water surface
elevation, the freeboard from adjacent buildings, and swale dimensions.
Response:
10. Please show all crossing utilities on channel and storm sewer profiles. All crossing
utility lines must have at least 12" of clearance and 18" of clearance for water lines.
Clearances less than these minimums will require the storm sewer to be concrete encased
10' on each side of utility line.
Response:
11. Please complete the construction note list shown on sheets 3 and 4.
Response:
12. Please provide more details of the existing wetlands and the proposed wetlands. Is the
existing wetlands that will be destroyed greater than 1 acre? Is a 404 permit needed?
Response:
13. Please show all locations of erosion protection for the proposed channel. The report
states that some channel improvements will be done downstream of the site. These
improvements may require an off -site construction easement if this area is on private
property.
Response:
2. Please provide a drainage easement through this site for the existing Skyline mobile
homes drainage outfall system. The exact location of this system will need to be verified
in the field. Please show the system on the plans.
Response:
3. The proposed channel side slopes must be revised to no greater than 4:1, per City
criteria. Please revise the HEC-2 model to reflect the new channel cross -sections.
Response:
4. The basin widths used in the model for basins 66, 68, 74 and 77 appear to have been
under estimated. Please verify these values with the drainage characteristics shown on the
drainage plan. It appears that some of these basins were modeled assuming all drainage to
one side of the basin. However, the drainage plan shows these basins draining to the
middle of the basin and should be modeled as such.
Response:
5. There is a discrepancy between the total watershed area given in the master plan model
and the total watershed area used in the proposed conditions Jefferson Commons model.
Please clarify this discrepancy to be consistent with the master plan.
Response:
6. The basin boundary of basin 66 does not match the proposed grading of sheet 4. Please
revise basin boundary to reflect the proposed grading. Please clarify the proposed grading
on the drainage plan to help verify basin delineation.
Response:
7. Please clarify the detention pond overflow spillways, with cross -sections. The overflow
point must be identified to be lower than the adjacent minimum opening elevations.
PROJECT
COUNT SHEET
Gty of Fort Collins
Current
DATE: March 19, 1996 DEPT: Stormwater
PROJECT: #50-95A Jefferson Commons PUD - Final
PLANNER: Mike Ludwig
All comments must be received by: March 29,1996
❑,/No Problems
LI Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
A written response for each of the following comments must be submitted, with the
redlined plans and report, at time of project resubmittal. The responses must note any
revisions or clarifications completed in result of these comments. If responses are not
submitted with the resubmittal, the project will be returned to the applicant without further
review. This procedure will help the review process become more efficient and effective.
Thank you.
Note: The following comments are from review of the submitted utility plans and
drainage report, prior to the April Planning and Zoning Hearing. These comments are
subject to change, due to the conditional P&Z approval.
1. There appears to be locations of off -site grading and drainage. Any off -site grading or
drainage will require the appropriate easement from the adjacent property owners. Please
clarify off -site contours to identify any off -site impacts, due to this development.
Response:
Date: _ /60' - e/6 Signature:
CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE L3 PLAT CG: /tey rie
COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE
❑ LANDSCAPE Ayers �vo(w9
❑ UTILITY Bury d-Ry-+/hat.
JP r TP.tas
- 1 i
ARTERIAL
P
6'
J•
ROW LINE
Ile ` COLLECTOR
co
J
� R=4
P
cc s•
15'
9
cT_
9'-ON 5�
„6
'J ROW LINE
g 15'
9'-6' 5'
t
• Further detail is needed on proposed striping, dimensions, turn lanes, bike lanes,
... off -site to the west to evaluate whether the transition to the west of the
Jefferson Commons site as shown is workable.
• With the initial review, the applicant was asked to submit proof that the owners of
the parcels adjacent to the west stub of Plum Street are willing and in agreement
with the proposed vacation of that street stub. The City project planner has had
discussions with Brad March which indicate the owners are o.k. with the
proposed vacation, but Engineering staff has nothing in writing from the applicant
and adjacent land owners to verify the agreement.
Similarly, staff required the applicant to submit a letter of intent to dedicate r.o.w.
from the off -site landowner to the east. The owner of Sunray Apartments must
dedicate r.o.w. for a permanent cul-de-sac at the end of Plum Street as it is
shown on the revised preliminary plans.
• If the applicant chooses to tie into Plum Street on the east side, a permanent cul-
de-sac is still required either on the Sunray property or on the Jefferson
Commons property. Access to the Jefferson Commons site would be via a
private driveway off of the cul-de-sac.
• It is possible to narrow the cross-section of Orchard Place adjacent to the
Jefferson Commons site to 28 feet from flowline to flowline. This width
accommodates 2 travel lanes and parking on one side. Due to the nature of the
development along this portion of the street (existing development and proposed
basketball and tennis court on the north side of Orchard Place) and the amount
of off-street parking available, it is not necessary to provide street width for
parking on both sides of the street. If the excess street width is taken off of the
north side, this will create additional space behind the curb to provide room for a
detached sidewalk on the north side. The sidewalk could also be wider than the
standard 4 feet required for residential areas to create a more inviting pedestrian
and bicycle connection.
City of Fort Collins
Planninq
DATE:
PROJECT ...
COIN MENT SH EET
DEPARTMENT:
PROJECT:
PLANNER: h/1 Ir! �U�v�; IL—+
All comments must be received by:
❑ No Problems
roblems or Concerns (see below)
FER ON COMMONS P.U.D. - Preliminary
rch 15, 1996
3ineering Department comments
✓ised Preliminary plans .
5�44t,
-Fv-elL-IM
Plans show extending the arterial improvements from the K.F.C. site west along
the outparcels to the west property line of the Jefferson Commons project.
Nothing was submitted to substantiate that the owners of the outparcels are
willing to dedicate r.o.w. and have the improvements constructed. Please submit
proof that they agree to this plan.
Date: ';?7/ I�XIto,
CHECK IF YOU WISH TO
COPIES OF REVISIONS:
Signature: 2
RECEIVE ❑ PLkT
❑ SITE
❑ LANDSCAPE
❑ UTILITY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 281 NORTH CO E P.O.BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580
PLANNING DEPARTMENT (303)221-6750
Sheet 12/18:
• See comments for Sheet 9 regarding cross -slopes on West Elizabeth Street.
• Must provide 2' at 2.00% behind the sidewalk and a maximum of a 4:1 slope to
existing grade.
• Show r.o.w. line and limits of grading/slope easements necessary for the
construction.
• No cross -slope in new construction can exceed 4.00% or be less than 2.00%
• Balance the difference in existing and proposed cross -slopes between the north
and south sides. In other words, create a north flowline profile that makes it
possible to reconstruct the roadway in the future with as close to 2.00% cross -
slopes on both sides as possible. When the existing cross -slope on the south
side is steep, the north side needs to be lowered so ultimately the crown can be
lowered and/or the south side raised and still have a 2.00% to 4.00% cross -slope
on the north side without reconstructing the curb and gutter on the north side.
Sheet 13/18 & 14/18:
• Revise to match comments made on previous sheets
Sheet 15/18
• See Water Utility's comments
Sheet 16, 17, 18/18
• Use all applicable current City of Fort Collins standard details. It is necessary to
create details specific to this site for driveway construction.
• Identify where the various details apply - i.e. reference details on plan sheets
Expect additional detailed comments once the plans are revised to address the
comments made with this initial round of review. The comments provided here are
based only on the information and amount of detail provided at this time. Please
address all comments with the resubmittal. On average, utility plans go through 3 �to 4
rounds of review before plans are ready for final City approval. The City will return
comments 4 weeks from the date of submittal of revised plans with each round of
review. To reduce the rounds of review, make sure all comments are thoroughly
addressed.
Elizabeth and how they will be reconstructed and graded to match the
improvements proposed. Are the property owners willing to dedicate r.o.w. and
easements for the off -site construction shown? What are the limits of those
easements/limits of construction?
- Clearly define the limits of asphalt construction/reconstruction
- Use the new standard for the sidewalk along Elizabeth Street
- Show driveways/crosspans in profile
- The off -site curb and gutter to the west needs to be lowered since the south
side is so low. In general, the City tries to plan curb and gutter locations to
accommodate as close to a 2.00% cross -slope on both sides of the road as
possible. The curb and gutter needs to be located so that future reconstruction
can adjust the centerline to bring both sides as close to a 2.00% cross -slope as
possible. Minor arterials can have up to a 4.00% cross -slope where existing
conditions prohibit less, but try to stay as close to 2.00% as possible. Please
adjust the flowline profiles and the cross -sections to try to allow a future 2.00%
cross -slope to be feasible. Nothing �s than a 2.00% cross slope is allowed on
new construction - it may be necessary to reconstruct to centerline in some
locations to achieve this.
No signing or striping plan was included as previously requested. The striping
must show enough off -site information to show how it ties to the existing roadway
striping at both ends of the project.
Sheet 10/18:
• This plan sheet will change with the proposed narrowing of Orchard Place. Will
review design again when revised.
• Detail the driveway (radii, width, spot elevations, concrete to property line, ...)
• Label true lengths in horizontal curves
• R.o.w. must transition smoothly at both ends of Orchard Place
• No portion of the detention pond is allowed within the r.o.w. including freeboard.
Need 2' at 2.00% behind the walk and then a maximum of a 4:1 slope into the
pond is allowed.
Sheet 11/18: 1
• Plan is very incomplete. Need complete and detailed construction information.
These are the plans to be used in the field for construction and City inspection -
they must include detailed information on the removal and reconstruction to be
done including grading, limits of construction, driveway design, drainage
information,...
• Design the Plum Street cul-de-sac including flowline profiles, curve data,
grading, limits of reconstruction and removal, all the information necessary for
construction.
• Need permanent r.o.w. dedication for the cul-de-sac and a 9' utility easement
dedication around the cul-de-sac.
• Why 60' of r.o.w. ?
• Need deed of dedication for a 9' utility easement around, the proposed Plum
Street cul-de-sac and a deed for the permanent r.o.w. for the cul-de-sac as
described previously
• Need a 15' utility easement along Elizabeth Street r.o.w.
• Same comments as described above regarding Elizabeth Street off -site
improvements - need no.w., easements, and full design (grading, driveway
reconstruction, ...)
Sheet 2/18
• As explained in the comments of 3/15/96, the City would support narrowing
Orchard Place adjacent to the site to 28' flowline to flowline. This would create
room on the north side to detach the sidewalk and plant street trees as well as
help calm traffic.
- The r.o.w. should transition smoothly from the existing r.o.w. to the new
r.o.w. On the north side, the r.o.w. should follow the back of sidewalk
Sheet 3/18
• Plan is incomplete - will review in more detail and have more specific comments
when plans are completed and revised. Existing topo lines are not clear. It is
not clear how proposed grading affects adjacent parcels.,
- Show all grading adjacent to the site, not just within the site boundary, how
does proposed grading tie to existing? Is off -site grading necessary ?
- How is existing grading on adjacent parcels tying in to the proposed off -site
improvements along Elizabeth street? What regrading and reconstruction is
necessary for the driveways along Elizabeth Street adjacent to the off -site
improvements ? Are the property owners willing to dedicate r.o.w./easements
necessary for the construction of the improvements ?
- What grading is necessary for the construction of the cul-de-sac on Plum and
the removal and reconstruction of the street stub of Plum on the west side ?
Need off -site grading easements to do this work.
Sheet 4/18
• Same comments as above for sheet 3/18
Sheet 5/18 - 8/18
• See Stormwater comments
Sheet 9/18
• O.K. for a preliminary design, but plan is incomplete for final design. Sample
plans were sent out by the City at preliminary to show the level of detail needed
for final design. Please review them. More specific comments will be made
when the plans are revised and the design information provided is complete.
- Detail the driveway entrance (spot elevations, radii, concrete to property
line,...)
- Show detailed information on the existing improvements such as driveways on
L
• No request for r.o.w. vacation was submitted for the west end of Plum Street at
Ponderosa and any excess r.o.w. on Orchard Place. As was discussed in
presubmittal meetings, the developer is required to put together a written request
for the r.o.w. vacation including: letters of agreement from the owners of the
adjacent properties, legal descriptions of the area(s) to be vacated, and legal
descriptions of the area(s) necessary to retain for utility and drainage
easement(s). The r.o.w. vacation cannot be scheduled for City Council until the
project has final P & Z approval and until these items are received. The r.o.w.
vacation Ordinance must be heard by City Council on First Reading before the
street removal and reconstruction can begin. Second Reading will follow when
the work is completed.
• See comments dated 3/15/96 with regard to the narrowing of Orchard Place
adjacent to the site.
• The plans show off -site improvements to Elizabeth Street, but no documentation
or detail about r.o.w. or easements which are likely to be needed for the
construction. As noted in the comments dated 3/15/96, the City needs proof that
the owners adjacent to this proposed construction are in favor of the work, and
as noted above, executed deeds are required for any r.o.w. and easements
needed to do the work.
• See attached comments from 3/15/96
Drainage Report:
• Detailed comments are provided by the City's Stormwater Utility. However, there
is a concern about the existing ditch lateral along Elizabeth Street. The report
states that the lateral is overgrown and appears unused. What happens to the
water that used to flow down the ditch and are upstream users affected by or
opposed to the termination of the lateral with this project ? The ditch lateral
representative(s) must sign off on the final plat and plans since they are parties
in interest to the property.
Utility Plans:
Title sheet
• Title the plan set as "Utility Plans" to match City Code and Development
agreement references
• Renumber the sheet as sheet 1 of the set
• Include a reference copy of the plat but do not number the sheets as part of the
utility plan set
• Vicinity map should show Orchard Place and Ponderosa
• Benchmark must be noted and be part of the City's "Black Bolt" system
• Need City approval block on all sheets except the plat
Sheet 1/18
• Sidewalk on Elizabeth Street - same comment as on site plan
PROJECT
COUNT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Plannins
DATE: March 19, 1996 DEPT: Engineering - Ping
PROJECT: #50-95A Jefferson Commons PUD - Final
PLANNER: Mike Ludwig
All comments must be received by: March 29,1996
❑ No Problems
VProblems or Concerns (see below or attached)
JEFFERSON COMMONS P.U.D. - FINAL
Site Plan:
• Why is there a "Proposed r.o.w. line" shown at 60' from the Section line?
Standard arterial r.o.w. width is 50' from section line plus a 15' utility easement
beyond the r.o.w.
• Sidewalk on Elizabeth must be detached to back of r.o.w. - use the current City
standard (copy attached) for'arterial sidewalk - sidewalk 9' from back of curb, 5'
foot wide walk with back of walk on the r.o.w. line
• Provide dimensions for sidewalk and parkway width on Elizabeth.
• Distinguish between existing and proposed improvements on W. Elizabeth Street
• Prior to final approval, the City will need executed original deeds of dedication
for all off -site r.o.w. and off -site easements necessary for street construction,
including grading, utilities, and drainage.
Date: 4 / 4 I q (,a Signature:
CHECK
COPIES OF REVISIONS SUE
LANDSCAPE
UTILITY
a
existing grade.
• Show r.o.w. line and limits of grading/slope easements necessary for the
construction.
• No cross -slope in new construction can exceed 4.00% or be less than 2.00%
• Balance the difference in existing and proposed cross -slopes between the north
and south sides. In other words, create a north flowline profile that makes it
possible to reconstruct the roadway in the future with as close to 2.00% cross -
slopes on both sides as possible. When the existing cross -slope on the south
side is steep, the north side needs to be lowered so ultimately the crown can be
lowered and/or the south side raised and still have a 2.00% to 4.00% cross -slope
on the north side without reconstructing the curb and gutter on the north side.
• Modify to include westbound right turn lane
Sheet 13/18 & 14/18:
• Revise to match comments made on previous sheets
Sheet 15/18
• See Water Utility's comments
Sheet 16, 17, 18/18
• Use all applicable current City of Fort Collins standard details. It is necessary to
create details specific to this site for driveway construction.
• Identify where the various details apply - i.e. reference details on plan sheets
EXPECT ADDITIONAL DETAILED COMMENTS ONCE THE PLANS ARE REVISED
TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MADE WITH THIS INITIAL'SUBMITTAL AND ONCE
REVISIONS ARE MADE TO REFLECT THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND
ZONING BOARD ON THE PRELIMINARY. THE COMMENTS PROVIDED HERE ARE
BASED ONLY ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND AMOUNT OF DETAIL
PROVIDED AT THIS TIME ON THE PLANS SUBMITTED. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL
COMMENTS WITH THE RESUBMITTAL.
On average, utility plans go through 3 to 4 rounds of review before plans are ready for
final City approval. The City will return comments 4 weeks from the date of submittal of
revised plans with each round of review. To reduce the rounds of review, make sure all
comments are thoroughly addressed.
- The off -site curb and gutter to the west needs to be lowered since the south
side is so low. In general, the City tries to plan curb and gutter locations to
accommodate as close to a 2.00% cross -slope on both sides of the road as
possible. The curb and gutter needs to be located so that future reconstruction
can adjust the centerline to bring both sides as close to a 2.00% cross -slope as
possible. Minor arterials can have up to a 4.00% cross -slope where existing
conditions prohibit less, but try to stay as close to 2.00% as possible. Please
adjust the flowline profiles and the cross -sections to try to allow a future 2.00%
cross -slope to be feasible. Nothing less than a 2.00% cross slope is allowed on
new construction - it may be necessary to reconstruct to centerline in some
locations to achieve this.
• No signing or striping plan was included as previously requested. The striping
must show enough off -site information to show how it ties to the existing roadway
striping at both ends of the project.
Sheet 10/18:
• This plan sheet will change with the proposed narrowing of Orchard Place. Will
review design again when revised..(P & Z BOARD ELIMINATED ORCHARD
PLACE CONNECTION 4/8/96 - this area needs to be redesigned per the Board's
recommendation for the bike/ped connection only)
• Detail the driveway (radii, width, spot elevations, concrete to property line, ...)
• Label true lengths in horizontal curves
• R.o.w. must transition smoothly at both ends of Orchard Place. (BASED ON P &
Z BOARD'S DECISION, STAFF NEEDS TO EVALUATE WHAT NEEDS TO BE
DONE WITH THE WEST STREET STUB OF ORCHARD PLACE AND THE
DEDICATED R.O.W. FOR ORCHARD PLACE)
• No portion of the detention pond is allowed within the r.o.w. including freeboard.
Need 2' at 2.00% behind the walk and then a maximum of a 4:1 slope into the
pond is allowed.
Sheet 11/18:
• Plan is very incomplete. Need complete and detailed construction information.
These are the plans to be used in the field for construction and City inspection -
they must include detailed information on the removal and reconstruction to be
done including grading, limits of construction, driveway design, drainage
information,...
• Design the Plum Street cul-de-sac including flowline profiles, curve data,
grading, limits of reconstruction and removal, all the information necessary for
construction.
• Need permanent r.o.w. dedication for the cul-de-sac and a 9' utility easement
dedication around the cul-de-sac. -- -
Sheet 12/18:
• See comments for Sheet 9 regarding cross -slopes on West Elizabeth Street.
• Must provide 2' at 2.00% behind the sidewalk and a maximum of a 4:1 slope to
help calm traffic.
- The r.o.w. should transition smoothly from the existing r.o.w. to the new
r.o.w. On the north side, the r.o.w. should follow the back of sidewalk
(P & Z BOARD ELIMINATED THE STREET CONNECTION OF ORCHARD
PLACE 4/8/96)
Sheet 3/18
• Plan is incomplete - will review in more detail and have more specific comments
when plans are completed and revised. Existing topo lines are not clear. It is
not clear how proposed grading affects adjacent parcels.
- Show all grading adjacent to the site, not just within the site boundary, how
does proposed grading tie to existing? Is off -site grading necessary ?
- How is existing grading on adjacent parcels tying in to the proposed off -site
improvements along Elizabeth street? What regrading and reconstruction is
necessary for the driveways along Elizabeth Street adjacent to the off -site
improvements ? Are the property owners willing to dedicate r.o.w./easements
necessary for the construction of the improvements ?
- What grading is necessary for the construction of the cul-de-sac on Plum and
the removal and reconstruction of the street stub of Plum on the west side ?
Need off -site grading easements to do this work.
Sheet 4/18
• Same comments as above for sheet 3/18
Sheet 5/18 - 8/18
• See Stormwater comments
Sheet 9/18
• O.K. for a preliminary design, but plan is incomplete for final design. Sample
plans were sent out by the City at preliminary to show the level of detail needed
for final design. Please review them. More specific comments will be made
when the plans are revised and the design information provided is complete.
- As noted previously, why isn't the westbound right turn lane recommended in
the traffic study shown ? Please re -design the improvements to include a
westbound right turn lane.
- Detail the driveway entrance (spot elevations, radii, concrete to property
line,...)
- Show detailed information on the existing improvements such as driveways on
Elizabeth and how they will be reconstructed and graded to match the
improvements proposed. Are the property owners willing to dedicate r.o.w. and
easements for the off -site construction shown? What are the limits of those
easements/limits of construction?
- Clearly define the limits of asphalt construction/reconstruction
- Use the new standard for the sidewalk along Elizabeth Street
- Show driveways/crosspans in profile
favor of the work, and as noted above, executed deeds are required for any
r.o.w. and easements needed to do the work.
See attached comments from 3/15/96
Need to design a connection through the site suitable for buses - turn radii,
pavement section, drive aisle width - to utilize the connection to Plum Street
since the Orchard Place connection was eliminated by the P & Z Board.
Drainage Report:
Detailed comments are provided by the City's Stormwater Utility. However, there
is a concern about the existing ditch lateral along Elizabeth Street. The report
states that the lateral is overgrown and appears unused. What happens to the
water that used to flow down the ditch and are upstream users affected by or
opposed to the termination of the lateral with this project ? The ditch lateral
representative(s) must sign off on the final plat and plans since they are parties
in interest to the property.
Utility Plans:
Title sheet
• Title the plan set as "Utility Plans" to match City Code and Development
agreement references
• Renumber the sheet as sheet 1 of the set
• Include a reference copy of the plat but do not number the sheets as part of the
utility plan set
• Vicinity map should show Orchard Place and Ponderosa
• Benchmark must be noted and be part of the City's "Black Bolt" system
Need City approval block on all sheets except the plat
Sheet 1/18
• Sidewalk on Elizabeth Street - same comment as on site plan
• Same comments with respect to Elizabeth. Street improvements and r.o.w. as
made above under site plan comments.
• Need deed of dedication for a 9' utility easement around the proposed Plum
Street cul-de-sac and a deed for the permanent r.o.w. for the cul-de-sac as
described previously
• Need a 15' utility easement along Elizabeth Street r.o.w.
• Same comments as described above regarding Elizabeth Street off -site
improvements - need no.w., easements, and full design (grading, driveway
reconstruction, ...)
Sheet 2/18
• As explained in the comments of 3/15196, the City would support -narrowing
Orchard Place adjacent to the site to 28' flowline to flowline. This would create
room on the north side to detach the sidewalk and plant street trees as well as
JEFFERSON COMMONS P.U.D. - FINAL
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
4/1/96 and 4/9/96
Site Plan:
• Why is there a "Proposed r.o.w. line" shown at 60' from the Section line? Is it to
accommodate the westbound right -turn lane recommended in the traffic study ?
The turn lane is not shown on the plans. 10 feet of additional r.o.w. (Turn lanes
are typically 12 feet wide) is proposed and it extends all the way to the west
property line. Please clarify what is shown. Standard arterial r.o.w. width is 50'
from section line plus a 15' utility easement beyond the r.o.w. (Plus any
additional r.o.w. needed for turn lanes).
• As noted on the review of the preliminary, the traffic study recommends a
westbound right turn lane on Elizabeth into the site. Why don't the site and utility
plans show it? It is necessary particularly if buses will be pulling into or stopping
at the site.
• Sidewalk on Elizabeth must be detached to back of r.o.w. - use the current City
standard (copy attached) for arterial sidewalk - sidewalk 9' from back of curb, 5'
foot wide walk with back of walk on the r.o.w. line. Additional r.o.w. will be
required along the right turn lane to accommodate the walk and maintain the
parkway width along the turn lane.
• Provide dimensions for sidewalk and parkway width on Elizabeth.
• Distinguish between existing and proposed improvements on W. Elizabeth Street
• Prior to final approval, the City will need executed original deeds of dedication
for all off -site r.o.w. and off -site easements necessary for street construction,
including grading, utilities, and drainage.
• No request for r.o.w. vacation was submitted for the west end of Plum Street at
Ponderosa and any excess r.o.w. on Orchard Place. As was discussed in
presubmittal meetings, the developer is required to put together a written request
for the r.o.w. vacation including: letters of agreement from the owners of the
adjacent properties, legal descriptions of the area(s) to be vacated, and legal
descriptions of the area(s) necessary to retain for utility and drainage
easement(s). The r.o.w. vacation cannot be scheduled for City Council until the
project has final P & Z approval and until these items are received. The r.o.w.
vacation. Ordinance must be heard by City Council on First Reading before the
street removal and reconstruction can begin. Second Reading will follow when
the work is completed.
• See comments dated 3/15/96 with regard to the narrowing of Orchard Place
adjacent to the site. (P & Z Board eliminated the connection 4/8/96)
• The plans show off -site improvements to Elizabeth Street, but no documentation
or detail about r.o.w. or easements - which are likely to be needed for the
construction - have been provided. As noted in the comments dated 3/15/96, the
City needs proof that the owners adjacent to this proposed construction are in
Please contact me at 221-6206 if you have any questions or concerns related to these comments. I
would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these
comments.
Sincerely,
Z7Michael Ludwig
Project Planner
xc: Kerrie Ashbeck
Stormwater Utility
file/Project Planner
`f
c �� Additional landscaping is needed along the eastern property boundary. Street trees
must be planted along West Elizabeth Street. Additional trees are needed between
`P� the sidewalks adjacent to parking and the buildings. Additional trees are needed on
Nod SI,, Q the south, east and west sides of Building 1 to screen it from West Elizabeth Street.
I 1. Please refer to the attached elevation sheet redlines for the following revisions:
1 Please indicate the colors of all building materials on the building elevations.
•RoDfing materials on all elevation sheets should be labeled as "high profile,
heavy dimensional s ' gles".
or, eXe4a�
Staff requests brick foundations/skirts at the base on all buildings.
in. Please provide a typical drawing wood fence on the east and west property
lines. Staff suggests that there be rick columns with the typical for the iron fence.
a/ The turn lanes that are required on West Elizabeth Street will impact the #arge Spruce
tree. The City Forester indicated during the review of the Preliminary P.U.D. that it
should be preserved. A meeting is necessary between the applicant, Kerrie Ashbeck,
Tim Buchanan and myself to discuss options for this tree.
Please return all 12 redline sheets with the plan revisions on May 1, 1996.
This completes the review comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming as the
various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this request. Please be aware of the
following dates and deadlines to assure your ability to stay on schedule for the May 20, 1996 Planning
and Zoning Board hearing:
AR***RRRRRRRRRRRRARRRAAARRRRRRRRARAAAA**AR1tAftAARftRRRAAflAARRRRA*RRRRARRARRRARRRR
Plan revisions are due by 12:00 noon on May 1, 1996. Please contact me for the number of
folded revisions required for each document. Revisions and supporting documentation
submitted after this deadline will not be reviewed for the May 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning
Board hearing.
PMT's, renderings, and 9 folded copies of final revisions are due by 12:00 noon on May 13,
1996.
AA*A**ARAAA***RRRRRRRRRAA*RRRRRRRRRRRARRRAA**RRRRAR**AAAAARRRRAR*RRRAARRRAAARRR
Sidewalks adjacent to parking lots should be 6 to 7 feet wide due to vehicle overhang.
Please show the widths of all sidewalks
I abA Pedestrian crossings through the parking lot drive aisles should be a raised patterned
Cat cpco5c-rAj:�; concrete not painted striping.
The applicant indicated that there is an additional maintenance equipment building
proposed. Where is it to be located?
W./ Please provide a separate Site Plan sheet for the vicinity map, land use data, general
notes, signature blocks, legal description and project team information labeled as
Sheet 1 of M
13
Please label the existing site plan (minus the information which is to be moved to
Sheet 1 of 12) as Sheet 2 of 12. Then accurately show all adjacent land uses including
houses along W. Elizabeth and Ponderosa, Skyline Mobile Home Park and Sunray
Apartments. Also show the property line between the West Elizabeth Plaza and the
^•f , -, existing single family house.
1'I�� . Please number the following plan sheets as follows:
tr.i�r�e�tl�
Overall Landscape Plan Sheet 3 of 12
Detail Landscape Plan Sheet 4 of 12
Building Type V Elevation Sheet 5 of 12
Building Type VI Elevation Sheet 6 of 12
Clubhouse Elevation 1 Sheet 7 of 12
Clubhouse Elevation 2 Sheet 8 of 12
Fence Detail Sheet Sheet 9 of 12
Parking Distribution Diagram Sheet 10 of 12
Cross Section of West Boundary Sheet 11 of 12
Lighting Plan Sheet 12 of 12
Note: All Plans must accurately reflect revisions to the site layout.
h.Building 1 does not have a trash dumpster in close proximity. Staff is concerned that
five dumpsters does not adequately serve 660 bedrooms. Also, please orient the
openings (gates) of the trash enclosures towards the residential buildings.
Please review all project notes for grammatical and spelling errors.
6/Please add the following to site plan note #2: "See Lighting Plan (Sheet 12 ofJA."
5
connection being made and interconnecting with the water mains within the proposed
site. Water mains are typically located beneath paved surfaces for accessibility by
Water and Wastewater Utility equipment. Without Orchard Place connecting
through, other options must be discussed. As time allows, the Water and Wastewater
Utility will make additional modeling runs to assess the impacts of these changes.
b� As was discussed during the review of the Preliminary P.U.D., there may not be
adequate fire flow pressure in the area. It was stated that if no other options were
available, the applicant would install a pump in each building to provide adequate
pressure. No other alternatives have been resolved and no design plans for the pumps
were submitted. This issue must be resolved by the revision deadline.
c/ Please add the following note to the Landscape Plan which states: "A ten foot
separation distance for trees and four foot separation distance for shrubs shall'be
maintained from water/sanitary sewer mains and services.
Please coordinate the landscape with your Civil designer.
11. The Transportation Department states the following:
Please remove the parking spaces from the curve and from in front of the information
center.
Access to the site must also be provided from Plum Street and Orchard Place on the
east side of the site.
n
,,aa
��c'� The traffic study requires turn lanes into the site from W. Elizabeth Street.
e e�409
yd� - 12. Comments from the Engineering Department are attached.
r �
413. Comments from the Stormwater Utility are attached.
14. The Natural Resources Department requests that the trash enclosures be sufficiently large
to accommodate recycling.
1 The Water Conservation Specialist states that the final Landscape Plan will need to include
a schedule of the landscape water use categories and associated square footages.
16. The Current Planning Department offers the following comments:
�a. Attached is a redline copy of the Site Plan. The already proposed pedestrian connections are highlighted in orange. Additional pedestrian connections that are
needed are shown in red.
6. Public Service Company offers the following comments:
Easements provided will require the installation of natural gas facilities in areas to be
paved. This will require the developer to delay paving until after the installation of
all utility lines. Additional expense to the developer will be involved if gas line
trenches need special compaction.
bl/ The structure (bridge) across the West Plum Channel must include a sleeve or other
approved provisions for the natural gas line.
4!/ Is the developer obtaining permitting for construction of all utility lines through the
West Plum Channel wetlands?
7// TCI of Fort Collins would like to see the area in the middle of the complex marked as utility
easement. They would also like to work with the developer on how the building will be wired
internally. Also, they would like to try going joint trench with the phone and/or Fort Collins
Light and Power for the main cables feeding the complex.
8. The Light and Power Utility offers the following comments:
The proposed location of the water line will require Light and Power to install behind
driveway parking lot leaving no place for gas lines. The Light and Power Utility
suggests the water mains maintain at least 10-12 feet from the edge of parking areas.
iY The use of electric for space heating is available but at a substantial additional
development cost, and is highly discouraged.
9. The Mapping Department offers the following comments:
4/ Building envelope #7 extends into the existing sanitary sewer easement.
�! Please label the point of beginning of the Plat. (TFoi)
c/ There are two (l) measured distances north of the point of beginning.
dO Please submit a statement of dedication for West Elizabeth Street right-of-way.
no} ? SO R.Cgv, a\ IS 1
10. The Water and Wash Utility offers the followQ comments:
a/ The Preliminary P.U.D. decision of the Planning and Zoning not to require the
connection of Orchard Place through the site may cause a problem from the
standpoint of water pressure. We had previously told the developer's engineer that
a water main must be installed to connect the two existing dead end mains in Orchard
Place In addition, a main was required to connect this main in Orchard to the mains
within the project site. The distribution system modeling was based upon this
' � M
Please add a note to the Site Plan notes which references the Planning and Zoning
Boards decision on April 8, 1996 approving an increase of the number of unrelated
persons who may reside in individual dwelling units from three to four, for each of the
120, four -bedroom units.
d� Please provide "Required Parking" data and "Parking Provided" data on the Site Plan.
2 BR units require 1.75 spaces per unit; 3 BR units require 2 spaces per unit; and 4
BR units require 3 spaces per unit. Therefore the required parking total is 495 spaces.
Please add a legend to the Site Plan for bike racks, MC (mail center?), trash
/ dumpsters/enclosures, ramps, etc.
f/ Don't show building envelopes on the Plat unless they are substantially larger than the
building foot print. If any portion of the buildings project outside or overhang the
building envelope, the applicant will be required to replat and vacate easements.
5. The Building Inspections Department states the following:
a.1"" Apartments accessible and adaptable for use by persons with disabilities must be
provided in accordance with Uniform Building Code Section 3103(a)8. as amended
by the City of Forty Collins. The 1992 editions of the American National Standard
Institute publication #A117.1 "Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities" should
be used in the design of accessible/adaptable dwelling units. A local amendment to
the UBC requires that accessible units with numbers of bedrooms and other amenities
be provided in numbers proportionate to the remainder of the project. When more
stringent, the Colorado revised Stature, Title 9, Article 5, Section 111 also applies to
apartment projects. Though not administered at the municipal level, similar
requirements are contained in State and Federal civil rights legislation (Fair Housing
Acts). Where provided in a project containing accessible dwellings, a portion of
garages or covered parking areas must be accessible.
4/ The site shall be accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with Uniform
Building Code Section 3103 and UBC Appendix Section 3106. Provide a designated
and marked "accessible route of travel" between all the buildings and facilities
(including mail and trash disposal) on the site; building exits and entrances and the
public way (public sidewalk); and between accessible buildings/facilities and accessible
parking. Accessible routes shall comply with ANSI Al 17.1-1992 with running slopes
no greater than 1:20 and cross slopes no steeper than 1:50. Where routes cross lanes
for vehicle traffic they shall be designated and marked as a cross walk. Provide
parking and signs per Appendix Section 3107. Parking and access aisles shall comply
with ANSI Al 17.1-1992 with slopes no greater than 1:50 in any direction.
Comma ty Planning and Environmenta: �rvices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
April 12, 1996
JPI Texas Development, Inc.
c/o Rick Hattman
Gefroh Hattman Architects
145 W. Swallow Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Rick,
Staff has reviewed your documents for the Jefferson Commons PUD, Final, that were submitted
on March 18, 1996, and would like to offer the following comments:
1. Transfort states the following comments:
a' The entrance from Elizabeth Street must be designed to accommodate bus traffic.
In the future, it is possible that Transfort will need to enter the site from West
Elizabeth Street, use the rotary drive in front of the information center to turn around,
and exit the site back onto West Elizabeth Street. Please coordinate with Gayleen
Rossiter of Transfort and Kerrie Ashbeck of the Engineering Department regarding
necessary turning radii and pavement thickness.
hl A concrete pad on the west side of the West Elizabeth Street entrance is needed for
a bus shelter.
The Police Department requests that the building numbers (addresses) be clearly and
prominently placed on the exterior of the buildings and that good security lighting be
/ provided.
3: The Poudre Fire Authority states that they prefer 28' wide drive aisles. However, since all
structures are to be equipped with an automated fire suppression system, the 28' wide access
requirement may be waived in this development.
4. The Zoning Department states the following:
a-/'� Please show building envelope dimensions and setback distances of the building
envelopes to the property lines on the Site Plan.
I! Please remove the words "on -site" from Landscape Plan Note #4 as all landscaping,
including that in the public right-of-way, is a part of this P.U.D.
281 North College Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002